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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 346 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

actually spoken to the developer about withdrawing from the agreement, or do you intend just to let the residents battle it out with the developer in the AAT?

MR QUINLAN: The arrangements between ACTTAB and the Hindmarsh Group were signed prior to the election-very shortly prior to the election. At this stage there are certain conditions that ACTTAB have in place in terms of whether they would occupy a building at Fern Hill Park, which include car parking and the configuration of the building, which the Hindmarsh Group may not be able to meet because the Commissioner for Land Planning has virtually said that the particular configuration that was agreed between ACTTAB and the Hindmarsh Group would not receive approval at this stage; hence, the potential appeal to the AAT.

Given that the agreement was signed in the last days, maybe day, of the previous government, in strict terms of the law-and I am not a lawyer-I would assume that the parties still have rights under that agreement and that if, in fact, a lease is granted, and I think one has been, and the Hindmarsh Group can construct a facility that meets all the requirements of ACTTAB, there is some chance that the ACTTAB headquarters will go ahead at Fern Hill Park, because I do not think that we could, retrospectively, change agreements that were put in place during the rule of the previous government.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question. Treasurer, I am still not clear whether you understand the terms of the agreement and have actually seen the agreement. If you are saying that you have seen it and there is no way possible that it can cease to take effect, my supplementary question would be: if, in fact, ACTTAB cannot withdraw from the agreement, would you consider a land swap whereby the government took over the Bruce block and gave Hindmarsh a block in Gungahlin where it could develop this facility?

MR QUINLAN: The answer to the first part of the question is that I have not read the agreement from top to bottom. I have just been given some of the major provisions of the agreement and, quite frankly, I have considered that to be sufficient at this time.

As to whether I would consider a land swap, obviously, if anybody comes to the government with any proposal, I will consider it. But at this point in time I have not actually made a judgment or seen a judgment made by the commissioner that the objections of the residents there are reasonable. This is about a technology park.

There is an expectation that there would be commercial-style accommodation within it as well as, more recently, residential-style accommodation and sites. I do think that that is something that needs to be worked through. I believe that the amenity and the peaceful enjoyment of the land that the residents there have purchased should be protected, but I do not know that they have full call over everything that happens at Fern Hill Park.

Gallop report

MR PRATT: My question is to the Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope. In June of last year you called for the release of the interim report of the Gallop inquiry on the basis that it was in the interests of the individual families to have that report released. In December, when you received the final Gallop report, you refused to release it immediately because you wanted officers to have a chance to consider the report. In June, the interests of the

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