Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 and the need for the right adjustments to be made as quickly as possible not just for the people of Australia but also particularly for the people in my electorate of Cowper.

I am very proud to represent a coastal regional electorate that is growing at an exponential rate. As someone who was born and raised there and now raising my own family, I have personally witnessed the ever-expanding list of reasons why the Mid North Coast of New South Wales is so attractive to metro migrants, regional seachangers, retirees and tourists alike. We are a region overflowing with natural beauty from stunning beaches to our rivers, mountains and forests. In recent decades, our liveability credentials have expanded to include better healthcare infrastructure, world-class community hubs and sporting facilities, a wide range of schools and tertiary education options, and, importantly, increased access to job opportunities, which have radically enhanced since COVID.

Part of this expansion in opportunity has been a direct result of our airports in Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour and the ability to travel to Sydney or Brisbane on a one-hour flight. Since COVID, the demand on our local airports has increased month on month. Unfortunately, the competitive landscape has declined over that same period, resulting in airfare charges that have become untenable for many people. In Coffs Harbour, people are now resorting to driving more than two hours north to Ballina in order to take advantages of airfares that are a third of the price that are offered locally. Even when you factor in petrol and parking costs—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:14 to 11:42

I was saying, just before the break, that people in Coffs Harbour, because of the systems that have been put in place and the imbalance, are now travelling to Ballina, which is over two hours north, to take advantage of airfares that are a third of the price of those that are offered locally. So they're travelling from Coffs Harbour to fly to Sydney instead of flying from Coffs Harbour down to Sydney because the prices are $200 or $250, as opposed to 600-odd dollars, because of competition. It doesn't make much sense when Coffs Harbour is a regional city of almost 100,000 people with an established airport that can, in fact, take aircraft that can fly internationally. It beggars belief that available fares from a city half the size and hundreds of kilometres away can be cheaper to fly to Sydney.

For regional towns and cities, our transport networks are critical. There is a need and an expectation that these grow with the population and the demand, but unfortunately for the Mid North Coast we have seen the opposite occur. Our supply has dwindled, pushing up prices as much as 300 per cent on what we were seeing in 2019, when I was first elected. I receive daily correspondence from a wide section of the community lamenting this fact—and that's fair enough. It makes absolutely no sense. There are those in aged-care facilities and on home-care packages with families who are no longer able to visit because of the cost of these flights. Local businesses that rely on the seasonal influx of tourists have seen a drop in revenue because of the prices to travel to the destination. There are students who came to our region to study at Charles Sturt University or Southern Cross University who are now feeling extremely isolated from their families who might live in Sydney or Melbourne.

Of course, it's those fly-in fly-out, FIFO, workers who do go to Sydney or choose to go to Melbourne who, prior to the pandemic, made a decision to come to our regions because the flights were available and affordable. Now, it's almost impossible for them to travel on a weekly basis. I know that in some cases it has ended up that these people are no longer in employment because they cannot pay those fares to travel to Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane from Port Macquarie or Coffs Harbour.

One of the notable problems is the slot allocation inefficiencies at Sydney airport. I would like to make the point that the company that manages the slot allocation—and I'll make a declaration here. I do have a Chairman's Lounge membership, but that doesn't stop me being critical of Qantas, just as I'm a customer of the Commonwealth Bank and I'm constantly criticising them. I'll continue to do my job on behalf of my constituents. I'll make this point: of the company that allocates the slots for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, Airport Coordination Australia, 46 per cent is owned by Qantas, and 37 per cent—I'll be corrected, but it's in the 30s—is owned by Virgin. That is letting the fox run the henhouse. It really is. It is outrageous.

I find it entirely unacceptable that Qantas and Virgin have a monopoly over the slot allocation of flights, where you see them not use those slots, in a predatory fashion, to push out smaller airlines. That is exactly what we've seen in Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. We have had Bonza. Bonza were trying to go to different routes, but, of course, they still need a cashflow. Bonza were pushed out because of lack of slot allocation. We had FlyPelican, which was fantastic. It only flew on Thursday and Sunday. It flew from Port Macquarie direct to Canberra, Canberra direct to Port Macquarie and other locations. They're no longer with us because it was not financially viable for them because of the slot allocations.

Now we have seen Rex, similarly, and Rex is so important for regional and rural areas. They service the people that Qantas and Virgin consider a by-product. Rex, as we all know, is in voluntary administration. Hopefully we see them back with some sort of government intervention. But the fact that Qantas and Virgin can actually continue on with this predatory practice needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped right now—not just for the reason that it's a predatory practice but because it affects people in the regions. Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour are classic examples of that.

If I can go to the bill itself, the bill seeks to introduce a new recovery framework which is intended to limit delays, cancellations and redirection of the flights that occur during significant weather events in the Sydney airport space—a framework that the coalition wholeheartedly supports. It is hoped that under this framework there would be capacity to operate an additional five flights above the hourly cap for a limited two-hour recovery period following a declared significant event. The bill also seeks to improve the governance of the Slot Compliance Committee. We certainly hope that happens. It harmonises the rules underpinning the demand management scheme with the internationally recognised Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines.

It provides the minister with the ability to determine the demand management scheme and provide directions to the slot manager. While the detail will be covered in the proposed regulations, it's critical that improvements to the Sydney Airport demand management scheme are effective at addressing longstanding concerns about slot allocation and compliance at Sydney airport to ensure that good performance by airlines is rewarded, anticompetitive behaviour is prevented and new entrants are able to get access on fair and reasonable terms.

We will look to the Senate inquiry to see to what extent the bill addresses the productivity and competitive challenges measured against the recommendations of the Harris review. We feel that this is necessary given the lack of effective community consultation that has been undertaken to date and the fact that the regulations have not yet been formally drafted. The coalition wants to see a more affordable and reliable competitive aviation sector. I say 'the coalition', but I honestly believe that everybody in this place wants to see a more affordable, reliable and competitive aviation sector. With that in mind, we have concerns and issues in relation to the government's bill, which we believe should be raised and examined through the Senate inquiry process.

At the end of the day, all Australians want and deserve an aviation industry that not only gets the basics right but is also accessible and available for everyone. We need planes to take off and land on time, we need choices when it comes to carriers, we need choices where it comes to routes and we need airfares that are stable and affordable. Without this, regions like Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and all the way in between won't prosper. It's as simple as that. The inquiry process will inform the coalition's final position on the government's bill, but I do reiterate that we support the intent and the goals herein, and all of our constituents deserve our full attention and support in relation to safeguards in this critical transport link now and for years to come.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 imposes an 11 pm to 6 am curfew and 80 per hour movement cap at Sydney Airport, protecting the inner Sydney community from the worst effects of aircraft noise; and

(b) other airports around Australia, including Brisbane, Melbourne, and the soon-to-be-opened Western Sydney International Airport are not subject to an equivalent regime; and

(2) calls on the government to consider whether an equivalent movement cap and curfew scheme should be applied to other airports in Australia, including Brisbane Airport".

For nearly three decades, Sydney residents have enjoyed the protection of a flight movement cap of 80 per hour and a curfew from 11 pm to 6 am. Obviously, this isn't a perfect solution, as inner Sydney residents are still subject to substantial aircraft noise, but the curfew provides important protection against the worst health effect of aircraft noise, which is disturbed sleep, and the movement cap provides certainty about the maximum levels that are possible during the day.

While the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 makes slight changes to the movement cap in certain circumstances, the Greens are actually pleased to see that calls from the aviation industry to substantially weaken the movement cap and the curfew have been resisted. The real question, then, is: when the government is taking such care to preserve the substance of the movement cap in Sydney, why are they so resistant to new movement caps at other airports around the country? Western Sydney international airport is due to open in 2026 with no curfew and no movement cap. Western Sydney and Blue Mountains residents are being treated like second-class citizens compared to their inner-city Sydney neighbours.

The transport minister has recently approved a third runway at Melbourne Tullamarine airport. That airport has never had a curfew or a movement cap, and that's despite the lack of an overwater option like there is in Sydney and Brisbane. Indeed, aircraft noise is being dumped on the residents of western and inner Melbourne. We learned at the recent Senate inquiry hearing that the transport minister ignored an independent health assessment showing developmental delays of up to six months in children as a result of Melbourne's third runway. She ignored that study, sadly, instead relying on the one conducted by the airport itself—hardly independent, I would argue.

Then we have Brisbane, where calls for a movement cap and a curfew have been strongly resisted by the government, the airlines and the Brisbane Airport Corporation. The botched community engagement prior to the opening of the second runway there misled people to believe that aircraft noise would decrease over the city. Instead, the exact opposite happened. And it's not just disturbed sleep; it's the long-term mental and physical health effects that come from increased levels of noise. These are not trivial; they are very well documented. Brisbane residents have a very simple ask: a movement cap and a curfew like Sydney's. I don't think that's too much to ask, but instead residents have been mocked and dismissed by politicians from both major parties, by the airport and by the aviation industry.

The Greens, backed by the community, have had some important wins on this, including establishing the Senate inquiry and the ministerial direction to make SODPROPS, which is the best operating mode at the airport for noise reduction, the preferred mode at all hours at Brisbane Airport. That's going to be coming in at the end of November. But these measures will only go so far, as Brisbane Airport is on track to double the number of flights by 2035. That means the SODPROPS mode can't be used as often, and it means more noise over people's homes, more disturbed sleep and more adverse health effects. Sydney gets this special treatment, which we argue should be universal across the country. Everyone deserves it. But elsewhere people's health is being sacrificed to the profits of the aviation industry. It's got to stop. The government must take implementation of movement caps and curfews at airports like Brisbane's seriously.

Labor and the previous Liberal-National government have effectively encouraged monopolies and duopolies in Australia by refusing to step in and hold big corporations to account. We've seen it with Coles and Woolworths and the big four banks, and now we're seeing it in aviation, sadly, where Qantas and Virgin are bullying the competition through a practice called slot hoarding, as the previous speaker mentioned. Slot allocation might seem like an abstract concept, but it impacts every traveller. Here's what it means: big airlines like Qantas book up far more flight slots than they need and then repeatedly cancel these flights. Frustrated passengers buy tickets for flights that these airlines know won't even leave the ground. Last year alone, the ACCC alleged Qantas cancelled 15,000 flights for this very reason. And, to make matters worse, the slot management organisation that oversees Sydney airport slot allocations is, again, as the previous speaker mentioned, majority owned by Qantas and Virgin—a complete conflict of interest. Qantas and Virgin shouldn't be selling themselves slots. It shouldn't be hard to rule out airlines holding a full or partial shareholding in the slot manager.

This is problematic for everyday Australians. New entrants like Rex and Bonza are shut out, unable to access the slots they need to establish viable routes, as the previous speaker mentioned, to those regions in particular. That means fewer choices and higher costs for Australians, especially in those regional areas. People pay more, often to find that the flights they booked may not even exist. Merely tinkering around the edges with slots reform will not fix the fundamental issues with the Australian aviation industry—that it's a highly concentrated, monopolised market that pursues corporate profit over the interests of communities, customers and workers.

This week we've seen just how eager airlines are to offer freebies to politicians who keep their interests safe. The perks flow both ways. The Liberal-National government's actions during the pandemic are a perfect example of this cosy relationship. Under the Morrison government, Qantas received a staggering $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies—money that, by the way, has never been repaid. While millions of Australians were doing it tough, Qantas got a free lifeline to the tune of billions of dollars of your tax money. How did Qantas repay that generosity? They fired 10,000 workers in the middle of a pandemic, including 1,700 illegally, as found by the High Court. This is a clear and shameful indictment of the state of our aviation sector and a reminder of successive governments' truly lame responses to corporate wrongdoing.

To further rub salt in the wound, Qantas brought forward their losses from the pandemic and paid no income tax last financial year—zero—despite posting a record $2.47 billion profit. No income tax—it's completely rigged against us. Nurses, who are at their breaking point, stretched to their absolute limits, and who actually risked their lives during the pandemic, paid more income tax than Qantas and Virgin did. It's absolutely insulting. Australians have had enough of a system that rewards bad behaviour and gives massive handouts to corporations who need it the least. When politicians are getting all of these freebies, it's completely understandable for people to be questioning Qantas's relationship with the very same MPs and ministers that regulate them.

Ultimately, this bill represents more of the same: performative aviation industry reform with some piecemeal changes to a system that fundamentally undermines the real interests of our communities. The Greens will support the passage of this bill through the House, and we will reserve our position in the Senate.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

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

I second the amendment. Back in the seventies, the International Air Transport Association, the IATA, came up with an airline slot system to reduce airport congestion. The initial aim was to regulate and improve the air traffic flow during busy travel times at busy airports. Some airports in Australia fall into the category that this system regulates.

It's supposed to be a 'use it or lose it' system, where airlines have to use their slots at least 80 per cent of the time, or they become available to other airlines. But over time we've seen airlines manipulate the system by slot hoarding. This is a practice whereby airlines schedule a flight and then cancel it closer to the date of departure. This makes it look like they're using their allocated slots so that they don't lose them. It's anticompetitive, keeps competition out and keeps fares higher. It's also incredibly frustrating for customers because they are having constant schedule changes and cancellations of their flights. We absolutely need to reform slot compliance and enforcement and make transparency mandatory. We cannot have a system whereby slots are hoarded by airlines and managed by airlines. It makes zero sense.

But let's zoom out for a moment. There is so much more that needs to be done to fix the root issues of the aviation industry in Australia. It's a highly monopolised, highly concentrated market. The likes of Qantas and Virgin are after corporate profit while the interests of consumers, workers and communities take a back seat. During the previous government, the Liberals and Nationals gave $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Qantas, and, in exchange, what did Qantas do? They fired 10,000 workers. And the High Court found that 1,700 of those workers were fired illegally. We fast forward to the 2022-23 financial year, and Qantas recorded a record profit of $2.47 billion. They paid no income tax, and of course they've made no mention of repaying any of the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies that the coalition handed out to them. If we are going to hand over that volume of money to private companies, the very least we should get in return is a stake in them. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 makes changes to the slot regime at Sydney airport to ensure viability of operations. It also works alongside the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act, which opposes a curfew between 11 pm and 6 am, as well as hourly caps on aircraft movements. It's not a perfect set-up, but inner Sydney will remain protected, by the curfew and these caps, from the worst of flight noise.

Excessive noise pollution has serious health impacts, so much so that an independent health assessment into the third runway at Melbourne's Tullamarine airport showed potential six-month developmental delays in children due to excessive aircraft noise. This bill once again raises the question: why is such a scheme good enough for the Prime Minister's electorate, in Sydney, but not good enough for our community in Brisbane or for Melbourne or for Western Sydney? I've met with countless constituents that are seriously impacted by flight noise, especially with the long-haul heavy flights that land and take off at Brisbane in the middle of the night. I encourage the Labor government to vote with the Greens to pass our amendment to ensure that our Brisbane community have the same protections that are afforded to communities in Sydney.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is an attempt to reform the slot management at Sydney airport, following extensive criticism of the current system. It's an amendment to the original legislation that put in a cap and curfew at Sydney airport. Sydney communities fought hard to get that cap and curfew in the 1990s. They're not perfect, but they are effective and they protect Sydney residents from the worst of flight noise from the airport. Now we see the government preserving and protecting the cap and curfew at Sydney airport, and the Greens have moved an amendment calling on the government to consider a cap and curfew for other airports, including Brisbane. We ask again: if it is good enough for Sydney, why is it not good enough for Brisbane? Why is it that Sydney gets a cap and curfew but Brisbane gets none of those protections?

All we're asking for is reasonable reforms and regulations, not to shut down the airport. All we're asking for is exactly what Sydney has. The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance recently ran a community pulse survey of 1,600 residents, and they found some pretty shocking results. As the member for Ryan and the member for Brisbane have said, the impact of flight noise and flight noise pollution on residents across Australia is devastating. It is not a trivial issue. It has serious impacts on health—physical and mental—and, as we've found out from recent independent health surveys in Melbourne, it can also affect childhood development. Here's what the survey found.

Ninety-four per cent of the 1,600 respondents said their sleep is disrupted by aircraft noise, and 53 per cent said it's at least twice a night. Sixty-six per cent of respondents said they are considering moving house to avoid flight noise, though many of them feel trapped and can't afford to. Fifty-seven per cent said they have physical symptoms of stress caused by aircraft noise. These are devastating impacts for the people being impacted by the issue in Brisbane but also residents across Australia being impacted by flight noise and flight noise pollution.

The only real, substantial shift in reducing the impact of flight noise in Brisbane has been achieved by the Greens. We have secured a direction from the minister to ensure that SODPROPS—in other words, flights departing and arriving over the water—is the preferred operating mode, 24 hours, at Brisbane airport. This is the first big shift we have seen since the second runway at Brisbane airport was proposed.

The question everyone is asking is: why is it so hard to get reasonable regulations? Qantas and Virgin certainly wield enormous amounts of power over our political system and functionally act like a duopoly, similar to Coles and Woolworths. We have seen their political power and the impact it has on decisions that are made in parliament. Tinkering around the edges with slot reform won't fix the fundamental issues with the Australian aviation industry, which is a highly-concentrated, monopolised market that pursues corporate profit over communities, customers and workers.

When in government during the pandemic, the coalition gave $2.7 billion in taxpayer subsidies to Qantas, which was never repaid. They still fired 10,000 workers, including 1,700 illegally, as found by the High Court. In the 2022-23 financial year, Qantas recorded a profit of $2.47 billion yet paid no income tax, by bringing forward the losses from the pandemic, so shouldn't they be repaying those subsidies that were paid to them by the federal government?

When it comes to flight noise, we know that the previous Queensland government was subsidising late-night flights—50 a week, or thereabouts—to the tune of $100 million. Those are flights flying inside what should be a curfew period—not only are the federal and state governments refusing to support a curfew; they're actually funding flights to fly during what should be a curfew period. This includes the 1.55 am Emirates flight. Emirates, who just recorded a $4 billion profit, is getting paid by the Queensland taxpayer to fly in the middle of the night, disrupting people's sleep.

It's not just Brisbane. We saw a third runway proposed for Melbourne airport. An independent health study commissioned by council found that impacting sleeping patterns could potentially lead to increased rates of cardiovascular disease and may affect children's cognitive development. In fact, those zones that were most impacted by overnight flights and that could be impacted by the third runway found that children could experience a delay in reading and oral comprehension of between three and five months compared to children in lower noise areas. It makes you wonder what impacts the flight noise is having on Brisbane residents where they are already exposed to it.

All the Greens are proposing is that we have fair and reasonable regulations on airports across Australia, including Brisbane. All we are proposing is a curfew and cap similar to Sydney Airport; all we are proposing is a bit of balance. What we have right now is an airline industry that maximises profits at the expense of everyone else. All we are proposing is that we find some balance between the profitability of the airline industry, the need to service people across Australia and the impact it will have on communities.

Going forward right now, Brisbane Airport hopes to double flight traffic by 2035. That is not just unsustainable when it comes to flight noise; it's unsustainable when it comes to air pollution in the city. It's unsustainable when it comes to meeting our climate and CO2 reduction targets. It's unsustainable on every level, except for Brisbane Airport Corporation's bottom line and Qantas and Virgin's profit margins. Are we really going to allow a political system to sacrifice the needs of ordinary Australians to help pad the profit margins of Qantas, Virgin and Brisbane Airport Corporation?

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Act and associated legislative instruments establish a framework for the management of air traffic demand at Sydney Airport. The act and its regulations and schemes set a limit of 80 aircraft movements per hour at the airport, provide for a slot management scheme and guarantee access to regional services. The framework was initially introduced largely to address community concerns about aircraft noise and the capacity of the airport. The limit on aircraft operations at Sydney Airport was established to reduce the impact of noise on residents under flight paths.

The slot management scheme gives airlines protected times for landing and take off at Sydney Airport. Slots allocated under the system permit a specified aircraft movement at a specified time on a specified date. All commercial and private aircraft require a slot to land or take off at Sydney Airport. The scheme has not functioned as intended. The Productivity Commission in 2019 and the Harris review in 2021 identified significant deficiencies in the scheme. Firstly, it hasn't kept pace with increasing competition for slots. Aviation industry stakeholders have long called for reforms to address the efficient use of slots, particularly regarding the curfew at the airport, the movement cap, and the issues with regional access.

Achieving a balance between certainty of slots for existing airlines and encouraging competition from new entrants is a key challenge of the scheme. The concept of historical precedence has been problematic. It's fundamental to the allocation of slots. Essentially, if you have one, you keep it unless you misuse the scheme by flouting the 80-20 rule. That rule requires the airline to satisfy the relevant gate requirements for at least 80 per cent of the slots allocated to it. So airlines can keep these slots indefinitely as long as they operate the slot as they're supposed to at least 80 per cent of the time.

This is a system that favours incumbency. When an existing carrier seeks to change its slots, those changes are prioritised before new entrants. This effectively restricts competition for those new entrants trying to gain access to the market. Removal of that fact was recommended by the 2021 Harris review but is not included in this legislation. There is also an issue with the scheme's definition of a 'new entrant'. At present, following the allocation of slots based on historical precedence, the slot manager is supposed to make sure new entrants get fair access to any remaining slots, but how new entrants are defined remains problematic and, again, has not been addressed by this legislation.

There are some important reforms covered by this bill. They include a requirement for additional reporting by airlines and by the slot manager on how slots are allocated and used. There is a provision for a temporary increase in the number of movements allowed immediately after significant or sustained disruptions to air traffic. That is a sensible change. It will enable the airlines to catch up after disruptions and prevent unnecessary diversions to other airports.

But it has been suggested by experts in the industry that these changes are too limited in their scope and their length and they still don't override the curfew at the Sydney airport. The minister can extend those recovery periods, but the process for this, it has been suggested, is unnecessarily cumbersome. The bill introduces a range of new civil penalties and reporting requirements to deter the problem of slot hoarding. We have this existing allocation of slots based on historical precedence and this slot hoarding 'use it or lose it' test, which requires that airlines use at least 80 per cent of their allocated slots. If they don't, they can lose that historical precedence. But there have been suggestions, including by the administrators of Sydney airport, that both Qantas and Virgin have repeatedly taken more slots than they intend to use in order to block other airlines from gaining fair access to Sydney airport. The airlines then spread their flight cancellations across slots to make sure that each slot is used at least 80 per cent of the time and they can maintain that historical precedence. Both Virgin and Qantas have denied engaging in slot hoarding, but there have been many suggestions that it is, in fact, one of their preferred modus operandi.

There have also been many concerns in recent years regarding the lack of competition between airlines in this country, not just anticompetitive behaviour, like slot hoarding, but the effect of the regulatory restrictions that we see on competition in this country in both the domestic and international aviation airline markets. This has also been exacerbated by the Albanese government's 2023 decision to reject additional international flights by Qatar Airways into Australian capital cities. Of particular concern was the impact on competition in the domestic industry from the 2024 collapse of Bonza and Rex. At that time, access to slots was specifically raised by Rex as a significant barrier to its commercial competitiveness.

The minister announced measures to stop this slot hoarding earlier this year, in February, but they have not worked. The most recent data that we have suggests that cancellation rates on the Sydney-Melbourne route remain very poor. In September 2024, Jetstar cancelled 9.9 per cent of its flights, Virgin cancelled 9.3 per cent and Qantas was the best of a very bad bunch with 7.4 per cent cancellations. The airlines would have us believe that these cancellations are unavoidable, due to bad weather or a lack of air traffic controllers, but in that month of September 2024 on 17 days there were no weather or air traffic issues but still 184 cancellations. In what industry is it considered acceptable to cancel up to one in five services? The fact is that the 80-20 rule continues to actively incentivise slot hoarding. As long as it remains in place, slot hoarding will continue and Australian consumers will continue to pay the price.

This bill fails to address a number of the significant reforms which were put on the table by reviews of the Productivity Commission, the Harris review and the government's own aviation white paper. It doesn't increase flexibility for the slot manager to re-time slots or give airlines greater flexibility to use different sized aircraft. It doesn't adopt the suggested international definition of 'new entrants' or the internationally adopted definition of 'slot misuse'. It doesn't change how the hourly movement cap is actioned. Those reforms, which would likely lower prices and increase choice for consumers and give efficiency benefits for airlines and airports, are expected to be included in the slot management system but that is not in this legislation and we will almost certainly not see them in this term of parliament. I believe the potential effectiveness of this legislation has been overstated by the government, which has provided a flawed impact analysis that's based on the assumption all the reforms suggested in the aviation white paper would be adopted, which, as I have already covered, is not the case.

I'd like to point out as well that Australian travellers are still, every day, dealing with constant failures in customer service in the aviation industry. While other industries have a dedicated ombudsman to deal with customer complaints, the airlines have the Airline Customer Advocate, which is funded by the airlines. In 2021 the Airline Customer Advocate was described as a 'glorified post box' and awarded a Shonky Award by CHOICE. The aviation business in this country is big enough and valuable enough to the people of Australia to have its own ombudsman. I ask why the government has not enacted this important suggestion which has been made by a number of independent experts including, most recently, the chair of the ACCC. This week, the Airline Customer Advocate released its 2022 scorecard for the airlines, which I think is a fair demonstration of the timeliness of its responsiveness to the need for feedback on consumer services. The timing of that 2022 report—we're receiving it in November 2024—reflects the effectiveness of the authority. Unsurprisingly, the Airline Customer Advocate basically gave the airlines a fail for 2022. It's very clear that we need an ombudsman to oversee this industry more effectively.

I have also called repeatedly in the last 2½ years for a compensation scheme for the industry. Between grumbling airports and the behaviour of the airlines, Australian passengers need to have somebody on their side. When a flight is delayed by more than three hours in the EU, every passenger receives $415 on top of a full refund. In Canada, it's Can$400; in the US, it's US$100. Australian air travellers are disadvantaged by some of the worst customer protections in the Western world. When our flights are delayed or cancelled, we count ourselves lucky to receive a $20 meal voucher. While the airlines will point out that their on-time performance has improved significantly since 2022, poor service levels remain a really touchy subject for Australian travellers. Just how committed Qantas, Jetstar and Virgin are to delivering good service to their customers will be very severely tested as the Christmas holiday season rolls in.

We've heard time and time again in this place in the last 2½ years that we have an increasing number of industries dominated by one or two firms which essentially represent duopolies. We all know that we have to ensure that the balance is right between business profits and consumer rights and protections. We do not have that in the Australian aviation industry. We need a new robust set of consumer laws for air travellers to be overseen by an airline ombudsman. That would shift the burden of proof back onto the airlines, and it would create a powerful incentive for the airlines to reduce their delays and cancellations more effectively than they currently do.

I will continue to push hard for change in the airline industry not just for the implementation of the other remaining recommendations of the Harris review but also for an aviation industry ombudsman and a mandatory compensation scheme. With cost-of-living pressures continuing to hurt everyone in this country, these would be simple measures to take to make sure that the airlines aren't taking us for the worst kind of ride.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. I welcome that this is finally here, and I urge the government to do more when it comes to increasing the choice for consumers when it comes to airlines in Australia. We need to make sure we don't have locked-in monopolies or duopolies and that there is competition. This bill addresses a longstanding issue that has compromised both the integrity of our aviation sector and the trust of Australian travellers. For years airlines, airports and industry leaders have raised concerns about large airlines engaging in slot hoarding, particularly at Sydney airport. This practice involves airlines scheduling more flights than they intend to operate, only to cancel them strategically, allowing these airlines to attain valuable slots at the expense of potential competitors. Long-term cancellation data is showing that one in 10 flights between Sydney and Melbourne is routinely cancelled.

The Australian public needs an aviation industry that is reliable, transparent and above all ethical. The challenges with Sydney airport's slots management are not a new problem. Last August, the ACCC launched legal action against Qantas for failing to inform travellers of flight cancellations, alleging the behaviour was partly motivated by a desire to hold onto slots at Sydney airport. The now-defunct airline Bonza—and we know Rex has gone the same way—said that they had been shut out of Sydney airport because of slot hoarding by the duopoly of Qantas and Virgin. This shows how the misuse of airport slots can directly affect consumer experience and industry competition. The 2021 Harris review of the Sydney airport demand management scheme recommended a number of initiatives to improve the situation, but they have not been acted upon by the former government and are only being acted upon slowly by this government. When one considers our reliance on air travel in Australia, it's imperative that the government enact those recommendations with urgency to ensure more competition is available for Australian consumers and travellers.

In Warringah, my community relies heavily on tourism. Tourism plays a critical role nationally, in our broader economy, but also locally, in Warringah. Local businesses and jobs are reliant on a steady influx of domestic and international visitors. We know the COVID years were incredibly difficult for so many local businesses, and the difficulty that travellers experienced in dealing with airlines was often unacceptable. That's why so much more rigour and scrutiny needs to be applied to this sector.

A number of my constituents have written in, very concerned about the lack of competition in the airline industry in Australia. Constituents have also raised their concerns about the government's rejection, earlier this term, of the Qatar Airways application to increase flights to Australia. This was a decision that directly affected consumer choice and market fairness. It's incredibly important for the government to make sure it enacts all recommendations of the Harris review but also ensures there is greater choice.

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 introduces much-needed reforms to crack down on slot misuse, enhance transparency and foster a more competitive aviation industry, but more can be done. First, this bill will modernise compliance by establishing new civil penalties for slot misuse. This will provide a clear deterrent for airlines that may otherwise take advantage of the current system. The proof will be in whether or penalties are high enough for that deterrence to happen. That will be something to monitor, to make sure that airlines don't just think of this as the cost of doing business. Second, the bill strengthens transparency by mandating that airlines regularly disclose slot usage. This includes reporting how slots are allocated, how they're used and when slots are lost due to rule violations. By making this information public, this bill increases accountability and gives consumers and stakeholders insight into airline practices. Third, it enhances access for regional communities by allowing these services to apply for any available slot during any new peak-period hours. This provision is critical, as it offers regional travellers improved connectivity and addresses the often uneven accessibility that regional communities face.

Additionally, the bill introduces a new extreme weather recovery period, which allows for a temporary increase in flights following severe weather disruptions. Given the rising frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, due to climate change and warming temperatures, this measure is particularly important. We know this is going to happen more and more—it's a fact—so many of our systems, including in this area, have to adjust to those realities. This provision will ensure airlines have the processes in place to respond to weather disruptions, reducing delays and minimising the impact on passengers.

Overall, the aim of this bill is to increase competition, demand greater accountability from airlines and offer better protections for Australian travellers. I welcome that. These are much-needed reforms to the slot management system, in particular at Sydney airport. Any measure that promotes integrity and transparency in business operations is a welcome measure, but there are further recommendations that need acting upon, and I urge the government to do so as soon as possible.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the busiest airport in the country, Sydney airport is undoubtedly one of Australia's most critical infrastructure assets, yet it faces significant operational challenges due to its residential setting, its limited ability to expand and the variety of aircraft it is required to service. Domestically, the reputation of the airport has been enmeshed in an at times anti-competitive landscape, with practices such as slot hoarding by the major airlines leading to increased flight cancellations, delays and passenger backlash.

More recently, Bonza's financial collapse and Rex Airlines entering administration arrangements highlighted how difficult it is to competitively service New South Wales without access to peak time slots and major routes at the Sydney airport. As someone who grew up in the bush and now represents one of the most significantly impacted communities in the Sydney basin when it comes to aircraft noise and pollution, this piece of legislation is one that really matters to my electorate of North Sydney.

From the outset, I want to confirm that my community does, at this stage, broadly support much-needed reforms to the Sydney Airport demand management framework, but it must be said that this support comes with a caveat. The community expects to be respected and fully engaged in any reform process. Ultimately, the proposed reforms to the slot management scheme generally align with the various recommendations of the Harris review undertaken in 2021 and, before that, the Productivity Commission's 2019 inquiry into the economic regulation of airports.

Let's face it: many of us have all been on the wrong end of a cancelled flight and left with a sinking feeling that we may not even get to our destination that day. We all want a more efficient and reliable airport experience. Reducing or removing the ability of major airlines to strategically cancel flights at the last minute will be hugely beneficial to both passengers and potential competitors alike.

In addition to reduced cancellations, a more transparent and flexible slot management arrangement will allow new entrants and regional airlines to compete for peak slots, improving the efficiency of operations and hopefully resulting in lower prices. Meanwhile, the requirement for airlines to report on slot usage, tighter rules around transferring unused slots, and other measures that increase operational efficiency and transparency are all desirable and again welcomed by my community. Backing this up with civil penalties for anticompetitive slot management practices is long overdue.

However, without discounting the significant and positive reforms contained in this bill, I want to spend some time highlighting what I see as an unnecessary amendment to the longstanding 80 aircraft movements per hour cap on air traffic. In reflecting on the original intent of the Sydney Airport demand management framework, I think this legislation potentially overlooks a key issue. In 1996, following the introduction of a second north-south parallel runway at Sydney Airport, there was widespread public outcry at the exponential increase in aircraft noise and pollution impacting communities living under and surrounding the north-south flight paths. In recognition that these communities deserved protections and that a balance was needed to be found, one that weighed the interest of the aviation industry and the desires of the travelling public with the rights of communities living under the flight paths, John Howard and his Liberal Party took a proposed cap of 80 aircraft movements per hour and the fundamental principle that aircraft noise would be shared to the general election, and they won.

That movement cap has been the cornerstone of Sydney Airport's social licence since 1997. To change it, as this legislation proposes, requires careful scrutiny. Currently, all non-curfew hours—that is, between the hours of 6 am and 11 pm every day—are what they call regulated hours, which means not all hours are subject to the cap of 80 movements per hour. Under the new section 9A, the minister will have the power to make a recovery period declaration following 'a significant disruption to airport operations', and that might be a weather event or a major technical failure or security breach. The recovery period introduces a new concept of a recovery hour during which the cap may be temporarily increased from 80 to 85 movements per hour. The idea is that some flights cancelled as a direct result of a significant disruption can be caught up on the same day.

In her speech, the minister said:

This strictly controlled 'recovery period' will be implemented … to temporarily allow up to 85 movements per hour for a maximum of two hours on the same day …

According to the minister, this change will not increase the impact of noise on communities. This change was something that Peter Harris recommended in his 2021 review of the Sydney Airport demand management framework. He based his recommendation on the premise that, if consulted, impacted communities might tolerate a small increase to operations for very short periods of time while the airport recovers from a well-defined major incident. In effect, he suggested that communities could be convinced to help affected passengers.

Importantly, his review highlighted that, for the increase to be warranted, the following two hours after a serious disruption should already be fully allocated to the maximum of 80 aircraft movements per hour, and that is where this legislation now potentially introduces a rub, in that it does not require that any additional capacity in alternative hours is already completely utilised before an increase in the number of flights is granted. Hence, he conceived that the impact of increasing the flight numbers might result in an additional 10 flights only over two hours and in very rare circumstances. However, this important qualification has not made it into this piece of legislation. Instead, the minister may make multiple recovery period declarations on any given day with no requirement that the subsequent hours be fully allocated or that the flights being caught up are the ones that were cancelled. So the increase to the cap is not limited to two hours, would not be limited to 10 make-up flights a day and may not, therefore, be for a very short period. To put this in context, over the course of 2024, based on data available from the Airservices Australia website, the number of aircraft movements during the peak hour of 9 am to10 am on a weekday was around 66. So there is already capacity in the system to accommodate recovery flights under the existing cap. If a cap of 85 were allowed, the number of increased flights in one recovery hour alone could be closer to 20. I think it goes without saying that none of us would be indifferent to an additional 20 fights over our backyard in an hour.

In addition to the cap, the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport provides a comprehensive technical plan for aircraft and air traffic management that requires Airservices Australia to implement various noise-sharing modes, which are effectively different flight paths that utilise both the parallel and east-west runways across the day, to ensure aircraft noise and emissions are minimised or shared as widely as possible. The long-term operating plan is the subject of a ministerial direction, and Airservices is required to report on its implementation. In my role as the member for North Sydney and as a member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, I've learnt more about air traffic management and the impacts of aircraft noise than I ever thought was possible. I know that under the long-term operating plan my community should receive roughly 39.5 per cent of air traffic overhead, and what is clear right now is that Airservices Australia is either unable or unwilling to implement the long-term operating plan in a way that it was originally conceived. As a result, the north-south parallel runways are overused, and those living under the north-south flight paths are being unfairly impacted.

Not surprisingly then, my office has received steady consistent correspondence from constituents at their wits' end with the relentless aircraft noise overhead. It is difficult to hear themselves speak some days. They can't work from their home, their ability to enjoy being outdoors is compromised, they cannot sleep and ultimately it's making them sick. And it's not in their heads. Instead of the 39½ per cent of air traffic agreed to, communities living under the north-south flight paths are being subjected to upward of—wait for it—90 per cent, contrary to the long-term operating plan and contrary to the ministerial direction. This growth divergence is known and acknowledged by both Sydney Airports Corporation and Airservices Australia. This divergence, then, is something I have repeatedly raised on behalf of my community at the Sydney Airport Community Forum meetings, in my submissions to the Senate inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise, and I raise it again now.

While the report due back from the Senate inquiry investigating the health impacts of aircraft noise has once again been delayed, the negative health outcomes from prolonged exposure to aircraft noise and air pollution have already been well documented internationally. Aside from the impacts of wellbeing and other psychosocial outcomes, there are clear links to increased cardiovascular disease and adverse learning outcomes for children. The ability of Airservices to manage 85 aircraft movements per hour and maintain noise sharing protocols has not been modelled. Given they are already failing to meet agreed noise sharing targets under the existing cap, I would say that it will be, quite frankly, a miracle if this legislation works as intended and does not significantly impact my community detrimentally. In practice, this will mean any time a recovery period is declared, all flights will operate on the parallel north-south runways. If a disruption occurs in the morning, the ability of the minister to make multiple recovery period declarations means that this could last for the rest of the day.

So the effect of this legislation could be to entrench the already disproportionate and unfair allocation of aircraft noise and emissions to communities like mine that live under the north-south flight paths. This is not consistent with the right to health outcomes as purported by this bill. While the overall numbers of flights may be within the daily cap, which is presumably the basis on which the minister can state that this change will not increase noise impacts on communities, the reality is that the negative impact of increased movements will be borne by a very small subset of the community who have not been consulted and who will not be indifferent. Given this, I think it's incumbent on the minister to show why the additional capacity is required at all and why recovery flights cannot be accommodated within the existing operational capacity.

Finally, but perhaps most importantly, the definition of a 'serious disruption' has not been provided, and there's no indication that it will be put into writing in this bill. Rather, this critical definition is currently being negotiated behind closed doors between the minister's office, the department, Sydney Airport and Airservices Australia—none of whom, I would argue, have the best interests of the communities living under the flight paths at front of mind. The Harris review repeatedly made the point that support for temporarily increasing an hourly cap and the circumstances in which that might occur should be developed in conjunction with the community to foster understanding and to maintain confidence in the demand management framework. I would have thought that the Sydney Airport Community Forum representatives would have had a seat at the table in the early stages of these discussions, rather than having to wait to see the exposure draft.

As I mentioned earlier, when John Howard, then both the Prime Minister and the member for Bennelong, enshrined 80 aircraft movements per hour as a cap, it was fundamentally a promise from all Australians to the negatively impacted communities that their rights mattered, their health mattered and their interests were being acknowledged and upheld. I now represent those same communities—residents in Hunters Hill, Lane Cove, Boronia Park and the surrounds—and it's why I felt compelled to focus on this issue today, despite supporting the bulk of the proposed reforms contained in this bill. That the current Prime Minister and the current member for Bennelong aren't standing here beside me is actually really surprising. With the abolition of the seat of North Sydney at the next election, the communities I'm fighting for today will revert to Bennelong at the next federal election, and they would expect their member to be in this chamber. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's own community of Grayndler is possibly the only community that stands to be more adversely affected than my own.

