Page 1388 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I did want to comment on the remarks about the airport in Ms Porter’s motion. I note the announcement by Minister Barr earlier this week of the task force to secure international flights and that Wellington seems likely to be the first destination, particularly in light of the minister’s recent trip to New Zealand. When it comes to the airport, I think members know that the Greens have some conflicted views. There is an opportunity for this city in having direct flights here. Some might even argue that there are greater efficiencies in not having to go via Sydney to some of these places. You might even argue there is a greenhouse benefit in that. Discussions around the airport highlight a couple of issues that we have pursued at various times. We maintain the view that Canberra needs to put in place a curfew at our airport. It is really about protecting quality of life in this city. I think that we can offer a greater diversity of services at the airport without having to detrimentally impact on quality of life in this city.
One of the great joys of Canberra is that, despite being a cosmopolitan city, it is still a very peaceful city. I think a lot of our residents value the notion that it is a big country town. The idea of having a 24-hour airport detracts from that sense of the city. As I have said before, it is absolutely appropriate for us to put a curfew in place sooner rather than later so that the airport is given a clear set of operating guidelines and a clear set of operating constraints so it knows exactly what its business scenario is.
The airport and those that operate it have demonstrated their tremendous capability to understand the rules and operate within them. I disagree with a number of the ways the development of the airport has distorted the fabric of this city, but I can only acknowledge the fact that those who own and operate the airport have understood the rules perfectly clearly and have taken the greatest possible entrepreneurial advantage of those rules. One can only acknowledge that skill and capability. I still do not think it has been necessarily good for this city in some ways, but that is a discussion for another day. I think the curfew remains a live issue.
I also think that this discussion highlights the urgency of moving forward on developing high speed rail between Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne in the first instance. This has been debated before. Apparently there are discussions at a federal level as well. Not only is it an opportunity to transform our transport system and boost Australia’s future but also it could eliminate a great deal of the air traffic between Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. These are extremely busy flight corridors. It is highly inefficient flying. They are short flights. They can be covered by high speed rail. This is also a way to tackle some of the greenhouse issues and the issues around oil supplies that may impact on the air industry in future. We need to be planning for these eventualities. I think that moving to high speed rail gives us the opportunity to address some of the concerns that we have.
Again we see the airport floating the idea that if we were to get high speed rail between here and Sydney, we could become Sydney’s second airport. Again, I have deep reservations about that. I do not want to see this city becoming the noise dump of Sydney. I do not think that is what our residents want. I do not think it is the future that this city needs. We can be a vibrant and economically sound city without needing to have such a detrimental impact on the quality of life of our own residents. They will not thank us for that sort of outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video