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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4598 ..

MS HORODNY (3.59): At lunchtime we had a meeting, a round table, of parties concerned with this issue and discussed some of the problems and concerns that we all had with the different proposals that were on the table. I still believe that what Mr Corbell is proposing will create greater uncertainty for both Fairbairn Park users and Queanbeyan residents, because any authorisation would continue to be the subject of ongoing dispute and would end up in the AAT. However, from speaking with some of the residents during lunchtime today, the residents appear to prefer Mr Corbell's proposal to what the Government is proposing, because they would prefer to have their day in court to put up their arguments and to have the issue resolved in the AAT. I am not entirely convinced that will bring about a better outcome for both residents and the motor sport facility at Fairbairn Park, but I am happy to comply with the wishes of the residents. I understand the Fairbairn Park users also prefer that option.

I still believe that, by setting a specific noise level that must be complied with under regulation, the park users will be able to plan ahead; they will be able to install noise amelioration measures such as mounds; they will be able to modify their vehicles. I still believe that what Mr Corbell is proposing could lead to higher noise levels. It certainly could lead to higher noise levels than what is proposed in Mr Moore's motion and even higher than the Government's regulation. The 45 dB(A) that Mr Moore is proposing is really the absolute minimum noise level that could be allowed, and any negotiation over authorisation for Fairbairn Park is sure to lead to higher levels being allowed.

The Act actually does not leave all decisions on noise to the EMA. Table 2 in the Schedule sets out a range of circumstances where noise levels are specifically set. I still believe it is legitimate for conditions to be set in regulations, rather than leaving it to the EMA. I believe that setting the rules, which then cannot be challenged, therefore, leaves the decision in the hands of the Assembly and not the AAT. Residents could then still go to the AAT to challenge if the regulations are not being adhered to. From speaking with residents during lunchtime, it is my understanding that they would prefer to deal with the AAT, rather than have the noise regulations set. So, I am happy to comply with the wishes of the residents at this stage. The whole legislation is set to be reviewed after two years in practice. Of course, even before then, should additional problems arise, there is opportunity for the next Assembly to amend the legislation and to look once again at regulations. It is not necessarily the end of the matter. On that basis, I am prepared to support Mr Corbell's amendment.

MR MOORE (4.04): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to Mr Corbell's amendment. I appreciate that members took time over lunch to talk through the issue and see whether we could find a compromise. It gave me time to speak to residents of the Ridgeway. I know that Mr Corbell had spoken to members of the Motorsport Council. The Ridgeway residents were actually very comfortable with the amendment that Mr Corbell has put up. It takes my mind back a couple of years now - Mr Hoyle might even be able to correct me; it was something along those lines - when I tried to arrange a meeting between the Motorsport Council and residents of the Ridgeway. I must say Mr Hoyle and the Motorsport Council were very willing to have a meeting and, in fact, readjusted their time, as I recall, on a number of occasions and continued to be willing to meet. In fact, it was the residents of the Ridgeway that pulled out of that and said they were not prepared to go into a meeting where we could look for a compromise.

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