Page 5079 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
has reinforced employment in the city centre, and outdoor cafes and areas such as the northern area of Bunda Street have been of great benefit to the city and enlivened areas of the city that previously were very dead.
The Canberra Centre has also had impact, perhaps, on some original smaller retail outlets. However, the essential argument provided in the impact assessment supporting the development application for expansion of the Canberra Centre is that it is to the benefit of all retailers to attract greater custom to the city as a whole.
It is important, I think, to note that currently these proposals are before the ACT Planning and Land Authority. The authority requires, as part of its statutory planning responsibilities, proponents to submit small business impact assessments for large commercial developments. Such reports are assessed for adequacy as part of the DA assessment process. To have independent consultants undertake an impact assessment for large developments such as the Canberra Centre would require a change of the existing impact assessment cost recovery provisions in chapter 8 of the Planning and Development Act so that such provisions also relate to merit track development applications.
Mr Speaker, looking at the issues raised in Ms Le Couteur’s motion, it is very clear to me that Ms Le Couteur, and I think the Greens as a whole, need to start to be a bit more focused in what they are presenting to the Assembly. We heard Ms Le Couteur mention earlier in the day that she believed it was not appropriate for the Assembly to get into the nitty-gritty of planning and development assessment matters. Regrettably, that is exactly what Ms Le Couteur has done in her motion today.
This motion seeks to get the government to address an enormously broad range of issues—everything from master planning at a whole-of-city level through to the membership of the CBD board, through to getting the owners of buildings to support particular programs, through to issues around toilets, encouraging more outdoor cafe activity and so on. It is an enormous grab bag of items. It is very much, I think, the classic lucky dip motion: let us put our hand into the bucket and just see what we can grab and get some commitment from the government.
The government is already doing a broad range of activities in relation to the city. If Ms Le Couteur and the Greens are so concerned about these matters, the government would be very happy to provide a detailed briefing on the broad range of activities that are occurring in the city centre. Regrettably, we have not seen that from Ms Le Couteur and the Greens to any significant degree to date.
Let me address a couple of the issues raised in her motion. First of all, she asks the government to consider whether the interests of tenants can be reflected in the membership of the Canberra CBD Ltd board. The CBD Ltd board is established to represent the interests of those people and entities that pay the CBD levy.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the motion for the adjournment of the Assembly was put and negatived.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 pm.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video