Page 2025 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which is a little hard to swallow, after you have seen the development at EpiCentre, which has substantially undermined the retail hierarchy in the ACT. It is a crack in the system. I am not even going to hold you responsible for the airport, because you are not responsible for the airport. But you are responsible for EpiCentre and developments like that and that has undermined the retail hierarchy in the ACT substantially.
So the Stanhope government can sit here and be holier than thou about this but they have form on this. But we want to uphold the retail hierarchy in the ACT. I am not sure that the Stanhope government does consistently want to uphold the retail hierarchy.
I commend Ms Le Couteur for this motion. I was happy to support the sentiments of the motion but I think that, generally speaking, the couple of issues raised in Mr Barr’s amendments will it make a better one.
However, I do also note that it is interesting Mr Barr has deftly stepped around the issue of a small business impact statement. I flag that that is a discussion we should have. You have deftly stepped around it. You have mentioned the impact on small business but it is not actually a small business impact statement which is, I think, not quite the same thing as what Ms Le Couteur originally asked for. I think that we should have a further discussion on what we do in here and how it affects small business because I think we spend a lot of time talking to the big end of town and very little time talking to the small end of town.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra-Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (5.23): My colleague’s motion called for an improvement in neighbourhood planning and for recognition of the far-reaching impact that neighbourhood development can have on communities. While recognising that and thanking Ms Le Couteur for bringing on this motion, I will also mention up front that we will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendments. Part of that is just some correction and clarification of some information, so we are pleased to support those amendments.
Ms Le Couteur’s motions cites the Giralang shops development proposal as an example of the need to ensure that development in local communities serves all the residents of the area. The Giralang community have voiced concerns about the proposed development in their community and the ACT Greens have received correspondence about their openness to the development of the area but also in reference to their concerns regarding the impact on their amenity. Giralang is a community which has already fought for their school, a community which has seen a slow decay of community amenity in their area.
The neighbouring suburb of Kaleen has lost a pool and a medical centre in recent times. We have seen a neglect of neighbourhood planning which is resulting in poor social, environmental and economic outcomes for so many in Belconnen and communities across the ACT. This neglect is not only an aspect of Belconnen but there are other suburbs across the territory which are fighting to keep their local shops.
Local shops, like schools, help build a sense of community. They are a place to meet with neighbours, to hold community events; they are situated so that you do not have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .