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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes the recent decision of the Western Australia Government to grant approval for a third runway at Perth Airport;

(2) notes that:

(a) this decision will trigger a flight path review in metropolitan Perth;

(b) the last time flight paths were altered in Western Australia was 2008 by the then Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government as part of the Western Australian Route Review Project; and

(c) in 2010 a Senate inquiry into the effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise found that community consultation was inadequate; and

(3) calls on the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to instruct Airservices Australia to commence a review as soon as possible, which includes adequate community consultation.

I rise to talk on the motion that I have put to the House, which is an important motion for my electorate of Swan and Tangney and many other areas—I see the member for Burt here—and indeed the many communities in Perth that are affected by aircraft noise. I wish to advise on further clarifications on this motion to bring it to the attention of the House. One is that the WA Labor government has recently granted Indigenous heritage approval. Two is that this new runway, known as the third runway or parallel runway, will be located at the extreme eastern end of the Perth Airport estate, parallel to the current main runway which runs north-south. Three, Perth Airport released its draft master development plan for the new runway on 31 May 2018, and public comments close on 24 August 2018. Four, the plan includes a draft airspace management plan and proposed flight corridors and the impacts of these on the community in terms of runway usage and aircraft noise. Five, Perth Airport must take into account all the submissions received and advise the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport on how it proposes to address any issues raised during the consultation process. Any changes will require final approval by CASA to ensure that they meet safety requirements.

Perth Airport, as part of the consultation process, has already written to 300,000 residents, briefed local government and is doing a number of community expos and shopping centre visits. My constituents can attend a community expo on Wednesday and Thursday this week at the Canning Exhibition Centre and Showgrounds between 3.30 and 7.30 pm, and there is another one in Rivervale on 4 July. They have also created a dedicated web page and have opened their Airport Experience Centre with out-of-hours access for workers who can't get in between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm. They have also advertised in TheWest Australian and the community newspapers and on social media. So I would strongly encourage my constituents in Swan and the wider Perth metropolitan population to get onboard and have your say in the process. You can go to www.newrunway.com.au, which provides directions on how to make a submission.

This motion recognises that there is a history of Labor not doing anything for the people of Perth on airport noise. I would like to use this opportunity to jog the memory of those opposite. I'm glad the member for Grayndler is here. He is long known as a champion of fighting aircraft noise, particularly in his own electorate when it came to Sydney Airport. The previous, Labor government, with the member for Grayndler responsible as the minister for transport, had many opportunities for consultation with the people of Perth for reviews on aircraft noise. In 2008, the then minister signed off on flight path changes for Perth under the Western Australia Route Review Project. These changes were made without adequate community consultation and caused great concern in the community, about which I've spoken many times, and I know the former minister is acutely aware of the complaints about the lack of consultation.

The review process was handled so poorly that a Senate inquiry was conducted which confirmed the poor consultation by Airservices Australia. But, having let down the people of WA in signing off on the flight path changes in Perth, the Labor government failed the local people again by not listening to the report's recommendations. Of the 10 recommendations by the Senate committee, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport only accepted three. Labor failed to support reasonable recommendations such as reviewing noise levels with a view to offering a noise amelioration scheme; compensating residents affected by aircraft noise, consistent with other Australian capital city airports; and the recommendations of the WARRP of flight paths under the EPBC Act.

In 2012, we tried to rectify this from another angle, with a private member's bill. Along with my former colleague Judi Moylan, the then member for Pearce, we put forward the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 to try and improve Airservices Australia's consultation processes and to reopen the planning process for Perth's flight paths. The proposed legislation was well received, with support indicated from the coalition, the Greens and many of the Independents at the time. But again our endeavours were thwarted. The bill was lost by one vote, 68 to 67, with Rob Oakeshott supporting the Labor government at the time.

Despite this, I'm pleased to see that Airservices Australia are actively engaging with the community and have two staff attending each of the community expos in my electorate. I note the member for Grayndler is next to speak on this motion, so I invite him to explain today to the people of the Swan electorate, and Perth, why he was so adamant about stopping the private member's bill that was put forward.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to have to opportunity to address the issues raised by the member for Swan, who clearly doesn't understand the way that aviation legislation works in this country. The first part of the motion before the parliament is:

That this House:

… notes the recent decision of the Western Australia Government to grant approval for a third runway at Perth Airport …

It's actually the federal government that is responsible for approving airport related activities under Commonwealth legislation—both the Airports Act 1996, as amended, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The member for Swan is part of the federal government, and he's trying to walk away from the responsibility it has for legislation and its impact. The decision as to whether the new runway is built rests entirely with the Commonwealth government. Before Perth Airport can proceed with any significant development on what is Commonwealth land—it's Commonwealth land—it must first prepare a major development plan and submit it to the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure and Transport for approval.

Perth Airport released an MDP for the proposed new runway on 31 May, for 60 business days of public comment. The consultation process will close on 24 August. Subject to actual demand and airline commercial agreements, the runway is likely to open at some point between 2023 and 2028, after four years of construction. As required by the reforms put in place by the former Labor government, the MDP contains a draft airspace management plan which shows indicative flight paths. Before the aviation white paper and our amendments, this didn't even occur. The final design of the flight paths will be consistent with the approved major development plan. The work will be finalised by Airservices in the three years leading up to the opening of the runway. What then happens, as a result of our legislation, is that every five years there's a review of every airport's flight paths and environmental impact, with community consultation, including the community consultation groups that were established by legislation introduced by me as the minister. That's why those processes have taken place—just like the noise amelioration plans under legislation of the Howard government, which have defined categories for either acquisition or noise insulation, that are applied to every airport around the country. So there's automatic insulation for homes, once a certain noise level is given, and there's acquisition of homes once a noise level is given.

I certainly understand there's a need to balance the needs of the aviation sector with the rights of local communities that live around our airports. Airports are not islands, and that's why we had the national aviation white paper, the first ever. Of the 34 recommendations, many of them went to improving community consultation and the oversight of airport developments. The former government had brickworks and all sorts of activities going on at Perth Airport, rather than prioritising aviation activity at the airport that is so important for the Perth economy.

One of the reforms we put in place was to prohibit developments incompatible with aviation use on federal airport sites unless exceptional circumstances exist. We obligated federal airports to submit more detailed master plans. We introduced the major development plan trigger that will be activated by any development with a significant community impact, regardless of size or cost.

Previously, when I became the minister, I remember going to Melbourne Airport and they had a whole new operation opening that hadn't been through any consultation process because they managed to break it up into smaller projects so it didn't meet the trigger. What we did was ensure that community consultation will take place just like we ensured that we established the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and outlawed older, noisier aircraft flying to major Australian airports. Chapter 2 aircraft had continued to fly willy-nilly over residential communities before we took action.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aircraft noise is an important issue for my local community, just like it is for my neighbour the member for Swan and his community. Our residents share similar concerns about the impact of aircraft noise, particularly noise later at night and early in the morning. This is an important motion, and the member for Swan is absolutely correct. The approval of a third runway at Perth Airport is the opportunity to review flight paths in Perth that includes fair and constructive consultation with our community. This consultation should, of course, include communities currently impacted by aircraft noise, but it must also be with the wider community. Fair sharing of aircraft noise is a necessary solution as air travel for work and holidays increases, and one thing that we must acknowledge is that aircraft noise is part of 21st century living.

With federal and state approvals now in place, proper flight path planning for the third runway can commence, which should include a review of all flight activity in Perth and the impact of noise on our communities. Perth Airport is a critical piece of WA's economic infrastructure, and that's why I don't support a curfew on Perth Airport. I've ensured that my position was made clear on this point and that it was public prior to my election.

Aircraft noise and the planning around metropolitan airports and their flight paths are complex issues, but that doesn't prevent us from fairly sharing and reducing noise. As technology increases, especially in navigation equipment, planes are now flying much more closely to a more consistent track, rather than spread across a path. This creates a concentration of the noise. As technology improves even more, there can be options of having multiple tracks used at different times of the day to reduce the concentration and frequency of noise in particular locations. It's about sharing the noise, and this is something I'm very keen to investigate further.

I have been working with Airservices Australia and the federal minister for transport to investigate the installation of a permanent noise monitor located at Shelley Reserve to cover those planes that travel over Shelley, Riverton, Rossmoyne and Applecross in my electorate, and over the suburb of Salter Point in the member for Swan's electorate.

The City of Canning supports the insulation of the monitor in Shelley. It's important that Airservices Australia has the best data possible when they consider the impacts of aircraft noise in our community. Airservices Australia's Review of the Perth Airport Environmental Monitoring Units said that a permanent EMU 2 could potentially be relocated to optimise the Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System.

To improve overall system coverage, EMU 2 could be relocated west of its current location to cover a larger portion of residential receivers.

The recommended zone for the relocation of this noise monitor centres around my electorate and the suburb of Shelley. Shelley, particularly, is impacted by a high concentration of jet departures off the main runway and noise from approximately 25 per cent of total departures. EMU locations have been unchanged since the system was established in 1994; however, flight paths have changed significantly. By having a permanent noise monitor base at Shelley Foreshore, we'll be able to better understand and record the impact of noise in my local community.

We all hope for a lift in the WA economy, and we're seeing signs of that occurring now. Like our mining sector, we should always use this lull to make sure the next upswing is managed better. I'm encouraging Perth Airport to consider differential pricing that incentivises airlines to more daytime flights and fewer flights in the middle of the night and very early morning. Differential pricing can also be applied to noisier aircraft, just like in other airports around the world, encouraging airlines to use quieter aircraft.

I'll continue to work with my community, Airservices Australia and the minister on aircraft noise in my community. I want to thank the Shelley Noise Action Group for their professional advocacy on this issue in my local area. It's a decade since flight paths were altered in Western Australia, and a review is well overdue—a review that will properly plan for the third runway at Perth Airport, a review that will make sure the impact of aircraft noise in suburbs like Shelley, Riverton, Rossmoyne and Applecross in my electorate is properly understood and the proper actions are taken to make sure we can fairly share and reduce aircraft noise.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion, which I wasn't originally going to do, but having heard the erudite contributions from the member for Swan and the member for Tangney, who rightly observed that the electorate of Burt and its residents are also affected by noise from the airport, I wish to make this salient point. If, by calling for a review and, in particular, further sharing of aircraft noise, they are seeking to increase the level of aircraft noise suffered by the residents of Burt, that will be on their heads. Thank you.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, this debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.