Page 215 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the Curfew 4 Canberra group. He has spent many, many years being a pilot and is, I think, quite well credentialed to comment for the community. He is a spokesperson for Curfew 4 Canberra.
I thank all those speakers that did come. I felt that Mr Gentleman was put in the hot seat. Most of his speech was derived from the master plan so, erroneously or not, I think some people in the meeting gained the impression that he was speaking for the airport. There is also, of course, a need to put up-front the fact that it was decided not to invite representatives of the airport. I have communicated with Mr Tom Snow about this issue because this was a meeting that we specifically decided not to invite the airport to. I attended the airport’s public meeting—poorly publicised, I might say—held in its own premises and chaired by the proponent where they had plenty of chances to give their views.
Their views are of a particular kind which I believe narrow the debate. I believe the debate needs to be widened because there are big issues now in the airport expansion. Aviation’s contribution to greenhouse gas is well known. We have difficult decisions to make about that. I believe that the ACT government has a role in trying to attract some attention to this issue from the federal minister for transport, who, let us face it, really is the only person with any clout.
The airports were privatised under a Howard government, but that process was started under a Keating government. There are issues here, not just greenhouse gases and not just 24-hour aeroplane movements. There is one every two minutes in the master plan. We also have planning issues. There is no map of the airport in the master plan. A map would be indicative, I believe, because then it would be all laid out in front of us. If you have a look at the precincts that are planned to be developed, we are talking about something bigger than Civic here, folks. It is not something that we have any control over as a planning issue. We can already see how it has distorted transport movements and how the ACT government has to run along behind and fix up the roads.
As Mr Gentleman himself said, if we are going to get serious about greenhouse gas emissions, there are going to be difficult economic decisions to make. Here is one. We need a sustainable transport plan. Aeroplanes will have a very big role in that, but they should not dictate the way we manage our transport.
Cycling
National Multicultural Festival
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (6.08): I recently had a meeting with representatives from Pedal Power and I would like to use my adjournment speech tonight to place on the record my support of that organisation and the work that they do.
It is a certainly a common misconception which I have heard in this place before that Pedal Power only represent the most committed and hardcore members of the cycling fraternity in Canberra. I was impressed by the organisation’s professionalism and the presentation that they made to me. I will be supporting their efforts to secure funding in this year’s budget for a variety of improvements and programs. Pedal Power represents the 80,000 ACT residents who cycle at least once a year, and many, of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .