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

I thank the member for Pearce and the member for Canning for the opportunity to speak on this motion, and I also acknowledge the contributions of the members for Hasluck and Hindmarsh. I acknowledge the nine points in the member’s motion and support the member’s call to implement an inquiry and also to establish a nationally consistent approach to air traffic and changes to air flight paths with reference to noise abatement issues.

From the feedback I have received from local residents, it is quite clear that there have been substantial changes to aircraft traffic and noise in my electorate of Swan since November 2008. The changes were introduced by Airservices Australia, a department that reports directly to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. There was little consultation with the local community on these flight path changes. The changes were made and signed off by the minister without my local community being aware of the extent of the changes. Given this, the flight path changes should have been stopped by the minister when they were on his desk. Section 10 of the Air Services Act clearly states that there is a requirement to consult. The changes could also have been stopped by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, under section 160 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. That section states that, before a Commonwealth agency authorises ‘the adoption or implementation of a plan for aviation airspace management involving aircraft operations that have, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment’, the plan must generally be referred to the environment minister for advice. However, neither minister has intervened and the result has been more frequent noise above households in my electorate of Swan. Residents continue to document noise changes in my aircraft noise survey, and I have seen figures from Airservices Australia that show dramatic yearly changes for a one month sample. However, almost one year on, despite all of this evidence, the minister has not done anything. He continues to talk about a white paper.

Given that the government is sticking by these changes by the ASA, I have suggested that the Commonwealth compensate affected residents. As members will know, I have been advocating an airport noise insulation scheme for Perth, similar to the ones that operate in Adelaide and Sydney. Insulating affected residents’ properties would be a good start and it will not cost this government a cent. The Sydney and Adelaide schemes were funded by a landing charge on aircraft tickets. Yet Minister Albanese has seemingly ruled this out too, effectively saying that Perth does not qualify for assistance because the ANF noise contours do not reach the required levels. He also stated that I was playing politics in a report by Lara Hines in the Southern Gazette. This misses the point. The fact is that significant changes have been made to aircraft flight paths without any community consultation. People who bought houses in areas where the noise was tolerable or where there was no aircraft noise now suddenly have to cope with more aircraft noise.

This was before my time, but the previous member for Swan made the comment:

While noise still remains an issue, one of the reasons concerns about noise are not quite as acute as they were is that the Labor Party has made commitments that homes dramatically affected by noise, such as those in Queens Road, would be eligible for assistance under a noise amelioration program such as that which operates in Sydney.

What were these commitments, Mr Deputy Speaker, and why isn’t the government honouring them? Is it because they were made in opposition? Let us not forget that Minister Albanese is the same member of parliament who, when in opposition, was a tireless advocate on airport noise in the Sydney area. The passion he showed for his electorate is just what I am doing for my electorate.

See this speech in context