Page 6010 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
If the rhetoric from the federal ministers is to be believed—that they are genuinely concerned with these issues—then they will have no trouble in legislating this at all. This is something they actually can do. This is something they can do right now. It may or may not be something they do in other parts of the country, but the ACT is in a unique position because of where its airport is located and because of the fact that we are an island in New South Wales. We can make a strong statement to the commonwealth that we want to see action right now.
I have some background in this area, having worked in part of the then Department of Transport and Regional Services which dealt with some of these aircraft noise issues. At that time—and I believe still now—there was a great challenge for the commonwealth in legislating for land use planning around airports. One of the challenges they had around Badgerys Creek was in restricting the amount of development that goes on around Badgerys Creek.
I happen to believe that Badgerys Creek was a good site to pursue for a second Sydney airport. I think it should have been pursued. But various commonwealth governments got skittish and it has now been ruled out. Partly I think it was because the land use planning did not match what it needed to do. They relied on local councils and their area plans to have policies which restricted development around the proposed site of Badgerys Creek. There was no commonwealth power, or no easy commonwealth power—nothing that would not have been subject probably to High Court challenge—that the commonwealth could use to protect those areas so that they could in future build Badgerys Creek. I think various commonwealth governments would have spent the best part of 20-plus years working on legislating and looking at various ways of examining that site, doing the environmental studies and the like. The opportunity they missed there, I think, leaves it open as to what will happen there.
What the commonwealth can do in this case—and this is why this is important—is legislate to protect Canberrans. They can actually present legislation very soon in the commonwealth parliament that says, “We’re going to enshrine in legislation these noise abatement zones in the ACT.” If Minister Albanese is to be believed—that he actually does want to see these airports thrive but he also wants to see residents protected—then this is something he can absolutely do for the people of the ACT.
In relation to the other aspects of Mr Rattenbury’s motion, the proposal for a curfew raises some serious questions. There seemed to be a bit of logic at cross-purposes in Mr Rattenbury’s speech. He seemed to be saying that we needed to protect against development so that there would not be a curfew but at the same time he called for a curfew. So it seemed a little bit confused in logic. We put it on the record that we will not be supporting the calls for a curfew by the Greens. That is not a policy that we endorse. That is not a policy that we will be supporting today. Therefore, it is not a motion that we will be supporting. I now move the amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) notes that:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video