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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 521 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I make it clear that I have no objection to an inquiry into the question of how efficiently our streetlighting is managed and how appropriate the amount of streetlighting that we have is. Those are issues which are proper to be looked at. But if we are looking at protecting the skyline for the sake of a scientific inquiry in the form of Mount Stromlo Observatory, there is a reasonable issue to be raised as to whether the cost of that is worth it in terms of implementation. I would strongly urge the committee not to come forward with an impossible wish list, or an unachievable wish list, or an unrealistic set of proposals, in considering these issues. That would be a very easy thing to do in the context of a debate which looks very largely at one side of this equation and not the other.

MS McRAE (11.02): I suppose it is appropriate to indicate whether we support it or not, and that is what I want to do, Ms Tucker. The Opposition has no problem in supporting this motion. It is a referral to Mr Moore's committee. I am informed that Mr Moore has no problem with the inquiry, so it will proceed.

MS TUCKER (11.02), in reply: I would like to respond to a couple of the points that Mr Humphries raised. The question of the cost-benefit of having efficient lighting is obviously one that the committee would look at. The information that I have received so far would indicate that if you do take a long-term look at the costs and benefits of having efficient lighting you will find, obviously, that it is going to be of benefit to the ACT.

It is interesting that he raised the issue of how long we keep accommodating Mount Stromlo at the expense of the ACT, but Tucson in Arizona actually has grown in population and has cut outdoor lighting costs and maintained its working observatory. It is a matter of how the lights are designed. It would take some time to replace them. Mr Humphries mentioned the cost of replacing them. His Government talks a lot about tourism being a growth industry in the ACT. Ecotourism around astronomy is growing and we would be the only State or Territory in Australia which would have that fantastic asset. In Sydney, even from the Observatory, you cannot see the fifth star of the Southern Cross with the unaided eye. So you can see that we have an asset here. If we maintain the quality of it there is going to be great cost-benefits to the ACT in tourism around astronomy. It is an area that is much more popular than you might think, so I think there will be benefits there.

There will also be benefits, obviously, from saving money on the energy that is used. At the moment no-one is taking responsibility. ACTEW says, "We are just selling the electricity", and Urban Services says, "We just build the lights", so there is no-one basically looking at the overall design of it. I am sure that the committee, if it looks at all aspects of it, will be able to show quite clearly how it is in the economic interests of Canberrans for a sensible strategy for lighting in this area to be implemented. I do not think you will find that it is a disadvantage at all.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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