Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 14 Hansard (Wednesday, 8 December 2010) . . Page.. 6008 ..


would otherwise go into Sydney, and the development of a 24-hour freight hub. It is clear that both these options are attractive to international freight companies and airlines because Canberra does not have a curfew. These are flights that would otherwise go into Sydney, so it is important we all understand that the intention of Canberra airport is to bring more night time flights into the ACT—something that I imagine, again, will increase the pressure for a curfew as well, as Canberrans and people in Queanbeyan fight for their quality of life.

At the end of the day, that is what this motion is about. It is about quality of life. I think the prospective development at south Tralee is, if I might paraphrase, a wicked dilemma. There is a clear need to have new spaces for new residential developments in this region. There is a need to ensure we have affordable housing. But at what price? I do not think it is just to say: “Yes, we will give you an affordable house. But to get an affordable house you have to live under a flight path.” It is simply not fair, it is not just and it is not decent.

We have to be mindful of those prospective future residents of Tralee. We want them to have a good quality of life, and the best way we can do that is by ensuring that we do not build their houses in a high noise zone. We also need to be acting for the residents of Tuggeranong and south Canberra, who face the very real prospect of noise sharing down the line.

It is not going to happen in the next 12 months, probably not in the next couple of years; but if this development goes ahead it will happen over time. I am not sure how long it will take but it is something that we should not be wishing on future residents of the ACT, nor future members of this Assembly who will have to deal with that.

So they are the reasons why we are putting this motion forward today. It is designed to be, hopefully, a motion that all parties in this place can support. It is intended to be a clear statement from the ACT saying that, whilst we have no formal power to intervene in the development of south Tralee, we have strong reservations and we implore those that do have the formal power to think again about this decision, to think wisely and to take a decision today to not go ahead with south Tralee so that we avoid the potential, very significant problems and adverse impacts on the ACT that will come down the line from proceeding with this development.

I commend the motion to the Assembly.

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (7.46): The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting this motion. I circulate an amendment which I will move in a moment. There are a number of issues to look at here. I would like to go to some of what the Canberra Liberals had to say on this issue recently, which I think is very important, and it is the approach that we will be taking.

Firstly, I think it is fair to say that we believe, unlike the Greens, that there should not be a curfew. We do not believe that imposing a curfew on Canberra airport is responsible. We do not believe that it is prudent and we do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of the ACT. We acknowledge the important role that Canberra airport plays both in the ACT economy and in the economy of the wider region.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video