Page 4152 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In the brief time I have left, I have to say I largely agree with Mr Corbell’s comments that the retail hierarchy and shopping in Canberra cannot be set in stone. What worked in the 1950s is not necessarily what will work in 2011. The Greens are not going to do this. This is one of the reasons why our motion does include setting up a committee, and that can be dealt with tomorrow, because we think we need a better public debate on the subject. We think it is good that John Martin started the debate and that he did make some comments about competition and the need to support independent small businesses as a part of it.
We need a wider community debate about what the role of local shops is. What scale should local shops be? We all know that in Canberra a suburb ain’t a suburb. Some suburbs have only a couple of thousand households, some are closer to 10,000 households. So it is really unclear what a local shopping centre in Canberra is. And it has become significantly less clear by the decision in Giralang, which is what has brought this unfortunate situation to a head.
So I do commend this motion to the Assembly and look forward to further discussion tomorrow on the subject.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition): Under standing order 47, I seek leave to make a statement to explain certain words.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): I understand that under standing order 47, Mr Seselja, you believe that in your speech you have been misunderstood by another member. In that case, leave is granted.
MR SESELJA: Just in response to Ms Le Couteur, Ms Le Couteur seemed to be misunderstanding what I was saying in relation to how the supermarket policy operates at Giralang. And I would simply very briefly make this point to clarify. The supermarket policy was applied at Giralang and in fact the supermarket competition committee advised the government in relation to the policy that it was actually—
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, the application of the standing order is extremely narrow and requires the member simply to explain words, not to explain a debating point, an argument, but words. I think Mr Seselja needs to be reminded of that.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, have you concluded?
MR SESELJA: I believe I had. I do not know whether the last part was heard but—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you.
MR SESELJA: I believe that I had concluded.
Question put:
That Ms Le Couteur’s motion be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video