Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

BATES () (): I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government has released an Aviation Green Paper projecting a tripling of flight volumes by 2050;

(b) since the opening of the new parallel runway at Brisbane Airport, that airport is now by far the most complained about airport in Australia;

(c) increased large aircraft traffic and light aircraft flights are already posing significant noise issues for people in Melbourne; and

(d) the Prime Minister and the Government support a curfew and flight cap on Sydney Airport; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) support a curfew and flight cap on Brisbane Airport;

(b) accelerate the development of high speed rail to provide competition to the aviation industry, and reduce noise and pollution impacts on communities; and

(c) address the aircraft noise concerns of people living in Melbourne.

Airservices Australia's last annual report showed more complaints for Brisbane Airport than all other major Australian airports combined. Since the opening of the new parallel runway, I've heard from many constituents that flight noise is acutely impacting the community, especially when they're trying to sleep. Former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: 'Aircraft noise is a major problem for many people in Brisbane's suburbs. There are increasing numbers of night flights disturbing people's sleep. I believe the only solution is the introduction of a night curfew. Everybody has a right to a decent night's sleep.' Health data clearly illustrates that flight noise has a direct effect on wellbeing and is linked to lower quality of life, poorer wellbeing and psychological ill health. This needs to be fixed. The residents of Brisbane should have the same rights as other Australians—the right to a good night's sleep.

The Brisbane Airport Corporation's ambition is to double flights over the city by 2035. The government's own aviation green paper predicts a tripling of flight movements by 2050. This stands to significantly increase noise, CO2 emissions and air pollution. This is not an issue that is just going to go away. Last week, the Greens secured a big concession from the federal government, which could see hundreds more flights taking off and landing over the water rather than the homes of Brisbane residents.

As a result of Greens and community pressure, the transport minister agreed to direct Airservices Australia to operate both runways at Brisbane Airport over the water at once, when safe to do so, subject to approval from the airspace advisory board. This mode is called 'SODPROPS mode', or simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations. SODPROPS mode is not always possible, particularly when weather conditions make it unsafe. However, this commitment secured as a result of Greens and community pressure will mean the government must report clearly to the community on the share of flights going over the water. On occasions where SODPROPS can't be used, the government must report on the reasons why, allowing the Brisbane community to hold the airport and Airservices Australia to account for these decisions.

Once implemented, this concession could see the biggest reduction in flight noise since the opening of the second runway. These kinds of results are only possible because residents in the community have been making their voices heard. I want to say thank you to everyone who has letterboxed, shared petitions, come to rallies, sent emails and helped build this movement. We remain committed to this cause, and we won't rest until we've won lasting protections. We will continue to campaign for a cap and a curfew. By introducing reasonable restrictions, such as implementing a night-time curfew on flights from 10 pm to 6 am, we can sustainably reduce aircraft noise across Brisbane.

Noise reduction mechanisms like this are already in place and providing relief for other communities near airports across Australia, including Sydney Airport, which has had both a cap and a curfew since 1997. Despite recent attacks against communities by the Queensland Deputy Premier, this is not a nimby attitude. In fact, when introducing his private member's bill to tackle flight noise in Sydney, it was the current Prime Minister that said, 'I am tired of those who say this this debate is about inner-city people wanting to dump their problems somewhere else.'

The east coast corridor contains three of the busiest air routes in the world. Instead of tripling flight movements by 2050, we should look to decarbonise our travel and finally build high-speed rail in this country. But, since the sell-off of our major airports and national carrier in the nineties, we've now created an extremely powerful corporate lobby group that has fought to prevent noise protections and fought against high-speed rail in order to maintain their profits.

Ultimately, this fight is led by the community, by people speaking up against the greed of big corporations and speaking up against the major parties that sit in the back pocket of airline corporations. The community is tired of playing by rules for the airports designed by the airports. The Greens will always stand for the community in that fight against big corporations.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion brought by the member for Brisbane. In doing so, I want to acknowledge that every member of this House advocates for their constituents, and I have no doubt that the member is attempting to do this for his constituents. While decrying the fact that it's not inner-city people advocating for something, I'd point out that there are two inner-city MPs with petitions that would put more planes over my electorate—in fact, over my own house.

I know aircraft noise is an issue for many greater Brisbane residents. I used to live in Tarragindi under the flight path of the old runway, and I now live in Moorooka under the new runway flight path. When I look up from my house I see planes flying directly overhead. I also get Archerfield planes doing touch-and-go circuits, as well as emergency CareFlight helicopters and police returning to their base at Archerfield. So aircraft noise is not a theoretical concept used to clickbait and data harvest for me: it is personal. But, as leaders and lawmakers, we're here with a responsibility to the nation to put aside the temptation to score cheap political victories and to consider the broader impacts of our actions on all those they would affect.

A curfew at Brisbane Airport threatens to kill Brisbane's only Qatar Airways service as well as impact international carriers such as Singapore, Emirates, Fiji Airways, Cathay Pacific, EVA, China Airlines, VietJet, Jetstar and Qantas. Domestically, regional Queensland will be the most impacted, with a reduction of 3,100 flights. On the ground, this means that families and loved ones who live in regional Queensland—and remember, we are the most decentralised state—will not be able to visit as often or as easily or, in some circumstances, at all. In fact, many of the overnight cargo flights that leave Brisbane Airport are headed to regional Queensland, and they're carrying things like fresh produce or mechanical parts for farming equipment. They carry critical medical and pharmaceutical supplies, including cancer medications for some of the most remote communities in Queensland. So this Greens bill would make Queensland the only state where next-day delivery of time-sensitive items cannot be guaranteed. Are we really prepared to tell some Australians, particularly Queenslanders, that an inconvenience visited on some Brisbane residents affected by aircraft noise—and, as I said, I live right underneath this pathway—will outweigh their need for life-saving medical products?

At a time when Australians' demand for air services is high—and I'm sure that the member for Brisbane didn't come here by train or drive down—the simple fact remains that less capacity will cause a surge in fare prices and make air travel less affordable, not just for Brisbane residents but for people in regional Queensland and northern New South Wales, and travellers from interstate and beyond. Currently, 75 per cent of all Queensland tourism arrivals come through Brisbane Airport. As an island nation, geographically removed from much of the rest of the world, we're already at a disadvantage when it comes to attracting international travellers, and a curfew would only disadvantage us further.

This is not just about Brisbane residents experiencing the impacts of aircraft noise. The bill affects cafe and restaurant owners. It affects bar workers, tourism workers, airport workers, the member for Brisbane's former retail colleagues and many, many more. In fact, job losses of some 30,000 by 2032 across the aviation, tourism, logistics and resource sectors could be expected if a curfew were to be implemented. And, obviously, 2032 is the year of the Olympics. It would be a strange statement to the rest of the world. For context, 30,000 jobs is more job losses than there are currently employees at Brisbane airport. Economic losses to the tune of $2.82 billion could also be expected.

It's not just passenger fares that would increase. It's also the cost of imported goods—online purchases that everyday Queenslanders make of goods which come in from overseas. It's also everyday household items that would increase in price.

So I do genuinely sympathise with those who experience aircraft noise. I meet with them regularly. I have representatives on the Brisbane airport committee and the committee convened by Minister King.

But, during a cost-of-living crisis, it is extremely difficult to justify any action that would put further strain on the hardworking constituents that I represent by saying that airline prices must go up. We are talking about people: particularly low- to middle-income earners, renters and students—many people that I'm sure the member for Brisbane does care about. We need to get the balance right. But, if you want a place where there are no aircraft, you shouldn't be living in the middle of Brisbane.

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

Many members of the public who aren't affected by aircraft noise may think it's an issue that affects only people who live near airports—and many of them it affects greatly. But what I want to tell the House is that, in Melbourne, and in east Melbourne in particular, it's currently Rafferty's rules in the skies above east Melbourne, and aircraft noise is a very, very real problem for people who live there.

If you think about east Melbourne, for those who don't know, it's an area that's right next to the MCG. One of the things that this means is that there are, routinely, helicopters that come in and fly in a loop around the MCG to have a look at it and to film what's going on. But it's not just helicopters who come in and loop the loop around the MCG, keeping a distance, so they can get a view inside, which of course puts them right over people's houses at a very low height; it's also small fixed-wing aircraft that come in, for tourist reasons, so that people can have a look at the MCG or at Melbourne, and fly in circles around the MCG, keeping a bit of distance from the centre and flying right over people's houses. But it is also aircraft that take off from Moorabbin and Essendon who come in and do a loop around the city, because the MCG is a recognised landmark, and then fly back, perhaps to clock up their training hours or perhaps for some other reasons. That adds to it as well. So, when you look at a map of flights over east Melbourne, it's a whirlpool centred around the MCG. It's a twisted tangle of spaghetti, of flights flying over and over—in a completely unregulated manner, as far as the impact on the residents is concerned.

To add to that, a change was made several years ago for large aircraft. That was savaged by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman for failing to consult the residents. Flight paths and gathering points for large aircraft now are basically broadly over IKEA in Richmond. The aircraft line up one after the other to come in over the city before turning north and heading to Melbourne Airport.

When you add all those things together and the fact that governments over the years have completely ignored regulation of our skies when it comes to residents who don't live near an airport but are affected by flight paths then you have for many people in East Melbourne an almost unbearable situation on some days. Residents have told me of their windows shaking, the noise that means they can't go outside into their backyard and the effect it is having on people's mental health. Some people have said to me, 'It's like it disrupts your ability to just live a normal life.' This is not what people sign up for. At the moment it is completely unregulated.

The people who live there have pushed and pushed against some very powerful interests, who say, 'We're not going to do anything about it because it is more important for people to be able to fly wherever they want than for people to have a good night's sleep or to enjoy life in their homes.' They have pushed and pushed. As a result of that community pressure, with the Greens working side by side, we've secured something very significant from the minister. I thank the minister for her action on this. There will now be a taskforce aimed at better understanding the issue and determining operating procedures that will better protect residents from overflight.

There will be a very big difference if some changes to flight paths are made—not changes that push the problem onto other people but changes, for example, that could result in leisure flights flying down the river or over the rail yards instead of over the people's houses, so everyone can still get a good look at Melbourne but not have an impact on residents. Changes to flight paths could see flights come in and turn at a different point that's not over people's houses, so again you don't push the problem onto other people but ensure that resident amenity is protected.

I acknowledge Greg Bisinella, Shelley Faubel, Matt Faubel, Ian Mitchell, Susan Henderson, David Woodward, Jennifer Owen and everyone else in the East Melbourne Group and all the other people in East Melbourne who have not taken no for an answer and have pushed and pushed. We are starting to see progress. Now we need to see action.

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia needs a healthy and productive aviation sector to support our economy and the many jobs across the many industries that rely on it. The vastness of Australia inevitably means we rely heavily on aviation for our internal movements as well as to maintain our connections to the outside world. My community has a long history in aviation. It started in Diggers Rest, with one of the first flights to take off in this country, and now the Melbourne Airport precinct provides my community with many jobs and employment opportunities.

Directly adjacent to the Melbourne Airport is my electorate of Hawke. People in Sunbury, Bulla and the surrounding areas know all too well the impact our aviation sector has on communities. Now more than ever we need to support workers in the aviation sector and its supporting industries because it brings opportunities and jobs that sustain places like my community. These jobs flow on to sustain the local economies in the suburbs and towns nearby. Some 18,000 people are directly employed across the Melbourne Airport precinct, and it supports a further 146,000 jobs across the community, from cafes, eateries and retail spots to the administration staff and the proud road transport workers who connect our airport to the rest of the country, its community and its economy. The freight task alone is 205 million tonnes, worth $222 billion, around 30 per cent of all of Australia's airfreight.

The airport is an economic lifeblood of our community, so it requires appropriate oversight from government to ensure that we get the best outcomes. We know what happens when governments abandon these communities. When they don't back in workers, it puts them at risk of being left behind.

We have seen this in recent years, such as when the former Liberal government watched on while Qantas illegally sacked 1,700 workers in the middle of a pandemic. That was 1,700 families put through hell while all the time the Liberals were handing out $2 billion in taxpayer funded handouts to the very same company. It's no surprise that many workers, including many in my electorate, took Qantas all the way to the High Court, supported by the mighty Transport Workers Union, and won. The Liberals have consistently shown their colours when it comes to the treatment of workers in this sector.

When it comes to noise, the Albanese government understand the concerns raised about airport developments across the country. Just as we understand the noise impacting Brisbane, we know it impacts communities everywhere. When it comes to the proposed third runway for Melbourne Airport, we're work with the community, the operators and the airport to look at the best solutions to minimise the impact of flights on communities under flight paths. This will mean that greater consideration will be given when these decisions are made to addressing the concerns raised.

This work forms a broader picture in this space. The Albanese government is working to provide clarity and forward thinking for the future of the industry. The aviation white paper will set the long-term policies that will guide us through the next phase of rapidly increasing growth and innovation in the aviation sector so that everyone in our community and across our economy can enjoy the jobs that that brings. It will allow the government's vision for policies on safety, competitiveness, sustainability and efficiency to ensure that the sector is best positioned to continue delivering aviation services for the Australian public all while looking forward to 2050 and the challenges that that will bring.

One of the key issues that it will address is enhancing the mechanisms for consultation and management of issues such as aircraft noise and the redevelopment of airports across the country. This will go a long way towards ensuring communities just like mine get the best possible outcomes in terms of both jobs and minimisation of aircraft noise. It's what responsible governments do—consult widely and work closely with the community to deliver on the promises and reforms that will leave a lasting legacy. We know how important the aviation sector is to our economy, to jobs and to staying connected, and that's why it's so important that we get it right.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.