Ms KERNOT (6:19 PM) —I have just a few general comments. Although I was not in this place at the time, I recall the severe embarrassment of the member for Hindmarsh when she had to vote against these amendments last time. It really is inappropriate to say, `If we accept these amendments we are delaying the curfew.' That is no excuse for actually accepting the principle that curfews are about noise reduction. Other appropriate matters, such as what causes the noise and leads to the need for reduction, should be addressed at the same time. There are just far too many examples in this place of doing half the job and saying, `We will fill in all the details and fix it up later.' All of the components that the member identified as being part of doing the job properly can and should be done before this bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999 , comes into effect.

As for the example that there is already a $7 levy coming in to cover the cost of the new terminal, why should those who suffer aircraft noise have to take any responsibility for that? That comes about as part of the costs of the airports borne by those who choose to operate within airports and who want to own and operate terminals; that is not the responsibility of those who bought houses or were living in houses close to airports well before the noise levels became extremely difficult for them. So it is really just about doing the job properly, not doing half the job. If the member is so concerned for the residents—and she has had all of these years to get it right—she could have been out there as part of the government making sure that this second half of the job was done now and was not further delayed. That is the point. You are in government, you are the local member and you have an opportunity to do something about it.

Amendment negatived.