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

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 29 October 1970

Mr FULTON (Leichhardt) - T have listened to all the speakers in this debate and 1 agree with them all. We on the Public Works Committee when it inquired info aircraft noise, had evidence from which it appeared that no matter where an airport or runway is built there will always be this noise trouble. 1 do not think the Public Works Committee should be censured for its recommendations and I will give the reasons why. The evidence indicated that the need to have a runway operating at a certain time was a main factor. Another factor was that the whole of the Committee went into these areas, stood under the flight paths of aircraft and listened to the noise. We agreed with a lot of the people. Some people are not affected as much as others. 1 agree with the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) that now is the time Australia should be looking - it may be past the time but at least we should delay it no longer - for areas for runways that will not affect the people in any way.

Aircraft noise is not confined only to Australia. It is a problem all over the world but we as a young nation should take the first step towards solving it. We have more areas available than possibly any other country; we have a small population and vast tracts of land. I think that the Department of Civil Aviation and the aircraft companies and factories should be doing more research into problems connected with the taking off, and landing of aircraft. Every session we hear of a new aircraft requiring another 600 feet or another 1,000 feet of runway. Where is it going to end? I have seen aircraft in operation at Farnworth rising straight off the ground to a height of 2,000 feet before moving forward. More research should be done on this technique. It would not only eliminate noise over houses and people but would also eliminate the need to extend runways. More hazards are created every time we extend a runway.

I do not think the Public Works Committee could have reached any other recommendation than the one it has produced and referring the recommendations back to the Committee will not make any difference. I am forced to vote for the amendment and I do not think the Public Works Committee, if the reference goes back to the Committee, can bring down any recommendation other than the one it has presented. As the honourable member for Bradfield said, it recommended that facilities for training purposes should be made available immediately and that the Avalon runway be made redundant as far as training services are concerned. The people of Avalon are not against the factory being there and the facilities, except those for training Qantas pilots being there. Honourable members have said in this House that they do not want the Qantas pilots to be jeopardised in any way; they want the pilots to have this training. We agree with that.

After all, the people who travel with Qantas are our responsibility and these pilots must be trained. In view of the timetable set down for the training of pilots and in view of the new aircraft coming into service, these things were so evident and prominent to the Committee that it was forced to bring in the recommendation it has. It has recommended that the Department look for further grounds which would not cause trouble through noisy aircraft flying over people. That recommendation is partly contained in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones). I support the amendment but I consider the Committee should never be censured for the recommendations it brought down because it could bring down no other- recommendation than the one it has.

Suggest corrections