Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise to speak about the Labor government’s response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry report, The effectiveness of Airservices Australia’s management of aircraft noise. It is not a history lesson—it is not about cookbooks either, as suggested by the previous speaker, the member for Cowan. There are some areas in that report very pertinent to my electorate. There are two issues I would like to raise today. The first and most important issue is contained in recommendation 8, which recommends a noise amelioration scheme compensating residents affected by aircraft noise. This recommendation was rejected by the minister and the minister’s department. The government’s response notes recommendation 8 and then states:

This Government has shown leadership in implementing a range of new measures to address aircraft noise, including banning older, noisier jets …

The jets that the government banned had not landed in Perth for 15 months. So it was just another headline, which is typical of this government—headline after headline. Imagine banning something that had not landed in Western Australia for 15 months? It is just typical. The government’s response to recommendation 8 went on to state:

… putting into place better mechanisms for community consultation …

They had to do that because the reason for this inquiry was due to the lack of community consultation by Airservices Australia. The government glossed over this fact and was dragged kicking and screaming to the inquiry. The Senate members of the government did not vote on holding the inquiry. The government did not want to go down this road.

The government’s response to recommendation 8 further stated that these are:

… important steps in balancing the interest of the local economy and the effective use of airports with the preservation of the amenity and safety of surround communities.

During the inquiry, one thing the CEO of Airservices Australia said was that the noise problem in Perth was a perception. The people in my community and the people in the electorate of Hasluck will tell you that it is not a perception; it is a reality. These communities, as well as those in the electorate of Pearce, will be extremely disappointed by the response from this government.

When the minister was in opposition he fought for a noise amelioration scheme in Sydney and the Howard government introduced one. Last week I visited the member for Hindmarsh’s electorate and went through a house there. In that area near the airport they have implemented an insulation scheme—again, a scheme introduced by the Howard government. The minister fought long and hard during his period of time in opposition for his electorate and for the people who face noise problems near Sydney airport. But now he is totally ignoring the people of Perth and Western Australian industry. As with everything they do, like the GST, the focus of this government is eastern-state-centric.