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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4544 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

not on the ground of votes, as Mr Stefaniak obviously wants to beat up this issue, but on the ground of what is the right thing to do in principle. The right thing to do in principle is to ensure that people are protected from environmental pollution - in this case, noise pollution.

The interesting part is that comparisons between the ACT's policy and the policy in New South Wales are particularly difficult to make and it is no good just saying, as Mr Stefaniak has been wont to say and I am sure he will say again in the debate as it continues, "We just wanted to do exactly the same as New South Wales for racing venues that have been established for some time". Of course, he does not want to look at what happens with new racing venues, because they have a much stricter control system than we have here. But comparisons are very difficult, because a sliding scale is applied in New South Wales, depending on a whole series of factors, whereas what this Government has chosen to do is to change the way we deal with Fairbairn. When they chose to change the way we deal with Fairbairn, they also decided that they were going to allow pollution, particularly, of the Ridgeway and, to a lesser extent, of Oaks Estate. Measurements at Oaks Estate lead me to believe that there is not a particular concern for us to deal with. I think most of us would agree that, because of the different topography, that is not a concern.

The committee listened to officials who appeared before it at a public hearing on 7 October 1997. They said that in a situation other than motor racing the limit will be 45, which is the same as would apply in any Canberra suburb, including Oaks Estate, whereas if the noise is generated from motor racing it will be another five decibels higher, namely 50 decibels, at the Ridgeway. In other words, we are prepared to allow every Canberra suburb to be protected from noise pollution, but we are not going to allow people who live across the border the same protection from the pollution that the citizens of Canberra are creating and that is our responsibility. That is what is there. It is written there very clearly on page 91. I must say that that was one of the major influences for me.

Mr Speaker, it was not just the Ridgeway Residents Action Group that appealed to the committee. We had a submission from the Queanbeyan City Council, no doubt influenced by some of their citizens. We also had a submission from the New South Wales EPA which I had to circulate to members of the media because the media were being misled by Mr Stefaniak and others saying that the regulation before us at the moment is the same as the one for New South Wales. It is not. I warn the Minister that, if he stands up here and says that it is, the evidence will be very clear that he is misleading this Assembly. If I were Mr Stefaniak, I would be very careful about what I did in this chamber on this issue. We have only a week or so to go, but you are not in a position to be able to mislead this Assembly, Mr Stefaniak; so you should choose your words very carefully compared to what you have been saying publicly. We have to debate this issue accurately in this Assembly. It is not the time to whip it up into a bit of raw electioneering.

It seems to me that we, as an Assembly, have a responsibility not only to the people of the ACT but to the people in our region. It is very easy to deal with the people in our region when we are the centre of business and it is going to bring more money into our pockets.

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