Page 3630 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The health benefits of a decent sleep are well known. As the costs are greatest when noise is experienced at night time, the Greens support and advocate a legislatively imposed curfew from 11 pm to 6 am. Residents should not be left to bear these costs. The government should take note of these issues and the growing number of concerned residents. The push is on from the air industry to have the curfew removed in Sydney. Politically, that will not be palatable, and that is why Canberra International Airport is pushing to become Sydney’s second airport, and just take a look at their website if you have any doubt about that.
As to the curfew, aircraft noise is already being experienced by many suburbs outside the flight path, and I have been disappointed that the government has trivialised these concerns. At a public meeting I held on this issue, noise was the primary concern for residents from north Canberra—including Campbell, Reid, Hackett and Watson—south Canberra—Narrabundah and Kingston—Gungahlin and, of course, residents from Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra. I will not go over Mr Stanhope’s rude comments about the concerned residents at that meeting. He announced in this place that they pretty well all came from Queanbeyan.
With the airport’s plans for expansion, we do not accept that Canberra should continue curfew free, nor that we should become a night-time passenger and freight hub. At times, it is necessary for Canberra to be an alternative landing site to Sydney, and that is acceptable, but this should remain reserved for emergency purposes only. A curfew would not make being a hub for time-sensitive freight impossible. Freight could still be landed by 11 pm and sent out at 6 am and after. Hush-kitting jets to meet regulations would not make them quiet enough for night conditions in the Majura Valley.
As to the loss of planning control, although the airport conforms to the national capital plan, we are confident that the level of development encompassed by the aircraft draft master plan was never envisaged when the plan was approved. Indeed, I do not believe that the extent of the building that has happened out there now conforms to the national capital plan. Clearly, the notion of airport-related development has broadened immeasurably since the mid-90s. The list of existing and anticipated development includes defence industry, office, business parks, retail, accommodation, conference, hotel, personal services, community facilities, horticulture, nurseries and recreation—everything but housing. This suggests little consideration of significant and potentially indiscriminate impacts on other activity nodes in Canberra and Queanbeyan. Instead, the airport has developed direct competition, such as Brand Depot. I have never been there, nor will I shop at the ACT government’s competitor, the Epicentre, which is just adding to the problem. The Greens believe that developments at the airport should satisfy local planning requirements, and the Canberra community should have influence over the outcomes.
As in the spatial plan, transport and employment links between Civic and the airport need to be given high priority. I have been advocating a light rail linking Queanbeyan, the airport, Russell and the national triangle and Civic ever since I came into this place. Many employees of government departments who work at Brindabella business park are unhappy that they need to travel so far and that there is no effective public
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .