Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I bring the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 to the parliament in response to many people in the electorate of Pearce and beyond who were affected by a significant change in flights paths following the Western Australia Route Review Project. I would like to thank particularly the member for Swan for his support in seconding this bill and my many Western Australian colleagues in this place and in the Senate for their assistance.

The bill is necessary because the agency responsible for the management of Australian airspace, Airservices Australia, now a corporate entity, has unprecedented power to change air flight paths with little regard to the environmental impact and effect of noise on the lives of many Australian people. Importantly, this bill reflects recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, and gives effect to the calls in the national aviation white paper for greater consultation with communities in regard to the impact of aircraft noise.

I acknowledge the complexities that Airservices Australia must deal with in administering flight paths and that they manage the safety issues to a high standard. However, obvious difficulties arose between residents in my electorate and other electorates in Western Australia, and Airservices when significant changes to flight paths were made in Western Australia without adequate public consultation. Critically, Airservices Australia self-assessed the impact flight path changes would make, and the process through which complaints from affected residents were handled was severely lacking. The complaints hotline never worked effectively.

I am pleased to say that, since I started action to introduce this bill there have been some changes to the way Airservices operate. The government, during caretaker mode, did introduce an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, which was a welcome step in the right direction. At least now the public has somewhere external to direct its complaints, unlike in the totally frustrating previous situation, when there was simply nowhere for them to go.

Changes have been made by Airservices Australia since the debacle in Perth, but it is clear that to avoid such situations in the future it is necessary to introduce changes to the act so that the public responsibilities of Airservices in regard to consultation are not simply an optional extra. In various communications since March 2009, Airservices Australia have maintained that community consultation regarding flight paths is not a primary responsibility of theirs, despite the fact they are the ones that institute flight path changes—the only organisation that can do so—and they are the only body equipped with the expertise and resources to engage in such a consultation process. The objective of this bill is to require Airservices Australia to consult and cooperate with government, commercial, industrial, consumer and other relevant bodies and organisations in the modification of existing flight paths and in the creation of new ones.

The bill calls on Airservices Australia to advise the minister responsible for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 when changes to airspace are likely. Following this, a community aviation advocate will be employed for the duration of the consultation process when new flight paths or changes to airspace are being implemented. This is not a new measure. It was instituted in Sydney and, as former ministers of the current government said, 'If those consultation benefits are good enough for one airport, they're good enough for the others.' A community aviation advocate is to be appointed when the minister is advised of proposed changes to airspace, The role will be to assist, inform and advocate on behalf of affected communities. Another key objective of this bill is to improve Airservices Australia's complaint reporting processes. As I said, this never worked in the past. It will involve a detailed commentary on complaints in annual reports, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the complaint process. It is integral to this bill and it is a key objective of this bill to see the complaint system work as it should.

The Board of Airservices Australia is composed entirely of aviation interests. The Senate report by the Senate Standing Committee on Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport in the previous parliament made an important observation that Airservices Australia is strongly aligned with the aviation industry. so part of this amendment follows this observation to have some independent people appointed to that board.

While I have been committed to pursuing this bill's passage through the parliament, I have been open in consultation with many groups and have listened carefully to recommendations by people in my electorate who are well informed as well as to other organisations that this bill might affect. A common misconception that has arisen while this bill has been waiting to be introduced into this House is that it will present a major issue for airports if consultation is needed every time an airline adds a new service or changes the frequency of a service. Such a concern is unfounded. The bill targets flight paths set by Airservices Australia, not the day-to-day services provided by carriers or, indeed, their frequency. Through consultation, some concerns have also arisen with regard to definitions contained within the bill as it currently stands. These are minor issues that should not affect the overall intent of the bill and certainly, with further discussion, I am sure we will be able to come to some accommodation if necessary in looking at some amendments.

I have spoken several times previously in this place about the circumstances which led to flight path changes in Western Australia and I do not propose to revisit all of those issues—which have so negatively impacted on the electorate of Pearce and the electorates of Hasluck, Canning, Cowan and Stirling—as there is insufficient time allotted in this debate. However, my record speaking on this matter stands in this place. In short, the Western Australian Route Review Project, WARRP, followed a Civil Aviation Safety Authority, CASA, audit finding that changes were required 'to maintain safety, reduce complexity and cope with the rapid and predicted continued increase in air traffic'. The apparent clandestine nature of the processes precipitating the flight path changes, however, as well as the uncertainty and the inconsistency of the rationale for not providing the CASA report to the public, highlights some of the current flaws in the consultation process and the reason for such disquiet from within the community.

While it is understood that air travel and transport are important features of contemporary life, it is clear that a consistent and fair approach to these decisions is required. Decision making needs to be open and publicly accountable. The public have a right to be treated respectfully and an expectation to be informed of proposed and actual changes to flight paths. The fact that I have had such an overwhelming response to this bill from my parliamentary colleagues would suggest that they too are hearing from their constituencies about the problems created by aircraft noise.

Finally, while we have gone about the consultation process, I must make a point of saying that I have had meetings with the Perth airport corporation and they have made some constructive suggestions for amendments, which we are currently looking at. However, I do not believe we can return to a situation where Airservices Australia can simply self-assess. It has not worked in the past and it is unlikely to satisfy the test of public accountability in the future. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the support of members to see its passage through this place.

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

I thank the member for Pearce for presenting her private member's bill on Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues in this place that affect the thousands of people who live under flight paths around the country. For many years I have lived in Mile End, directly under the flight path, and have said many times in this place that I recall as a toddler running out the front with my parents to see the plane that would fly over once every two days into Adelaide—and gradually, as the years have gone by, there is now one every two minutes. So you can see how people's lives have been dramatically impacted on. Nevertheless, aircraft carriers and aircraft transport are a major part of today's life. All you have to do is look at what happened over the weekend to see how it disrupts our lives when there are no aircraft. Somewhere in the middle, governments have to find a good balance between the importance of aircraft travel and aircraft aviation industries and the thousands of residents who live directly under flight path, like in my electorate.

Many years ago, before I was involved in politics, I chaired a group within my neighbourhood called the Adelaide Airport Action Group. This group of residents lived very close to the airport and right under the aircraft flight paths. At that point in time there was no curfew in Adelaide. There was no consultative committee, as there is today. There was no airport ombudsman. The only place we could go was to Airservices Australia. I have to say that the service they provided in informing the residents was very poor, but it has improved over the years.

In Adelaide, for example, there was no curfew. That was one of the first things that those residents directly under the flight path lobbied for. The previous member in this place—and I congratulate her—was able to get an Adelaide airport curfew in writing. We now have legislation that protects those residents in Adelaide between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am.

Those who know Adelaide airport will know that it is slightly different from many of the other airports around the country. It is situated at West Beach and is surrounded by high density housing on every single side. Flights coming into my electorate of Hindmarsh cannot be changed because they are actually landing or taking off once they hit the borders of my electorate.

We had a very similar issue in South Australia a few years ago and the flight paths were changed. They were changed in some of the outer suburbs. I can understand the member for Pearce's anxiety on this. At the time many were concerned about the new flight paths. Even though they were outside my electorate, many people contacted me because they knew of my interest in this area.

The Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee has been going for a long time. It has been up and running for a number of years now. It has been used as a model and a showcase for other airports around the country. I was very pleased to see once the white paper came to fruition that consultative groups are to be set up in every airport constituency around the country to work through issues and these problems. When this problem happened in South Australia, we invited some of the residents from the areas that were not on that committee to talk to the consultative group. These issues and the flight paths were discussed. Everyone was informed of exactly where the changes would take place.

At that point Airservices Australia decided not to change the flight paths but then, with consultation over a period of 12 months, they implemented those changes. It is always very difficult when there are to be flight path changes. If you divert or move a flight path, another group of people will be directly under the new flight path. They will have concerns and the people who were previously under the flight path will be quite relieved. Residents who live under the flight path are always affected. It is a difficult thing. Through the consultative group I am happy to say that consultation did occur with those residents and the new flight paths have been implemented with minimal impact.

In Adelaide there were many issues that we are resolved under the Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee. Currently an environment officer attends every single meeting of the Adelaide Airport Consultative Committee. Representatives of the resident groups are also in attendance at those meetings, as am I, or one of my staff members if I am stuck here in Canberra. The environmental issues are also thrashed out. There is good consultation. All those residents who live around the airport are informed and have a say on what takes place in and around the airport.

The curfew was a very big issue in my electorate. I was very pleased a curfew was implemented. Another avenue for complaints to be investigated is the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. I am very pleased that this has come to fruition. The government law went through last year. I, like the member for Pearce, had a private member's bill on a complaints authority. I put that in this parliament on two occasions but it did not get through. I am very pleased that the white paper gave us the things we are talking about today, especially the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. Many of the complaints we used to get in my office—and we used to try to investigate them individually through the minister for transport and Airservices Australia to no avail—are now being investigated by a totally independent umpire. This is very positive and very good for the constituents who live under the flight paths or around airports.

The white paper is giving us a consistent approach. The white paper gave us the airport consultation groups, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and, very importantly, the planning forums. When they are discussing building plans or plans for the airport, there is a planning forum with representation from the area and from the councils. This planning forum has to be consultative. Airports have been privatised around the country and have previously put up warehouses and buildings with no regard for the local government rules and laws. That has had an immediate impact on the surrounding area. Now with these planning forums they have to consult with the councils so their plans fit in with the local area. It also gives the local councils an opportunity to plan ahead because of what is happening in different airports.

As I said, the white paper covers a lot of the things that are in this bill. In fact, I think most of them are covered in the white paper. Many of the things have come to fruition through the office of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Albanese. He himself is very familiar with airports, having one in his electorate that is very similar to my electorate. It is extremely hard for those people who live near and around airports, but I think that the way that we are heading now and the way that we have gone in the last few years is very positive. When I look at the things that are in place today and compare them with the things that were in place when I was in the residents advocacy group more than 20 years ago, there was very little in place for residents to have their views heard, whereas today we have an airport ombudsman, we have the consultative groups with representation by residents associations and we also have planning forums—all of which came out of the minister's white paper. It is a big difference, believe me. Having been involved in these issues 20 to 25 years ago, I can actually see where we are today. Today we have far more consultation, far more advice from the residents, and we certainly are in a far better place today than we were a few years ago. (Time expired)

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

I rise to support the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 brought forward by the member for Pearce, and I congratulate her on all the work that she has done in Western Australia, in particular, and with Airservices Australia and the government in trying to get the recommendations of the Senate inquiry implemented. I also congratulate the member for Hindmarsh. I visited his electorate last year and he showed me the noise insulation program that he fought hard for and that has been implemented. I also note that he said he went out and listened to the aircraft when he was a young boy. I believe that is part of the hearing problems he has these days. The member for Hindmarsh and I share membership of a committee and I just have to remember which side of him to sit on so that he can hear what I am saying. Those aircraft have had an effect on the member for Hindmarsh.

Back to a serious note, the member for Hindmarsh mentioned the white paper. It is unfortunate that the white paper is only about recommendations and the only thing that has been brought forward from it is the implementation of the ombudsman. We look forward to the member for Hindmarsh continuing to fight to make sure that those recommendations are actually implemented rather than staying as recommendations, as we have seen from the Gillard Labor government. The government is not acting on the key Senate inquiry recommendations to address aircraft noise, particularly in Perth and in my electorate of Swan.

I mentioned the member for Pearce and the work that she has done within Western Australia. I would also like to mention the member for Canning and the member for Hasluck, who have worked hard to raise awareness and who have worked with the ASA to get improved consultation with the community, and that is what this bill is about.

Before I go into the whole bill, I would like to give a bit of history about the particular issues that I have dealt with in my electorate of Swan and talk about some of the background to my becoming involved in this bill. In November 2008 the WARRP, the Western Australian Route Review Project, was implemented. That was done with minimum community consultation. The changes were made in November 2008, and that was under the auspices of the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Anthony Albanese, his department and Airservices Australia. From about January 2009, residents from across the Swan electorate started contacting my office to express their confusion and their concern about the changes to the noise levels. I guess it would be the same for the member for Pearce and for the member for Canning in that they had no forewarning of the changes. A lot of people had specifically gone out and purchased property that was not within flight paths—and then, all of a sudden, they were experiencing flight incidents across their properties up to 200 times a day.

In February 2009 I decided to do an investigation in my electorate to see what the responses would be, so I put out a survey to the community to assess the extent and impact of the changes. The response from the residents was unbelievable. So many people were affected, and we would have had about a 20 per cent response rate to the surveys we put out. I think that most members in this House would understand that 20 per cent is a very good response to any survey that we put out. The expectation is usually about seven or eight per cent. Most of the responses were with regard to the lack of consultation on the flight path changes. They felt that they had not been informed and that the changes were having a direct impact on their lives and also on the values of their properties.

In July 2009 Airservices Australia requested the data that we had gained, and we also requested data from Airservices Australia on the changes in the flight paths. We confirmed to Airservices Australia all the things that the residents had been saying. The data we received from Airservices Australia showed a substantial year-on-year variation in aircraft traffic, where they had previously been stating that there had been minimal changes. Then, in August 2009 at a special meeting at Perth Airport of the Perth Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee, Airservices Australia did admit that its community consultation process was flawed. But ASA and the government reject the calls to reopen the Western Australian Route Review Project. Also at that time I had been in consultation and had made some media statements, and the response from the minister was that I was playing politics. But, in looking at the history of aircraft noise and community consultation around Australia, I noticed that the member for Grayndler, the member for Griffith and the member for Lilley were very proactive when they were in opposition. So I was quite surprised to hear the minister state that I was playing politics when I knew that he was so passionate about this issue prior to his becoming part of the government.

In September 2009, we launched a campaign for insulation compensation for Perth residents. Households in Sydney got an average of approximately $60,000 per house spent on insulation, including reverse-cycle air conditioning. If it is good enough for Sydney and Adelaide, it should be good enough for Perth. There is no difference between noise from a plane taking off in Sydney and noise from a plane taking off in Perth. We also called for a review of the aircraft noise exposure forecasting system, ANEF, which has no direct relevance to noise effects across the Perth metropolitan area. It was interesting to note that that system was initially designed for land planning—not to do with anything to do with aircraft noise. The system is actually only a forecast; it does not actually take measurements. Because of that, many people believe that the system is flawed and needs a review.

In October 2009 it also emerged that during the WARRP process there had been no environmental impact assessment done on the flight path changes by the environment minister of the day, Peter Garrett. It is required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. So, again, we wrote to Mr Garrett and to Mr Albanese to seek clarification and to see if there would be anything done in regard to the environmental impact. After a six-month delay, they said that there would be no changes, the WARRP would not be reopened or changed in any way to suit the residents and nor would any noise insulation scheme be implemented.

The member for Pearce, the member for Canning and I managed to work with the Senate coalition members and get a Senate inquiry up in regard to the process of Australian Airservices consultation with communities. We found that, particularly with the Perth hearings, the venue that had initially been set aside was changed to a much smaller room, which meant that a lot of the people who made submissions from my electorate and from the electorate of Pearce were unable to come in to hear the evidence and the inquiry in process in Perth. A lot of them felt as though they had been robbed; and, again, they were not able to get their message across to Airservices Australia. So, even though there was a Senate inquiry, it was reduced to a small room and not all the people who were interested in attending could attend.

The bill that the member for Pearce has put forward is designed to ensure that this will never happen again; that the community consultation process performed by Airservices Australia will be done for the benefit of the community and will give the community plenty of time to plan and to make submissions about any proposed changes to flight path patterns.

I support the bill, because it is a means to prevent this from recurring. But we still need to address the issue for the affected local residents of Swan, Pearce and Hasluck, who are currently still having to deal with up to 200 flight experiences a day over their residences. They feel as though they need to be compensated in the same manner as the people who live near the airports in Sydney and Adelaide are compensated. I feel that the only way they are going to do this is by reviewing the ANEF system, which I will continue to fight for and continue to support—particularly with the member for Pearce—and I congratulate her again for putting this bill forward.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011. There are two airports in the near vicinity of my electorate: Parafield Airport and the Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh. Prior to coming into this place, I was a councillor and Mayor of the City of Salisbury, where both of those airports are located. So I am very familiar with the issues associated with aircraft noise, flight paths, noise exposure, forecast patterns, community consultation processes and criticisms of those processes. I therefore have a great deal of empathy for the member for Pearce's concerns and I well understand why she has introduced this bill.

Having said that, it seems to me that the need for this bill is perhaps not as relevant as it might have been some years ago—and that was a point that the member for Hindmarsh also made. It seems to me that many of the concerns arising from the member for Pearce's experience arise from matters that occurred as part of the Western Australian Route Review Project and which were begun by the Howard government. Decisions were taken during the time of the Howard government that I suspect also underlie many of the concerns of the member for Pearce.

The reality is that the bill that we are debating today fails to recognise the changes that have flowed since this government has come into office—and, in particular, changes that arise from the aviation white paper of 2009 and, subsequent to that, amendments brought into this place as part of the aviation amendment bill. I refer in particular to the two changes relating to the community aviation consultation groups that have since been established and the establishment of the independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. The requirements of this bill are therefore, in my view, unnecessary. They also add considerable cost to airport operations and they do so without achieving the intended objectives.

The fact is that the new consultation process that was introduced by this government is working and it is making a difference. In my electorate of Makin, Parafield Airport last year had its draft master plan rejected by the minister because he was not satisfied with the community consultation process. In a press release at the time, the minister said:

Today I am announcing my decision not to approve Parafield Airport's 2009 draft master plan. I am not satisfied with the community consultation undertaken by Parafield Airport in preparing its draft master plan. Parafield Airport has failed to provide the community with accurate information about current and forecast aircraft movements and they did not adequately consult with those sections of the community that will be most affected by aircraft noise as the airport grows. Parafield Airport should make sure that there is clear public information about the hours of flight training, agreed flight paths, and contact information for the public.

I think that is a clear example of where the government's new process is working and has worked. As a result of that decision, the airport was given an extended period in which to commence the community consultation process and then to submit a fresh master plan for the minister to consider.

Much of this bill arises from the work of the inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise. I note that there were 10 recommendations from that inquiry. I also note that most of the recommendations were broadly picked up by the government, with the exception of a couple, and perhaps those are the ones that the member for Pearce is most concerned about. The first is recommendation 2, which, I understand, talks about community advocates being appointed to each airport; however, since there are 180 airports around Australia, appointing community advocates to each of them would be a very costly exercise. The second is recommendation 7, which also talks about disputes between interested parties in the community and so on. If recommendation 7 were to be adopted by the government, there is no doubt in my mind—and I say this as someone who was caught up in disputes time and time again—that the door would be opened to continuous legal disputes between residents groups, industries and airport operators and that you would probably never get anything achieved because the matters would constantly be referred to the courts and drag on and on.

The processes that we adopt certainly need to be fair and thorough, but they should also be practicable and place realistic and sensible demands on airport operators. If they become unworkable, nobody benefits. As Mayor of Salisbury, I was caught up in many disputes over airports. At the time, we set up what we referred to as the Parafield Airport Consultative Committee. It included not only airport operators and the industries that were located on the airport but also just about every significant department of government at federal, state and local government level. There was also provision for the local community to be represented on the committee. Through the committee, matters were debated, discussed and—generally—resolved. They were not always resolved to the satisfaction of everybody, but they were resolved in a fair and reasonable way. I suspect that most airports could do the same if they wanted to set up similar committees, because it is not out of the question for them to do so. The reality, however, is that ultimately the decision about changing operations at airports has to be approved by the minister. As I pointed out earlier, this new government has shown that it is prepared to be quite strong and at the same time reasonable about what it considers to be appropriate changes to land use on airports.

I have also had experience in dealing with the changing flight path patterns of airports. This issue was very difficult to deal with. Flight path patterns change, and, if they do change, the noise emissions forecasts also change. As a result of that, you have to carefully manage the land use around airports. I recall that we had to go through a process whereby we had not only to negotiate with the airports concerned—and one of the airports concerned was the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh—but also to issue appropriate notices to the surrounding residents, advising them of the noise they might be exposed to if they chose to build and live within the area that would have been under the flight paths. The issue of the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh is interesting because the base does not operate under the same regulations as do the general aviation airports such as that at Parafield; nevertheless, the concerns that arise are exactly the same. Only earlier this year, I raised with the Minister for Defence Materiel a concern that was brought to my attention about the current process that the Edinburgh air base is going through in changing its flight paths and the impact that that is having on land use in and around the RAAF base. While I can understand the reason that the member for Pearce has brought this bill into the parliament, given the changes that have taken place in the last couple of years, I believe it is no longer necessary.

I referred earlier to the Parafield Airport Consultative Committee. Only today, Phil Baker, who is Managing Director of Adelaide Airport Ltd, which also manages Parafield Airport, retires after having been in the position since 1998. I take this opportunity to compliment Phil on work he has done since 1998. In my discussions and negotiations with him during his time in the position, I always found him to be fair and reasonable in his negotiations and dealings. While he had a responsibility to look after the airport, he did it in a fair and reasonable way. I wish him, his wife, Sarah, and their three kids all the best in his retirement.

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill and to congratulate my coalition colleagues the members for Pearce and Swan for their efforts drafting this bill and for raising the serious issues within it. There are many elements to this bill that deserve discussion in this place and, with the likelihood of there being further amendments, I look forward to the opportunity to address each of these issues at a future stage. In the limited time available today, I will focus on the impact of aircraft noise on the people of Bennelong and on how this bill will improve processes and opportunities available to my constituents to redress this issue.

The Bennelong electorate is notorious for the 'Bennelong funnel', a passageway in the air that cuts straight through the region and serves as a flight path for a large percentage of planes descending into Sydney airport. The 'Bennelong funnel' results from the electorate's position due north of the major north-south runway. My neighbours living in East Ryde, North Ryde and Gladesville as well as those in Carlingford, Dundas Valley and Ermington are all too familiar with their automatic 6 am alert that Sydney airport's curfew is over. One of the key ingredients used by Airservices Australia in the analysis and administration of noise abatement issues is the information received from noise monitoring terminals. Despite our region's name being synonymous with flight paths and aircraft noise, there is not a single noise monitoring terminal located in the entire electorate of Bennelong. My representative on the Sydney Airport Community Forum has made clear my request and expectation that this apparent oversight is resolved at the earliest opportunity.

This private member's bill seeks to implement some of the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport following their inquiry into the effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise. The Gillard government took more than half a year to respond to this inquiry and then finally supported only three of the 10 recommendations, with only one having been implemented. Central to this bill is the requirement for Airservices Australia to advise the minister for environment when new flight paths or changes are likely to impact on residents. The current legislation only requires this consultation when the changes are significant—a subjective determination that Airservices Australia has never made in relation to Sydney airport. As the member for Bennelong, I can assure Airservices Australia that many of my constituents will have strong views on whether the impact from unannounced flight path changes are significant and deserve consultation.

This bill will require an improvement to complaints management, a process about which many of my constituents have made their frustration very clear. The bill will also lead to the appointment of a community aviation advocate to complement the role of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman in acting on behalf of communities like those in Bennelong.

Modern technological progress presents today's air traffic controllers with opportunities to prioritise noise abatement over residential areas as their second highest imperative after safety. This kind of progress led to the Howard government's implementation of the long-term operating plan for noise abatement and flight path management at Sydney airport. This world's best practice system set noise sharing targets and included concepts of respite, reduction, redistribution and reciprocity of aircraft noise over residential areas.

It remains a grave concern to many of my constituents and me that the implementation of performance based navigation at Sydney airport will lead to a concentration of aircraft into a single 40-metre path right through the heart of Bennelong. This would be in direct contradiction to the long-term operating plan and would be devastating to those unlucky souls living underneath. A strong community engagement regime such as the community aviation advocate position created by this bill is essential to ensure community interests are safeguarded and that this kind of system is not considered without appropriate consultation.

There exists a solid background to the perception that Airservices Australia is not fulfilling its duty to the standards expected by the community or listed in their ministerial direction, leading to a low level of public confidence in this important institution. This bill will improve Airservices Australia's levels of public accountability and will provide for a consistency in the approach to flight path changes and consultation with affected residents. As the representative for those communities living under the infamous Bennelong funnel, I commend this— (Time expired)

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, not least to be able to correct some of the misapprehensions which have been put forward in remarks from members of the opposition in today's debate. I know that there are a great many people around this place who have advocated for their communities in relation to aircraft noise and the amenity issues which arise as a result of that. It was in part for that reason but for a variety of others that the government embarked on the process of bringing about the national aviation policy white paper in December 2009.

In terms of the misapprehensions that I mentioned before, much has been made of the recommendations arising from that report. It is simply not true to say that there have been only a few recommendations arising under the report that have been reflected on, implemented or are in the process of being implemented because, of the 134 initiatives which are contemplated in the white paper, almost every single one has either been implemented or is underway.

There are a range of things that the white paper has brought about—and it was a fairly comprehensive document addressing the future of Australia's aviation strategy. It is particularly important to note how comprehensive that paper has been because we regularly hear from those opposite about the consequences of overregulation and the lack of necessity for regulation. Yet here today there are quite clear instances where matters which are already incorporated into legislation on our books are being reviewed and reflected upon and put forward in what is really quite a clumsy and fairly legally ambiguous piece of proposed legislation, the consequences of which in some instances may be potentially adverse environmental, safety or efficiency outcomes for Australian air traffic services. I will turn to each of those instances of deficiency in the draft legislation shortly.

This government has a very proud record in relation to dealing with the issue of aircraft noise. It was a result of this government's actions and the development of the national aviation policy white paper that we now have community aviation consultation groups at each of the 19 federally leased airports. I know that at least two of the members of the opposition have attended those community aviation consultation groups—those being the member for McPherson, who has attended the Gold Coast group, and the member for Herbert, who has attended the Townsville group. Presumably, those members of the opposition regard these groups as perfectly functional and useful mechanisms for addressing issues of aircraft noise on behalf of their respective communities.

We have also heard that the government has established the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman under the white paper and that planning coordination forums for airports, councils and state governments have been established to manage better outcomes. So a variety of things have been addressed through the white paper. Those are simply a few of the initiatives which have been generated by this government. Turning now the deficiencies in the bill before us, I expect that my colleague the member for Hunter, who will speak next, will address some of the issues that I am unable to get to in the time remaining to me. For instance, the bill proposes to incorporate reference to residential areas in the definitions, in addition to the existing references to the environment. It fails, it seems, to note that the definition of environment in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act already contemplates the qualities and the characteristics of locations, places and areas. Airservices, in managing environmental effects, having regard to the provisions of the EPBC Act, has long considered the environment to include residential areas and communities. So it seems curious that the bill seeks to legislate something which is already dealt with.

The second amendment that I would like to address relates to the proposed section 160A, which contemplates that the minister should appoint and, indeed, fund a community aviation advocate to represent the affected parts of the community during the consultations. But we know that the community is already represented by the community aviation consultation groups that I mentioned earlier—an initiative of the white paper established by this government and which operates as a mechanism for community consideration. Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, it appears that my time has expired, so I will leave it to the next government member.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has indeed.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member opposite for referring to me as the next government member—I suppose she is Nostradamus. The Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 is designed to amend the Air Services Act 1995. Before I continue, I congratulate the member for Pearce. This bill would not be before this House were it not for her active role in bringing this matter to the parliament. The Senate conducted an inquiry into the matter.

This action was taken because of the arrogant nature and activities of Airservices Australia, who in 2008 decided to change the flight paths in and around Perth airport in what was described as the Western Australian Route Review Project. The amazing thing was that they changed the flight paths without any consultation. When the local residents suddenly found that they had aircraft belting above their houses at five-minute intervals, Airservices Australia said to them, 'Go and see your local member about it.' We local members had never been told. In fact, Airservices verballed us incredibly by saying, 'It's your member of parliament's responsibility to explain to you what is going on.' We had never been briefed. Suddenly we were being fitted up with something that Airservices Australia decided they would do off their own bat without any consultation, and then they handballed the issue to us. Members like me, the member for Pearce and the member for Swan found ourselves trying to clean up the mess that Airservices had created.

This bill includes a number of things. There will be mandatory consultation between government, industry and community, which will be documented and properly explained. Airservices must advise the government when changes to airspace are going to be made. A detailed commentary on complaints will be made in annual reports, including the efficiency and effectiveness of the complaint process. A community aviation advocate will be appointed, which will assist, inform and advocate on behalf of affected communities to the government.

The member for La Trobe talked about the community aviation and consultation groups. Dare I say again, having been a member of local government authorities and a representative on these sorts of boards: they are totally ignored—and let us hope it does not happen in this case. The utter hypocrisy in this whole debate is the fact that, when these issues were brought to the attention of the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Grayndler, he essentially dismissed them. Yet, before he became the minister in 2007, he never stopped screaming in this place about aircraft noise and how it was affecting his electorate. Before the Howard government took over the issue, he was instrumental in bringing about what was called the Bennelong funnel, which funnelled aircraft over the electorate of the former Prime Minister John Howard. The cynicism of the minister for transport in his reaction to these issues just shows you how self-centred he was. The government had insulation and double-glazing programs for houses. Yet, when we called for action for the affected houses around the airport in the electorates of the member for Pearce and the member for Swan, the government totally dismissed us out of hand.

It was not until the member for Pearce, along with concerned members of the coalition, stressed the need for an inquiry, which the Senate undertook, led by Senator Back, that we finally got some action and got the arrogant Airservices Australia to start listening to the complaints of the people. This bill is the result. My only concern is that the marvellous objectives of this bill will be treated with the same contempt as the minister has treated every body else's complaints so far. He is only interested in himself and the Labor electorates around Kingsford Smith airport; he is not interested in anyone else anywhere in Australia.

I will give you an example. In my electorate is a lady called Pat Martin, in Carradine Road, Bedfordale. Ms Martin claims that on 29 June this year more than 130 aircraft flew over her house—one every four minutes for 12 hours or so. She continually contacts Airservices Australia's complaints hotline and gets a nice little pat on the head for having done so, but nothing changes; they continue to funnel aircraft over Pat Martin's house. She bought her property intending to turn it into a bed and breakfast retreat in the hills, but no-one wants to go and stay there. I have sat on her veranda, seeing the planes go straight over the top of the house. (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was ready to say that I very reluctantly rise to oppose this, the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011. I know the member for Pearce well and I know she would have introduced this with great conviction and, from her perspective, for all of the right reasons. Therefore, I am disappointed that the member for Canning chose to be so political about an issue which is of concern to all of us and on which, really, we are debating only minor differences in the way we believe these issues should be approached.

I am sympathetic to the countless families who are adversely affected by aircraft noise. However, this bill will do little to ease this impact and does not take into account changes which have been made in this area since the Labor government came to office—changes that the member for Canning unfortunately chose to ignore; either that or he is ignorant of them.

The bill would require Airservices to consult with communities on any changes to flight paths which would result in any impact on the environment or an individual's enjoyment of their place of residence. It would also require the minister to appoint and fund a community aviation advocate to represent the affected parts of the community during the consultations. What the bill does not take into account is that Airservices is already required to undertake an environmental impact study before making significant changes. Airservices also participates in the community aviation consultation groups, an initiative of the government's aviation white paper.

In May this year, Minister Albanese issued a strategic direction to the Airservices board under section 17 of the act, which requires that Airservices effectively consult with the community on any significant developments or changes to its services. If this bill were passed, Airservices would be required to consult on any change to airspace management, irrespective of how insignificant it was or whether it was on safety grounds. This would result in a significant drain on resources and would impact on Airservices' ability to operate safely and efficiently. I point out that the government's community aviation consultation groups already assist, inform and advocate on behalf of affected communities, the role which this bill would assign to the community aviation advocate.

Surprisingly, this bill makes no mention whatsoever of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. In September last year, Mr Ron Brent commenced his appointment as Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. A core function of the ombudsman is to monitor and report on the effectiveness of Airservices' community consultation processes on aircraft noise related issues as well as the handling of noise complaints by Airservices.

Another significant amendment which this bill would make is a requirement that Airservices provide detailed commentary on complaints made in relation to its conduct, including handling of complaints. Airservices already reports on noise complaints and matters relating to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in its annual report. In terms of future noise complaints reporting, the Airservices annual report will include the independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's annual report.

The bill would insert in the Airservices corporate plan the need to minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the environment and residential areas. The Air Services Act already requires that the board must consider the Commonwealth government objectives and policies in preparing the corporate plan, including the minister's strategic direction to the Airservices board under section 17 of the act, requiring Airservices to effectively consult with the community on any significant developments or changes to its services. The establishment of airport planning coordination forums, another initiative of the white paper, will help improve planning consistency between airport land and that beyond their perimeters. The government has also made changes to the Airports Act 1996 which require new work at airports with a significant community impact to undertake a major development plan.

Over the past three years, the government has taken many steps to abate the impact of aircraft noise and to better consult with affected communities around airports. The bill does not enhance the current legislation but has the potential to adversely affect the safety, environment and efficiency of Australian aircraft services. Further, the bill fails to recognise the improvements which have flowed from the aviation white paper, including the establishment of community aviation consultation groups at our major federal airports and the appointment of the dedicated Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. In these circumstances I am unable to support the member for Pearce's private member's bill, but, again, I state that I know she is very genuine in her motivation in putting it forward and is putting it forward with great conviction. To recap, I believe that many of the issues she is trying to overcome are being adequately addressed by the current minister through his aviation white paper and the initiatives he has taken until now. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.