Mr WILTON (11:52 AM) —I would like to applaud the member for Swan on a fine contribution to this debate. There are two pieces of legislation before the parliament at the moment which would be of great interest to Australians, particularly those living within the proximity of any one of a number of airports and particularly those in my own electorate of Isaacs who live in the vicinity of Moorabbin airport, which borders the electorate and is in fact the second busiest airport in the country in terms of movements, second only to Sydney. The first bill is the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 , which, as previous speakers have said, effectively removes all limits to all compensation sought by third parties on the ground who are injured or who may experience damage as a result of airborne aircraft activity.

No doubt previous contributors to this debate have mentioned the El Al disaster and the Lockerbie tragedy. I had the misfortune of visiting the Lockerbie site not long after that tragedy. To see it first-hand really focused my mind on the need for a bill of this nature, given the loss of life that occurred on the ground of innocent civilians. I also well remember an incident that occurred within the environs of Moorabbin airport about 30 years ago when a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft, which was an air ambulance, collided midair near the airport and wreckage fell onto a built-up area surrounding the airport. That is notable, given that 30 years ago there would have been half the residential development in that area that exists there today.

The second bill before the chamber on a similar matter relates to something that the member for Hindmarsh rolls out every year or so. But, placing that cynicism aside, both these bills do indeed reflect the requirement for the federal government to sit up and take notice of the increasing demands on our major and regional airports and the inherent safety related risks to surrounding and nearby residents.

Like my colleagues the member for Swan and the member for Grayndler, I too receive petitions and individual complaints about the levels of aircraft activity and noise emanating from, in my case, Moorabbin airport, especially in non-daylight hours, given that that airport is a major freight hub for the south-east of our nation and provides important training facilities for both fixed-wing and rotary aircraft. Plans are currently afoot to increase the annual aircraft activity by more than 100,000 movements and to allow medium sized passenger aircraft with seating capacities of up to 100 access to the airport.

Looked at in isolation, these figures do show a healthy, thriving regional airport that does serve outer metropolitan Melbourne. However, what I consider to be the government's aviation policy vacuum and indifference to community concerns would allow this increasing demand to take place in an environment where there are no radar services, restricted air traffic control and, surprisingly, no curfew. The minister for transport, despite a number of calls and pleas from my office and other groups, notably the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association, to visit the airport, has just approved the airport master plan without even visiting the site.

Mr Albanese —Shame.

Mr WILTON —Shame, as the member for Grayndler says. Thankfully, though, in perhaps a somewhat slightly more morbid vein, the Damage by Aircraft Bill does reduce the likelihood of Moorabbin and surrounding residents having insult added to any potential injury, in the event of an aircraft crashing into their backyards, because of inadequate compensation arrangements. At least with this legislation there will be no legal boundaries to obtaining appropriate and adequate compensation for injury and damage experienced just because someone has the misfortune of living beneath a particular flight path.

However, if the Howard government was really serious about aviation policy, then it does need to look fairly analytically and fairly carefully at the infrastructure and planning required to cope with the rapid increase in air traffic brought about by such major events as the Sydney Olympics, the Melbourne Grand Prix and the Melbourne Cup, just to name three. This means that the minister does not just simply sign off on submissions which stand to significantly alter airport arrangements. It also means looking beyond the dirt tracks that indeed pass for airports in rural areas and shifts the minister's focus from trucks, diesel and farms to urban transport concerns such as aircraft noise and increasing aviation traffic above Australia's suburbs.

An investigation into airport curfews would indeed be a start, and so is denouncing Australia's commitment to the Rome Convention, which severely limits compensation payments to third parties on the ground. However, these are just two areas where the government has even bothered to scrutinise aviation policy since its election in 1996. It is my view that it is about time the government displayed some leadership on the issue of aviation policy in general and did indeed start listening to community concerns.

In conclusion and in line with the submission made by the member for Swan, I support the Damage by Aircraft Bill and take the opportunity once again to urge the government to look beyond the party room and to implement what can only be described as a sensible strategy aimed at formulating workable and user-friendly curfews for all airports and to heed the legitimate concerns of those who live near them.