Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 519 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

outdoor lighting is not adequately screened. Urban Services have installed low-pressure sodium lights in new suburbs - a definite improvement in outdoor lighting practice for energy conservation reasons, but one that does not seem to have arisen from a conscious set of outdoor lighting policies, and it is not matched by a system of performance indicators.

Mr Speaker, some decisions about potential major light pollution of our capital city are controlled by the National Capital Authority. The NCA has no light pollution guidelines either. The case of the Telstra Tower illustrates a situation where a very poorly designed and massively polluting floodlighting proposal has been directed back to round table discussion only after community opposition. Thankfully, the NCA and Telstra have acknowledged arguments of the Outdoor Lighting Reform Action Group, at least to the extent that they are prepared to discuss the proposal with astronomers and conservation groups.

The final area of concern is the lack of effective means for ensuring that proposals for private lighting - for example, over car yards and lighting of sports facilities - meet national standards. At present these standards are not being effectively enforced in Canberra. Mr Speaker, good outdoor lighting, as opposed to glare, ensures that no observer outside the target area is able to see the light source, and that most of the energy is used to light the target area. The intent of much outdoor lighting is safety. However, glare from city lights actually compromises our security by causing our eyes to contract and by intensifying shadows. Glare confuses drivers by focusing them on the source of light and not the areas to be lit.

Mr Speaker, I believe the Planning and Environment Committee could achieve for Canberra a number of extremely worthwhile outcomes by taking on this inquiry - outcomes for the environment, for tourism, for public safety and security, and for our social and cultural wellbeing. In the course of the inquiry, the particular strategies the committee should investigate would include minimising light pollution, having regard for outcomes for safety, security and tourism; requiring the Department of Urban Services to develop performance indicators for all the street, path and outdoor space lighting under its control, to ensure that spill light, sky glow and other wastage is minimised; tougher legislation to govern private outdoor lighting; and the basis of a cooperative Federal-ACT agreement on outdoor lighting for the ACT.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.58): Mr Speaker, the Government does not oppose the reference to the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. It is a matter, in a sense, for the standing committee. I note that it has a number of other inquiries on at the moment. It is one of the more productive committees of the Assembly. There are five inquiries before it at the moment already, and that is on top of the various variations to the Territory Plan and other reports and related papers that are referred to it from time to time for comment. As members can see from the notice paper, there is a large volume of work passing through the committee at any one time. If members of the committee feel comfortable about taking on a reference on lighting, then that is a matter that they should feel free to engage in.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .