Page 3629 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to take a lead on this issue, despite the fact that he has said it is the biggest challenge that we face. More substantively, Mr Stanhope argues that aviation should not be part of the ACT’s climate change policy. This is a dangerous position. For climate change policy to have any effect, either locally or nationally, it will need to restrict greenhouse gas emitting transport, whether it is via taxes, permits or regulation. If aviation is excluded from such a scheme, it will gain a competitive advantage relative to other forms of transport. Reductions in emissions in other transport sectors would then be swallowed up by increases in aviation.
To argue that aviation is not a part of existing climate change policy is blinkered in the extreme. Any coherent response to global warming will need to address this issue. If the expansion of the airport goes ahead at the level proposed, the political difficulties of imposing responsible targets at a later stage will be significantly increased, as the airport will fight to secure its profits. In short, we need our ACT climate change strategy to reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions overall, including our aviation emissions, especially as they are set to grow.
As an island in the middle of New South Wales, we need a transport policy for the Canberra region. Where is the plan that ensures that people from the region can easily come to Canberra to access shops and services sustainably? Over the past few years we have seen the New South Wales government erode the CountryLink network. Trains to and from Sydney have been cut back to the point where they could be labelled pensioners’ transport, and other branch lines are being closed. Instead, we should have been working with New South Wales to establish regular, reliable and sustainable transport options to our neighbouring towns and cities. I hope this is one thing that the Chief Minister has put in his submission to the federal government’s infrastructure fund.
Due to flight cost increases, freeway development and the resulting lowering of travel time, there has been a reduction in air travel to Sydney. A decent rail network would see this drop further, which would be good in terms of greenhouse emissions and sustainable transport. There is also potential for the airport to be serviced by a long distance rail hub, as set out in the Canberra spatial plan. In the context of an effective climate change strategy and an energy plan which takes peak oil into account, the ACT government should, in conjunction with federal and New South Wales state and local governments, make a concerted effort to develop a regional sustainable transport plan to address these issues.
Aircraft noise is a big and growing issue for our community. Of course, this is what there has been most fuss about. Increases in noise pollution impose costs upon the community at several levels. Canberra International Airport Group denies that aircraft noise adversely affects more than 0.5 per cent of Canberra residents, making me wonder whether the residents in Hackett and Narrabundah are just imagining things. The adverse consequences of aircraft noise include: harm to human health, as documented by the World Health Organisation and the Department of Transport and Regional Services; land affected by aircraft noise declining in value; the airport recommending defensive spending so that people have to put money into increasing their insulation and double glazing their windows to reduce noise; windows being closed throughout summer nights, as has been suggested to Hackett residents; and more general intangible reductions in the quality of life of affected residents.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .