Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 28 June 1999
Page: 7619

Ms KERNOT (6:09 PM) —I wish to move the first of the two amendments circulated in my name. In order to save the time of the chamber, I would like to anticipate debate on the second amendment, because it is the same principle that applies here. I foreshadow that we will be calling a division on the second amendment. I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2, after line 7, insert "; and"

As I said during the second reading debate, while this bill achieves a step forward in legislating a curfew, it does not take the necessary next step and deal with noise insulation. It really leaves it very much open-ended in terms of regulation and concedes that the existing problems are very likely to get worse. I know that many members in Adelaide look forward to an increase in traffic at Adelaide airport for other economic reasons but, with the runway extension and with the government's response to the Productivity Commission's open skies report, we do know that there is going to be an increase in international traffic into Adelaide in the coming years, and we do acknowledge that the structure of this bill also acknowledges that reality.

At one level, this can be an exercise in accountability. At another level, if you were really cynical, you could say that it is a bit of electoral posturing. It talks about a curfew, but it does not tackle noise. Those people who have problems with noise during normal operating hours find that there is nothing extra for them in this bill, and those people who have problems with noise during the shoulder hours find that their concerns are not addressed in this bill. That is why, when this bill came up last year, the then shadow minister for transport and the member for Melbourne, Lindsay Tanner, moved these amendments that I am also moving today.

These amendments prevent the bill from commencing until Adelaide airport is identified as a qualifying airport under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act. We are saying that it is not right to do half the job. By all means legislate the curfew but, secondly, be serious about the effects of increased traffic and you must link noise insulation with any opportunity for increased noise on top of the existing noise.

Labor went into the last federal election with very clear commitments to ensure that such insulation was available to all home owners living by airports on the same basis that it is provided in Sydney under the Aircraft Noise Levy Collection Act 1995. Why not Adelaide? If we are going to have this legislated curfew, why not Adelaide? We consider that to be the very fair thing to do. Last time around, the member for Hindmarsh said that she felt that the Sydney insulation program was not necessarily appropriate to Adelaide, as though there was some huge distinction between living close to an airport in Adelaide and close to an airport in Sydney. I do not believe she has actually made the case for that. I am quite ready to say that different cities may have different needs but, given that this is actually an improvement for those who live near airports and experience existing noise, I cannot see why the member for Hindmarsh should actually not support these amendments.

We are taking a first step to ensure that Adelaide residents have the same access to noise insulation as their Sydney counterparts. If we can have a legislated curfew at Adelaide airport, why can't we also have a legislated noise insulation program? That is the question. Why can't members of the government support that? That would be the fair and proper thing for both the government and the member for Hindmarsh to do.