Page 3638 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
know she did not go to the Singapore inspection of water, which I understand was because of greenhouse emissions from the aircraft, but did go to Brazil. I find this sort of approach a little confusing, to put it mildly.
In the context of this MPI, consideration must be given to the amenity of residents when considering the expansion of the airport. I welcome the opportunity, therefore, to have the debate today. As Dr Foskey’s MPI relates to the airport’s master plan, in advance of today’s debate I have reviewed this plan. The airport’s master plan is an important document when considering that location’s development. We have all seen the rapid development of the Brindabella Business Park and other parts of the airport, and certainly the speed with which that area has been developed in comparison with areas that are subject to ACT planning controls is significant.
But this development is not without control and careful planning, and this should be recognised in any debate about the airport. The airport’s master plan undergoes three months of public consultation, public comments are provided to the minister for transport and the Canberra airport is required by law to have due regard to any public comments within the time frame and to demonstrate this regard to the minister.
I understand that before the master plan is finalised and approved by the minister for transport the airport is required to undertake public meetings and advertise through the Canberra Times and other media. In addition to this vigorous process, before any major development is undertaken the airport must complete a major development plan, which requires three months of consultation. As with any master plan, any comments are provided to the minister for transport and the airport must demonstrate that they have treated public comments with due regard. Ultimately, it is up to the minister for transport to approve or not approve a plan.
To return to the rest of Dr Foskey’s matter of public importance, she is clearly distressed about the possible impact of extra flights and development on the Canberra community. I know that freight trade offers benefits to the local economy and the expansion of this area will benefit the local region. However, if this development is to proceed then it must do so in harmony with the local community.
I do not advocate for a minute constant air traffic entering and exiting Canberra airport 24 hours a day. The amenity of residents must be a primary consideration in determining the flow of aircraft in and out of the airport. I am aware of significant concerns that have been raised with me by Campbell residents about flight noise at night and I have contacted the airport, as well as the federal minister, about this issue.
People will not accept incessant aircraft noise at all hours of the day, and they should not have to. It is worth noting that Canberra airport is already a location for night freight, and I understand that this has been the case for some time. Presently, four flights leave and depart Canberra airport each night and the airport’s master plan calls for “an additional five to seven aircraft each night”.
I referred earlier to the demonisation of the airport and its owners, and certainly the exaggeration of the planned increase to night-time flights seems to be a case of this.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .