Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4736 ..

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, were you proposing to move an amendment?

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I was. I move:

That paragraph (3) be omitted.

Very briefly, that paragraph assumes that there must be a variation to the Territory Plan. As I have explained and as I have indicated through the legal advice I have tabled, it is not certain that there would be a need for that requirement. I therefore suggest that paragraph (3) be removed.

MS McRAE (5.08): I would like to begin by accepting three things. I accept that the supermarket has every right to seek extra space, and I accept the right of the supermarket people to say that extra space would assist their business and that they should be open about that and let it be known to everybody. I accept that Palmerston Lane needs alteration and that there are urban infrastructure changes to be carried out at Manuka. I also want to put on the record that I am not about to get overexcited about keeping a car park anywhere. I do not personally care very much about car parks. If proposals are put in place that do different things to car parks, I am not going to get excited about those.

As a consequence, I think the process of calling for expressions of interest to deal with those potential changes is a very open and logical process to use when a proposal for change is to happen. It is not a process that simply says to any business, "Yes, that is a good idea. We will do whatever you say". It is a process that says, "Perhaps there is this change needed. Let us test it and see who is interested in leading this change. Let us see what ideas they have. Let us assess those ideas against what is possible, both on the Territory Plan and against other tests".

I am no expert on supermarket sizes. I am no expert on total retail space. I am no expert on predicting the future - what is going to close or open and how one affects the other. I have had no compelling evidence put to me that the mere expansion of one supermarket at Manuka will necessarily have an effect on any other in the area. I have read a lot about people's concerns about that, but I have no particular reason to think that people who have shopped at Red Hill, or Yarralumla, or Forrest, or in any other area are suddenly going to change their shopping patterns because a very crowded supermarket at Manuka that is already thoroughly used happens to get a bit more space. I have no reason to believe that that is going to happen. Nor have I any reason to know that it is not going to happen. I do not think that that is really what is being debated at the moment.

What is being debated at the moment is whether the process that is being used for potential change at Manuka is a good one. If not, does it need to be changed in some way to ensure that it is a good one? Clearly, there are people in the community, and Di Jay, writing to the Canberra Times yesterday, is one of them, who do not believe that the process has been a good one. The Minister must take some responsibility for that. I now move the amendments that have been circulated in my name - - -

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .