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

I have raised issues associated with the Adelaide airport on many, many occasions now. I am very pleased to see that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is in the House to hear first-hand what I have got to say. I am sure that some of my colleagues are growing tired of the noise I have been making about it, but they would certainly be more tired of the noise if they lived under the flight path or next to the new developments being built on airport land, with no jurisdiction from local or state planning authorities.

Residents contact me on a daily basis regarding the airport. Without a doubt it is one of the single biggest issues affecting residents in the electorate of Hindmarsh. With the Adelaide airport right in the middle of the electorate of Hindmarsh, aircraft noise has always been a big issue for people living in the surrounding suburbs. Residents are tired of their children being woken up late at night and early in the morning and of not being able to hold a conversation every time a plane flies overhead.

For years I and the residents campaigned for a curfew and a noise insulation program, which we got. That was through our hard work on a residents group called the Adelaide Airport Action Group—

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Chris Gallus!

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

which I was proud to be the chair of for many, many years—well before Chris Gallus was the member for Hindmarsh and well before the curfew was brought in with enormous pressure from the Adelaide Airport Action Group.

These days we have the added concern of development on federal airport land. The Netley Residents Association and the Southern Lockleys Residents Association represent the areas that are most affected by the new airport developments. And by the new airport developments, I do not mean the new airport terminal that everyone is very keen to see open very soon. I do what I can to address residents’ concerns, as we all do in this House. I work closely with Adelaide Airport Ltd, I contact the minister—as I said, I am pleased he is in the chamber to hear what I have to say first-hand—and I support grassroots action by the residents to reduce the effect of airport noise and airport development on the local residents.

But in each case it is a David and Goliath battle. Residents have no real way of resolving their concerns or being heard by an independent body. Take the Southern Lockleys Residents Association, for example. Members there, especially Mr Barry Sprecht, have tirelessly watched over the new developments on airport land. He has been horrified that, time after time, developments have gone up which appear to go against the development rules outlined in the Adelaide airport master plan. Now he is worried that the Airports Act review will lead to even less community consultation, with a suggestion that the major projects limit could be lifted from the current $10 million to $20 million.

Previously I have mentioned the residents who live next to the LG warehouse at Netley. They have complained about being woken at all hours of the night by activity at the warehouse. LG, on the other hand, say they do not operate through the night, as I was informed by LG warehouse management recently at a meeting. This is exactly the kind of issue that could be mediated by an independent body like an ombudsman.

Just last week I raised the ongoing concerns of residents in the Brooklyn Park and West Richmond areas, where homes right next to the airport are not insulated while homes further away are. These people in Brooklyn Park and West Richmond obviously feel hard done by. And why wouldn’t they? Homes further away from the airport have been insulated and yet their homes, which are bordering the airport, did not get consideration. The noise level is exactly the same as for the people in the street next to them. They are told that the decision not to insulate is based on scientific noise testing and flight paths, but they simply have to trust the authorities on that. Yet some of these same people have been told to cut down trees in their backyards because they are under the flight path. Again this is an area that an independent body like an ombudsman could look at and come up with a determination as to whether they are or are not.

Other more complex situations, like whether or not a development should even go ahead, could even be investigated. We could all rest easy that the ombudsman would be making independent decisions that properly balance the needs of residents and the need for economic development. For these reasons I am proposing that an independent authority be able to look into these issues. An airport ombudsman would be able to investigate complaints and make considered, reasonable decisions regarding airport activities. This is not a situation unique to Adelaide and I have no doubt that an airport ombudsman would be kept very, very busy with work throughout Australia. Certainly residents around the Brisbane, Perth and Sydney airports would put an airport ombudsman to very good use.

Given that there is no real legal obligation for airports that have been privatised on federal land to take any notice of local or state government planning requirements, it is clear that some other process of appeal or review needs to be made available to local residents. I have spoken with residents, and I have consulted with them about the idea of an airport ombudsman. (Time expired)