Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016 because communities around the country that are affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected. The rules that govern flight paths and community consultation are written for businesses and operators, not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day.

This bill comes on the back of several years of my constituents working within the current law to seek a solution to issues of aircraft noise in Melbourne. In this time, I have spoken in this place about the experience of my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds of residents. I and my office have joined residents in meetings with representatives of various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My colleague, the Greens Senator for Victoria Janet Rice, has further raised the issue in Senate estimates and other fora. And I know that Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft noise around the country.

What is clear, after this protracted process that has taken place over many years, is that the law needs to change. Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice.

In introducing this bill I would like to inform the House about the problems faced by some of my constituents in Melbourne. Some aspects of the air noise issue my constituents face are specific to Melbourne and reflective of the growing pressures on the liveability of our city. But beyond the specific circumstances, the experiences of my constituents are deeply illustrative of the problems faced by communities around the country, and will find parallels in the experiences of the constituents of many of my fellow parliamentarians.

I was first in contact with residents of the suburb of East Melbourne in my electorate regarding aircraft noise in 2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations of residents were borne out by official flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above these suburbs. In one weekend over 200 flights took place over the suburb, and I understand that the number of small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many, maybe looking at the MCG or the city, not essential flights by any means and, certainly, not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.

For those who do not know the area of Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the MCG, and increasingly over many years operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths of larger aircraft may also have been altered, resulting in an increase in air noise from these flights over the suburb. I have been contacted by residents in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential buildings—often from helicopter traffic.

It became clear as we tried to get to the bottom of this and how to deal with it that the buck stopped with nobody. In seeking a review of the situation from federal agencies, my constituents were sent from door to door, and told repeatedly that no response was possible. Airservices Australia is the government organisation established to provide services to the aviation industry, and residents are encouraged to contact it to raise concerns. But nowhere in the legislation governing Airservices Australia is there a requirement that it considers or minimises the impact of aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.

Repeatedly, residents in my electorate were told that the airspace above their homes was 'uncontrolled'. That is to say that neither air traffic control nor federal regulations applied to this airspace. Airservices Australia and CASA do have responsibility for planning and controlling flight paths, but are only empowered to do so with a view towards safety, efficiency for the industry or broader environmental issues. The legislation is silent when it comes to the responsibility to minimise the impact of flights on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. Because federal agencies are not required to protect community amenity or residential areas, airspace over residential areas is, if considered safe to fly in, not monitored or controlled. This means that small aircraft can fly almost at will at relatively low levels over suburbs, causing great distress and annoyance to residents.

In uncontrolled airspace like this, the only option available to communities is to seek voluntary agreements from aircraft operators. But this relies on goodwill. My constituents have written to hundreds of aircraft operators but have received very few responses. Supported by the advocacy of residents, the City of Melbourne—the council—has worked to create a so-called Fly Neighbourly Agreement, to raise the concerns of residents with aircraft operators and seek an agreement to establish voluntary guidelines. This process is ongoing, and I acknowledge the important work of resident groups and the City of Melbourne, and of our Greens councillors Rohan Leppert and Cathy Oke in pushing this process forward.

Nonetheless, when the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary agreements. When I and my constituents repeatedly requested simple noise monitoring of aircraft over East Melbourne, just to establish a clear picture of the scale of the problem, we were told that this would be impossible because the airspace is not controlled. How is it that we can have high-intensity air traffic occurring over homes and impacting residents, but the federal agencies that exist to monitor and control air noise are not even able to record noise levels, let alone take any action to address them?

Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too often residents are simply unaware of changes to flight paths above their homes until they find out because of the significant increase in noise they hear daily once the changes have already happened. How can there be genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are not even informed until it is too late?

It is a key principle that in our cities and regions, residents should have a meaningful say in the decisions that have an impact on their community. But when it comes to flight paths, this is currently not the case. I fear that if this continues, we are putting at risk the liveability of our cities that we value so highly. This bill is addressing a problem that is emblematic to all of us who want more people to live in the inner city. We have to manage the pressures that come along with that. It is time for a change, to truly give communities a voice and independent support. For this reason I am pleased to introduce this bill.

The bill will do a number of things. First, it will enshrine in law new requirements for consultation with communities and give residents stronger independent representation when consulted. Under the bill, Airservices Australia must inform residents affected by changes to flight paths and, crucially, involve them in the process of environmental assessments with the amenity of residents considered. When a flight path change is proposed, Airservices Australia will be required to inform the minister responsible for the EPBC Act, who in turn is to appoint a Community Aviation Advocate to represent the affected parts of the community. The Community Aviation Advocate is to be completely independent of Airservices Australia.

Second, it will establish in legislation an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, independent of Airservices Australia. This will offer important oversight and make recommendations to relevant agencies and ministers.

Third, it will amend the role of Airservices Australia in legislation to include a requirement to minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas. This broadens the responsibility of Airservices Australia in monitoring and controlling airspace and I believe will place a requirement on Airservices Australia to consider airspace over residential areas that it currently does not.

Fourth, the bill will require that the Airservices Australia board include an expert in environmental management and a representative of a community group affected by aircraft noise.

Fifth, in response to the specific and acute circumstances of high-intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, the bill will prohibit flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below 2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres of central Melbourne, with clear exemptions in the public interest of emergency services, defence and other like aircraft.

This bill includes several aspects of a previous private member's bill, introduced in 2011 by the then member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan MP. I would like to acknowledge the former member for her work on this issue. The 2011 bill was supported, with amendments, by the coalition parties at that time, and I voted in favour of it. However, ultimately the bill was narrowly defeated in the House by one vote. Since that time the ongoing gaps in community representation in controlling the impacts of air traffic have remained.

This bill would give Melbourne similar rules to that of Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city and over residential areas, and, of course, it will not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals, emergency services, defence or other aircraft.

It is time for action on behalf of communities affected by aircraft noise. As such I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context