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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 520 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I just want to express my impressions of the relevance of the issues that have been raised in this motion. I certainly have great sympathy for Mount Stromlo in its efforts to maintain the high quality of its outstanding work in competition with the glare created by the city of Canberra. I think it would be quite appropriate to look at ways in which we can live in a more harmonious relationship with the work that Stromlo does; but I cannot help wondering whether the sort of direction which this inquiry foreshadows in a way misconceives the nature of that relationship.

I imagine that there are measures that could be adopted to minimise light pollution, having regard for outcomes for safety, security, and tourism; but it seems to me that almost all of those strategies would have to include some extensive modification of lighting systems used in the Territory, be they public or private lighting systems. As for performance indicators for street, path and outdoor space lighting, that kind of thing, it seems to me, necessarily entails some adaptation of the system of streetlighting to reduce, ultimately, the amount of light being generated in certain directions or the inefficiency of the light being generated. Again I accept that this is an issue of significance, at least to some people, but again I would suggest that an almost inevitable conclusion is going to be that significant reductions in light pollution can be achieved, but only with the expenditure of massive amounts of money.

The motion calls for tougher legislation to govern private outdoor lighting. Again, that may well be achieved. For those who want private outdoor lighting, I suppose it may mean some modification of what they can have in their homes; perhaps the purchase of more expensive equipment which does not result in the upward glare of lighting and so on. Perhaps that kind of thing is what is foreshadowed by this motion.

Mr Speaker, I accept that these things, if they were implemented, might achieve some positive results. I simply ask that the committee, in going away to perform this task, not get carried away with the concept of different technologies being applied to reduce the glare in the night sky of Canberra without considering the quite massive cost which could conceivably be entailed in effectively preventing that kind of light pollution from occurring.

A question, for example, that would have to be asked at some point, in looking at the extent of reduction of glare, is this: Is it appropriate to spend money on reducing the amount of light generated in the Canberra night sky, or is it more appropriate simply to move Mount Stromlo to somewhere further away from the urban landscape? It is not inherent in the terms of reference here, although at least at paragraph (2) they are not exclusive terms of reference; but the question that would need to be asked is this: At what point is the work of Stromlo inevitably going to have to be compromised by the mere fact that the city of Canberra continues to grow, and, as far as I can tell, will grow forever? At what point will further compromises in the amenity of the city be unacceptable to accommodate Stromlo? Will this kind of inquiry, which obviously focuses almost entirely on one side of that relationship - what do we do to stop affecting the work that Stromlo does? - become a one-sided debate that does not fully look at the total picture?

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