Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 11 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 3160 ..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
and articulate response to an earlier question, there are differences between the recommendations of the Neave report and the recommendations of the Ipp report.
There have been some significant criticisms of the Ipp report and, with that in mind, it was necessary to advise Senator Coonan of our position. The Ipp committee was put together by the Commonwealth effectively without any consultation with the states, and therefore without a national approach. What we are really saying when we write to Senator Coonan is that we are not going to blindly accept anything.
Mr Smyth: But you said that in August.
MR QUINLAN: Well, we said that the Ipp report was working and we expected it to come forward with some national recommendations.
Mr Smyth: "Which is gaining the support of both the Neave committee and the Ipp committee in making sure that we do it properly."
MR QUINLAN: Yes, and I am very pleased, Mr Smyth, to observe that you are now advocating a national approach.
Mr Smyth: No, I am not saying that. I am asking when you abandoned it.
MR QUINLAN: I am presuming that you will be withdrawing the legislation that you have put forward in the interests of pursuing a national approach.
MR SMYTH: My supplementary question for the Treasurer is, were his outbursts over the last couple of months prompted by embarrassment at the government's lack of activity, and is it because he was beaten to the punch by us that he has now abandoned the national approach?
MR QUINLAN: Again, I find this question contradictory: we were beaten to the punch by your approach, but why are we not involved in a national approach? Mr Smyth, that is not a question. The question contradicts itself and I do not think I am able to answer a question that contradicts itself.
Hill Corner, Yarralumla
MS TUCKER: My question is to the Minister for Planning and relates to the proposal by the St Nicholas Preschool in Hill Corner, Yarralumla, to acquire the adjoining pocket park to allow the redevelopment and enlargement of the preschool.
Minister, you would be aware that your land and property unit is currently negotiating with the preschool and consulting with residents over this proposal, and that the local residents are very concerned about the loss of their park. This land is zoned for community facilities, but has never been developed, and has in fact been maintained by the government as a park for decades.
I would like to know how the pursuit of this proposal by land and property squares with your recent announcement that the government will be reviewing the use of unleased, undeveloped urban land in the territory. I understand that PALM is compiling a list of