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

I rise to speak on the amendments to the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011. These amendments result from wide-ranging consultations with people involved in the aircraft industry. Following the second reading speech on this bill in October last year, I made a commitment to consult, and that process was undertaken. I will go through in a reasonably logical order, I hope, some of those changes that have taken place.

Section 10AA revolves around the need to consult and cooperate. The need for effective public consultation to become a legislative requirement is really partly the main reason for bring forward this bill. It is that requirement and the fact that Airservices Australia needs to improve its complaints reporting process that gave rise to this bill. The bill seeks to ensure that a detailed commentary on complaints is reflected in Airservices' annual reports, along with the efficiency and effectiveness of the complaints process. Following consultations, the word 'widely', though, has been deleted from section 10AA.

During the second reading the member for Makin and the member for La Trobe suggested that changes already implemented as a result of the white paper on these matters are addressing the issues this bill seeks to enact; however, not all communities are satisfied with the current consultation process. I would contend that, if the government has already made these changes, this legislation now seeks to enshrine those changes in an act of parliament so that in future they are not matters left to the whim of a particular minister or, indeed, to the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia, whoever that might be, and therefore there can be no rational argument for opposition to this bill.

In relation to section 10A, 'consulting with communities', the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has a provision requiring Airservices Australia to obtain the environment minister's advice where changes to flight paths are likely to have any environmental impact. It was originally intended for the bill to include the words 'likely to significantly affect individuals' enjoyment of their place of residence'. In my view there is a need to do something about the trigger for referral under the EPBC Act, but clearly at this time the bill would not have the wide support it needs without deleting these words. It is a matter that should, though, be revisited in the future, as Airservices currently self-assess whether a change to air flight paths should trigger a referral, and history shows that it rarely, if ever, happens.

In terms of the trigger for public consultation, there was widespread concern that the definition 'any' with regard to changes to flight paths in the original bill was too wide and that it may capture minor track changes necessary for day-to-day operations due to weather or other conditions. This was never the intent of the original bill. However, in an endeavour to allay any concerns, we have proposed to narrow the scope of changes which must be referred for a public consultation process. This necessitates using the word 'significant' to define the changes which can trigger the requirement for public consultation.

Decisions about the future of air flight paths must be reached in an open and publicly accountable manner. The public has a right to expect a consistent and fair approach to decision making. They have a right to be informed of proposals and actual significant changes. That is why this bill also requires Airservices Australia to conduct a new public consultation process following the changes made in Perth in 2008. On their own admission, Airservices agree that the public consultations for the Western Australian Route Review Project—or WARRP, as it is called—was poorly managed, and the newly appointed ombudsman has had something to say about that process as well.

Section 6, dealing with board appointments, has been deleted as it was not generally supported, although it was a recommendation in the Senate report. It has been argued that since the WARRP failures, the government has appointed an ombudsman and established new community aviation consultation groups—and this is a fact; the government has—but I have to say that there are still some public reservations about the operation of the new consultative groups and the independence of the ombudsman. The previous consultative group in Perth, which was called PANMAC—Perth Airport Noise Management Committee—failed, not due to the people who were on it, but due to a lack of quality information, the lack of quality of interpretation of information and the withholding of information. These consultation groups are only as good as the information they receive and their ability to interpret and translate it, and that is a strong reason for the appointment of an adviser—an issue which I will get to shortly.

On section 74A, dealing with complaints reporting, the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport report recommended an independent ombudsman for aircraft noise matters. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's policy is to encourage the development of a quick and effective complaint handling practice. The bill requires Airservices Australia to advise parties during consultations that they are subject to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. We welcome the appointment of the ombudsman as it is assisting to deal with some of those complaints. The complaint system previously was appallingly managed. The new Ombudsman, Mr Ron Brent, has had quite a bit to say about the problems with that complaint process. Airservices Australia maintains that it has worked to improve its complaint-handling processes since the events of 2008 and that these measures are unnecessary. This being the case—if it has been fixed and the new approach is working—I cannot see any reason why we should not enshrine these principles in this legislation so that there will not be a repeat of the failures clearly evident in the WARRP in 2008.

On another matter—this is aside from the amendments but goes to the heart of them—an article by Andrew Cleary in the Australian Financial Review on 24 May 2012 reported Mr Alan Joyce, Chief Executive of Qantas, as warning that growth of Perth Airport was being hampered and that there was the potential that a federal bill introducing restrictions on curfews and flight paths at the facility would be a real threat to the development of WA and Perth. He said this bill should be stopped. This bill makes no mention of curfews and it does nothing to restrict flight paths, so that reporting is clearly inaccurate.

Section 160A includes provisions for the appointment of an independent adviser when a significant change to air flight paths is proposed, to ensure that the situation that arose during WARRP does not arise again. During the consultation period it is reasonable for groups such as community aviation consultative groups to have access to expert independent advice on what the proposed changes mean. As I said before, poor information-sharing and the use of technical language not understood by non-air movement specialists led to the very unsatisfactory public consultations in Perth during WARRP.

An advocate was used in Sydney and, although Airservices Australia maintains that it did not work well, discussions with the former Sydney aircraft noise advocate and other people strongly suggest that it did work. I thank the member for Bennelong for facilitating a meeting in Sydney to discuss this matter. Under the Constitution and standing orders, private members bills are not permitted to increase any appropriation for government expenditure. But the adviser can be paid for from a department's general appropriation, so such a provision would be constitutionally valid.

Once again I would like to thank my colleagues and the many other people who have continued to work with us to improve this bill—in particular, the shadow minister the Hon. Warren Truss, the member for Bennelong and the co-sponsor of this bill the member for Swan, Mr Steve Irons.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 to highlight a range of government initiatives significantly improving aircraft noise management around Australia's airports. I do so as a member with the Canberra airport in my electorate. In rising, I acknowledge the hard work being done by the Canberra airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the surrounding suburbs. As a father of two little boys who enjoy looking up in the sky and seeing aeroplanes flying overhead, I am aware that my views on aircraft are probably different from those of many of my constituents who, while aircraft noise is not as severe in Canberra as in other cities, do note the impact of aircraft. I am in ongoing conversations with Canberra airport to make sure the impact of aircraft noise on Canberrans is minimised.

In the aviation white paper of December 2009, the government set out a path for improving the management of aircraft noise around Australia's airports. As Australia's first ever comprehensive national aviation policy statement it identified solutions and the industry's current challenges and aimed to guide its growth over the coming two decades. The white paper was the product of more than 18 months of consultations and there were hundreds of submissions made during that process. Prior to the release of the aviation white paper in 2009, the government released an issues paper in April 2008 and a green paper in December 2008.

Federal Labor has a strong record on aircraft noise. One of the important decisions we have made since coming to office was to ban the older, noisy jet aircraft, such as the hush kitted Boeing 727s, from Australia's major airports because they contributed to unacceptable levels of noise around those airports. The government gave effect for amendments to the aircraft noise regulations in May 2010. From 1 July 2010, no new services using those types of aircraft were allowed in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns, Gold Coast, Essendon, Newcastle, Williamstown, Avalon and Canberra airports. From 1 September 2010 all existing services using those hush kitted Boeing 727s ceased at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.

The white paper also recognised airport operations have a major impact on community. Issues such as aircraft noise, traffic congestion and pressure on public transport all require cooperative management between airport operators, all levels of government and local communities. I am very much aware of that in the ACT, where the federal government in the latest budget put $144 million into the Majura Parkway, an arterial road that will link up the Federal Highway to the Canberra airport thereby minimising the impact of the airport on traffic congestion. That will be the largest road building project in the ACT's history. I am pleased that the ACT government has contributed fifty-fifty to that road building project, setting, I think, a good standard for other states and territories. There has been a positive response to the government's initiatives from the community and the aviation industry. Airservices Australia, our national air traffic services provider, and industry continue to express concerns over this private member's bill, even as amended. In response to the aviation white paper, the 19 federally leased airports have established local, independently chaired Community Aviation Consultation Groups to help discuss and examine a range of community related issues, including aircraft noise. These are now underway at all 19 airports.

Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented and is actively briefing all of these groups. These local groups are helping to address planning and development issues and a range of other operational matters such as aircraft noise, allowing parties to exchange information and examine concerns raised by residents. Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented on all of these groups.

Coalition members are attending these groups: the member for McPherson has attended the Gold Coast consultative group; and the member for Herbert has attended the Townsville consultative group. Of particular note for the member for Pearce, is the establishment of the Perth Community Aviation Consultation Group and the healthy engagement by a diversity of people on that committee.

Another key white paper initiative was the establishment of an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman to examine and make recommendations about noise complaint and information handling issues. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, respected former Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Ron Brent, is already making a difference. For example, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's 2011 report on complaints handling made 18 specific recommendations for improvement, all of which Airservices Australia is implementing. Similarly, Airservices Australia has accepted the seven recommendations made from the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's review on noise information and complaint resolution for Perth completed in November 2011.

This government has strengthened the environmental focus of Airservices Australia. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided a strategic direction to the Airservices board last year under section 17 of the act, which requires that Airservices effectively consult with the community on any significant developments or changes to its services.

The Airservices Australia board has itself responded by setting up a dedicated board environmental subcommittee. There are also sound governance provisions in place for Airservices Australia, including corporate plan provisions requiring the board to consider the government's objectives, which include assisting the implementation of environmental initiatives in relation to aircraft noise management.

Another white paper commitment is the planning coordination forums which are underway at every major capital city passenger airport. These are the vehicle for constructive, ongoing dialogue on matters such as master plans, proposed on-airport developments, regional planning initiatives and off-airport matters.

Minimising the impact of aircraft noise is a joint responsibility of airports and local planning authorities. It matters for long-term planning in our major cities that developments do not proceed where they will lead to public safety risks or unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. That is why the government has engaged with all states and territories to develop a set of principles for safeguarding airports from inappropriate developments in surrounding areas.

We are not aiming to constrain development but to make sure that airport and government planners work together more constructively than they have in the past, that, through the Community Aviation Consultation Groups, there is now an independent ombudsman to direct further difficulties to, and that Airservices Australia are being proactive in their engagement with communities.

It is in this context that we must question the value of the member for Pearce's bill. Compared with ongoing government aircraft noise initiatives, the bill offers a ministerially imposed, taxpayer funded community adviser scheme with the potential to make community consultation more polarised. It also proposes a reopening of established, safe flight paths at Perth and unwieldy and unnecessary additional consultation and reporting arrangements.

Lessons have been learnt on better consultation on complex air traffic issues, since air traffic changes were made to address emerging safety issues in 2008. These air traffic changes were approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and since then Airservices Australia has carried out a post-implementation review of the changes to see where improvements can be made to assist in reducing impacts on the community.

This government has established a strong platform for better aircraft noise management and consultation arrangements at our airports. We have put a white paper together when those opposite had over 10 years to do something. The frustrations around this bill were created a long time before we come to government, and the government's aviation white paper set out the initiatives for better consultation and better information to the community in relation to air traffic and aircraft noise management issues. This is exactly what is being delivered through the work of the Community Aviation Consultative Groups, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and the increased engagement of Airservices, airport and airline operators.

Debate adjourned.