It's unfortunate that a bill that has many positives also potentially reopens the door for a renegotiation of the longstanding social licence under which Sydney Airport operates and that we are once again debating important legislation that transfers significant powers to a minister without complete information. Ultimately, our communities deserve better, and I call on the government to strive to deliver just that—better for all.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An overhaul of Australia's aviation sector is long overdue. From flight delays and regular cancellations to the decline of low-cost carriers that provided important competition to the sector and opaque government decisions to deny greater access to overseas carriers, the system is not delivering to customers. My constituents consistently vent to me each time airlines are in the news that all they want is reasonably priced and reliable flights. But the system doesn't change, and instead they're continuously met with poor-quality services and limited options for recourse. I welcome the introduction of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024. While this bill just relates to the operation and efficiency of Sydney airport, competition and efficiency for Australia's busiest airport has ripple effects throughout the entire system.

In 2023, national cancellations were at just 3.6 per cent; however, nearly one in 10 flights between Sydney and Melbourne—Australia's busiest route and the fifth-busiest route in the world—were cancelled. While I support this bill, celebration is a bit premature. This bill will make rather modest changes to the operations of Sydney airport, with only three of the eight reforms signalled in the Aviation white paper covered. The remaining five are expected to be delivered under reforms affecting the slot management system and demand management regulations. The government has not shared details of what these changes will be, and we cannot be sure if they will go appropriately far enough. I also note that we have not yet seen the government's response to the Senate inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise and do not know how the government proposes to address community concerns about aircraft noise and questions about whether Sydney Airport's long-term operating plan is fit for purpose.

I want to briefly speak to that because certainly some of the residents in my community are concerned about Sydney Airport's long-term operating plan in terms of both whether it is adhered to currently and whether it is fit for purpose. In particular, there's a concern with the lack of adequate transparency in relation to what is actually happening in terms of aircraft movement. A lot of that data is available, but that data is quite opaquely available, and it is very difficult, as a member of the public just trying to understand what's going on, to be able to access that data very easily. I know that is not the subject of this bill, but I want to highlight that there are many in my community who are concerned about this, and I certainly support further engagement on this important issue and through the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Let me return to the bill. The bill amends the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, following the Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports and the subsequent Harris review in 2021. Both inquiries found significant issues with efficiency, competition and governance at Sydney airport, and recommended changes. The biggest impacts this bill will have are through the introduction of recovery periods, reporting requirements on airlines and the slot manager about slot allocations and cancellations, and more stringent reporting and expanded civil penalties for slot misuse.

I welcome the introduction of a recovery period that will temporarily increase movements. This will allow the airport to return to regular operating capacity more quickly, following weather events. I welcome the penalties and stricter reporting obligations on airlines for cancellations and irregular slot movements. However, I question whether the penalties are a sufficiently strong deterrent to prevent slot hoarding and other forms of slot misuse that make it difficult for new entrants to compete. I welcome the decision to appoint the slot manager by a process of competitive tender, but I note that the bill is silent on the issue of airline ownership.

These changes are positive, but they are unlikely to significantly move the dial on competition in the aviation sector. I acknowledge that further changes have been slated under the foreshadowed changes to the slot management scheme, and I eagerly await this detail, but there are also some missed opportunities. Stakeholders in the aviation sector that I have spoken to are disappointed with the decision not to make changes to the 80-20 rule. This rule adopts a 'use it or lose it' approach to gate movements, requiring airlines to use the allocated slot for at least 80 per cent of the time. While the Harris review discussed but stopped short of shifting to a stronger test, such as 90-10, stakeholders I have consulted consider 80 per cent to be too low a threshold to genuinely open up competition and limit slot hoarding. Similarly, both the Productivity Commission and the Harris review found that the 15-minute rolling window in the movement cap had outlived its usefulness and that removing it would allow movements to happen more smoothly and reduce delays. It is unclear why this modest change was not adopted.

The changes that the bill proposes are positive, but they are late. The Productivity Commission review was conducted in 2019 and the Harris review was conducted in 2021. The issue with efficiency and competition in the airline sector has been a problem known to governments of both stripes for a long time, yet it took until last year to get a green paper and until August this year to get a white paper. That's a space of six years and four years between the respective reports and the release of an action plan, not to mention legislation. I note that this is not all to do with the current government—the previous government also delayed taking action on these issues—but it is something that concerns me.

This is reflective of a broader problem we have: governments commission reviews, reports and recommendations, but those reviews, reports and recommendations are sometimes not made public and are often just left to gather dust. Rarely is the government fully obliged to respond and provide clear guidance on whether it is going to go ahead with the recommendations. For instance, I look at the Productivity Commission's report. The productivity gap is one of the biggest issues facing our country at the moment, in terms of economic performance. We have the 5-year productivity inquiry: advancing prosperity report, released by the Productivity Commission, whose main job is to enhance productivity in this country. The report was released in 2021, and it still does not have a government response. We have two separate reports criticising the allocation of billions of dollars in federal infrastructure investment, and again we do not have formal government responses.

In New South Wales, where I'm from, tabled reports require a government response within six months. Our track record suggests that some sort of legislated discipline is what governments of all stripes need—including a legislated obligation to actually table commissioned reports, in full, for the benefit of the community who pay for the reports and the stakeholders who advocate for them, so that those reports have the consideration of the government of the day.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sydney airport is the busiest airport in the country, with 38 million passengers coming through the airport last year. It's also an economic powerhouse: it employs well over 30,000 people in high-skilled, important jobs.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 12:49 to 16:02

Debate interrupted.