Page 5085 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011

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

simple, one-line solution. There are some significant issues around ownership, where Civic sits in the retail hierarchy, the amenity of Civic, the role of the Canberra Centre and giving a fair go to small businesses. Some of these issues I would have liked to have been better looked at in terms of the inquiry we have just established—the supermarket competition inquiry. My original terms of reference for that inquiry were a bit wider and would have covered more of these issues, because they are substantive issues.

They are issues which people are talking a lot about to the Greens, and me in particular. They are asking: “Why does Civic look like it is dying? Why is the Canberra Centre taking over Civic? What is wrong? Is this how we want our centre to be?” And they are saying, no, it is not. They are saying they want a fair go for small business. They are saying they want a vibrant, diverse Civic. They are saying they want Civic to be at the top of our retail hierarchy, the centre, the heart of Canberra and a heart with life, not what is happening at present where a significant part of it does not have life, where we have a dead heart.

I commend my motion to the Assembly, although I appreciate that, unfortunately, it will not be voted for.

Question put:

That Ms Le Couteur’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 3

Noes 11

Ms Hunter

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Barr

Mr Hanson

Ms Le Couteur

Dr Bourke

Mr Hargreaves

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mr Coe

Mr Seselja

Mr Corbell

Mr Smyth

Mrs Dunne

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.


MR COE (Ginninderra) (7.54): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes:

(a) the transport infrastructure needs of Gungahlin have not been met, including inadequacies in:

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