Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to reintroduce a bill that many members of Adelaide’s western suburbs community asked me to introduce and advance, the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2006. The residents I am representing here today are those who have for year after year had their lives interrupted by low-flying aircraft. They have had their children wake up at night, their sleep patterns broken and their nerves tested by the sporadic, piercing screams of jet engines descending upon Adelaide Airport.

There are also those who have had, and continue to have, walls that would rival those of any great ancient city erected adjacent to the boundary of airport land, accommodating warehouses and retail stores that cast more than just a shadow over anyone in their vicinity. Residents who live adjacent to Adelaide Airport or under its flight path have repeatedly made claims of excessive noise, curfew breaches and development that is at odds with the Adelaide Airport master plan.

This has not been a new or recent phenomenon. Complaints have been coming out of the homes, the streets and the suburbs around Adelaide Airport for year after year. I live in Mile End, which is adjacent to the area that has suffered the worst excesses of the noise pollution from aircraft flying overhead. I know how my neighbours feel—those in my street and my suburb and those adjacent in other suburbs, especially places like Brooklyn Park, Richmond, Netley, Lockleys, Cowandilla, Glenelg North and West Beach, just to name a few. They are sick of the impact of airport related noise and they want to have their voices heard. More than that, they want someone at arm’s length from organisations involved—the air-carriers, the airport and the government—to hear their experiences and learn of the effect that airport related activities have on their lives.

They want to be able to show someone other than those with a vested interest how poorly the master plan system is working from a resident’s perspective and how the draft plan has been painstakingly written with substantial and meaningful consultation only to be amended after the fact to facilitate development outcomes opposed to the approved master plan. They want to be able to direct their concerns through an independent, non-party political, non-partisan medium to the government of the day to avoid the politics and the inflammation and point-scoring. They need someone removed from, and not subordinate to, the minister and his department to take their experiences, concerns and even allegations on board, to test them and, as appropriate, to communicate the issues to the powers that be, hopefully in a constructive manner.

This is what the residents want. All they want is a little fairness and someone independent to listen to them and their concerns. That is not asking for much. They can access an ombudsman to hear their concerns regarding the Defence Force, immigration or taxation—even the postal industry. There are complaint bodies to receive representations regarding banking, financial services, telecommunications, energy and insurance. But when it comes to the federal government’s privatised airports and the impact they have on the community, it seems that this government simply does not care.

This government does not care that residents see themselves being totally alienated by the federal government’s Airports Act. The government care so little about residents’ concerns that they are amplifying and intensifying the negative measures allowable through the Airports Act with the current Airports Amendment Bill. Other members of this House with privatised airports in or adjacent to their electorates, such as the member for Hasluck, will, I am sure, testify to the experiences as represented in written and oral submissions to the current Senate inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill. These stem not only from the frustrations of residents—those we represent here in this place—but also from organisations disadvantaged by the system as it currently operates.

We have had what could be described as a civil war going on within this country between airport lessee companies and local city councils over the appropriate application and payment of council rates. We have also seen the total disregard shown to the state and local government infrastructure that is necessary to actually facilitate customers visiting the businesses springing up on airport land and the limitations of state and local laws and by-laws regarding planning and the maintenance of the areas around leased airports. Surely we want a mechanism by which conflict is minimised and an office that can help settle problems, not inflame them—a vehicle that is not in any business’s or government’s back pocket for the consideration of issues that drive a wedge into and damage our society. I urge all parliamentarians who are interested in the wellbeing of communities around the country and who have regard for the objective and logical progression of concerns and problems towards better solutions to support this bill.

Bill read a first time.

Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.