Page 6022 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As a member for Brindabella, it is safe to say, and I am sure my electorate counterparts in this Assembly will agree with me, that a key concern in Tuggeranong is the issue of noise sharing should developments across the border occur. Pre-1995 flight paths can be an indication of history repeating itself. Kambah, Wanniassa and Fadden were once under flight paths and Macarthur was within earshot of aircraft noise. I do not think residents in these suburbs would like to go back to those days, and I affirm Mr Seselja’s position that all Canberra residents have a right to the same level of protection from aircraft noise.
In a recent survey conducted by the Tuggeranong Community Council it was identified that approximately 90 per cent of those participating in the survey felt extremely concerned or concerned at the prospects of flight noise over their communities. Ninety per cent believed that aircraft noise would be an issue should the elements like the noise abatement areas be abolished. Eighty-three per cent felt that they were not properly consulted.
In effect, what the numbers tell us here is that we would have a veritable perfect storm of community uproar should aircraft noise impede the daily lives of Tuggeranong residents. This does not need to happen and there are ways to address this. In this context, legislation bringing into effect noise abatement zones to include all homes would indeed provide certainty to all Canberrans.
I think it is safe to say that no member in this chamber would contest the idea that no Canberra resident should be subjected to aircraft noise in their community. If noise sharing were to result, this would have a negative effect on our quality of life, and my electorate would be particularly affected in this regard. I am sure it is only a small step from convening discussions on noise respite.
A concerned member of my electorate put it quite succinctly: “Do you or do you not want noise sharing?” As such, I support the Canberra Liberals’ position in saying no on this issue and I affirm Mr Seselja’s amendment to give Canberra residents more certain safeguards from aircraft noise.
MR BARR: (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (8.32): I will restrict my comments at this stage of the debate just to Mr Seselja’s amendment, noting that there are other amendments to be moved.
Mr Seselja, in his amendment, makes a number of statements that on face value I do not disagree with. The Canberra airport is a key piece of infrastructure for the ACT and it does support economic growth for the city and for the region. And, yes, I think it is also a correct statement to identify that aircraft noise is an issue of concern for many Canberrans, including those in Gungahlin and north Canberra.
However, it is the means by which Mr Seselja seeks to knock out all other elements of Mr Rattenbury’s motion that are somewhat problematic for the government. I do not disagree with either of those statements, but the way that Mr Seselja has moved them tonight would be to remove a whole range of other statements that we do not disagree with either.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video