Page 220 - Week 01 - Thursday, 13 February 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Many Canberrans have had smoke related-health problems. People attended emergency departments, saw their GP or perhaps just suffered at home. We all probably know someone affected, and perhaps even some in this chamber were affected by the circumstances. Pollutant PM2.5 also has long-term health impacts, and most likely medium-term impacts, but these are less certain. As Brian Oliver, a professor in respiratory biology, said in the Canberra Times:
People being exposed to bushfire smoke for more than one or two days is a whole new phenomena.
And more research is needed.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge again the firefighters who have been on the frontline for months, breathing in this smoke. In an interview in the Guardian, one firefighter said:
… you wake up feeling like your chest has been stomped on, coughing up crap all the time. I’ve got guys who aren’t smokers who are coughing like they’ve been smoking 20 years.
As my motion details, while the impacts of smoke on Canberrans’ physical health is a primary consideration, it has led to a whole range of further issues that we need to consider as we prepare for the future. For example, how do we ensure that people can avoid being exposed to smoke? We need to consider the way our buildings are constructed. Are they able to keep out smoke?
In Canberra this summer many people discovered that, in fact, they cannot. Residential and commercial buildings alike could not keep out the dense smoke, essentially meaning there was no place to shelter. How do building standards need to be improved for the future? Do we need purifiers, better filtration, tighter buildings with fewer gaps, or other measures?
These issues are even more serious, of course, where there are vulnerable people, places like schools, hospitals and aged-care facilities. The National Construction Code process is notoriously slow. We might not be able to wait for that process. We might need an ACT-specific initiative to ensure that ACT buildings meet the standards we need.
Monitoring of inside conditions also remains a weak point. Many people sought information about the air quality inside buildings but could not get it with any certainty. An ACT air quality strategy should also investigate how government provides, or can otherwise facilitate the community getting access to, places for respite from poor air quality.
Perhaps these places are public government buildings, but they need to be ones that remain open and can repel smoke. Perhaps they are privately owned buildings, and arrangements are agreed with the owners and operators. Again, these are issues that need specific consideration from the point of view of our most vulnerable people, such as those who are homeless or elderly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video