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

I rise today to talk about the Adelaide Airport curfew, and how important it is to keep the curfew and the existing regulations in place. When I was re-elected in 2016, one example that I gave was the need to continue fighting for the Adelaide airport curfew. I want to ensure that this is upheld and not slowly eroded away. On the eve of the 2013 federal election, my opposing candidate seemed to share bipartisan support for the curfew with me, and both political parties said that the curfew would remain. We had promises from the Liberal candidate and from the Liberal opposition about undertaking and maintaining the Adelaide airport curfew. Guess what? Less than two months after the Liberal candidate won the seat of Hindmarsh and the Liberal government came to power, there was a coalition backflip. That backflip was to allow aircraft to come in before 6 am, even though we had a promise that this would not happen. This was less than two months after they put out leaflets in the entire electorate promising that this would not happen.

Fast forward to 2017 and 2018, and we have an article that was dropped into The Advertiser on New Year's Eve, the day before New Year, just to 'test the waters,' it said, for a curfew erosion and abolition of the curfew. I live in Mile End at the end of the main runway; I have done all my life. I and my neighbours have lived with aircraft noise. Everyone in the electorate of Hindmarsh—from Mile End, Torrensville, Glenelg North, Richmond, West Richmond, Brooklyn Park and Thebarton—has lived with planes. The planes are so close that, when they fly down, my grandkids, who are often playing out in the backyard, jump up and try to catch them. That's how close they are. As I said, I've grown up around the airport. I can understand—we all understand—the economic and social benefits of having an airport, and we need a fine balance. The airport is only six kilometres from the CBD. We need a balance where we keep the airport viable but we also take into consideration the residents' needs. What I don't understand is how this government could even consider eroding the curfew. If the curfew were cut, it'd be absolutely devastating to the living standards of those people who live next to or close by the airport—people like mums and dads who are trying to put their children to sleep, pensioners who struggle to maintain sleep patterns, students who are trying to get better grades at school and, of course, shiftworkers.

I immediately wrote to the minister for transport at the time, the member for New England, the former Deputy Prime Minister, about that article that had appeared in the paper about scrapping the curfew. I was so outraged by the possibility of the curfew being lifted that, in addition to the letter, I also sent a tweet directly to the Deputy Prime Minister on New Year's Eve. Almost seven weeks later I received a response to my letter. It said that even though there was 'no intention to remove the curfew'—and this is where this government just can't help itself, because it went on to say—'any changes to the curfew at Adelaide Airport would need to be locally driven, balance the interests of the community and the economic interests of South Australia, as well as considering operational issues'.

What does that mean? Does it mean that, if a Liberal Marshall government is elected in South Australia on 17 March, the curfew will be back on the table? That is a question that we have to ask ourselves. Does it meet the standards for 'locally driven'? Like other things in the Liberal Party, does it mean that the 'economic interests' could outweigh the 'interests of the community'? I don't get it. Why couldn't the member for New England, the previous Deputy Prime Minister, just stop at 'no intention to remove the curfew'—full stop? That would have been adequate, and that would have given comfort to my constituents.

To add insult to injury, we now have the third transport minister since December 2017. You've got to wonder, Mr Speaker: every minister for transport recently and for many years has been a member of the National Party—they wouldn't have to represent one person living under a flight path, so they would not understand and know what it's like to live in a metropolitan airport under the flight path. We've had Minister Chester, the member for Gippsland. He was rolled; he was a nice bloke. We've had Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, the member for New England. Now we have the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack, the member for Riverina. Do I really need to write to the third minister since December? And look at these guys! As I said, all are National Party members, they don't live in cities, and they don't deal with large city airports in their constituencies. Staff of the department must be sick of briefing these new ministers. (Time expired)

See this speech in context