Introduction
Referral of inquiry
1.1
On 28 March 2018, the Senate referred the Air Services Amendment Bill
2018 (the bill) to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation
Committee (committee) for inquiry and report by 25 June 2018.
1.2
On 18 June, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 16 August
2018.
Conduct of the inquiry
1.3
The committee advertised the inquiry on its webpage calling for
submissions by 30 May 2018. The committee also wrote to a range of
organisations and individuals likely to have an interest in the matters covered
by the bill, drawing their attention to the inquiry and inviting them to make
written submissions.
1.4
The committee received 46 submissions, as listed in Appendix 1.
Submissions were published on the committee's inquiry webpage.
1.5
The committee also received four types of form letters and published one
of each type on its inquiry webpage. A total of 490 form letters were received,
with each type voicing support for the bill.
1.6
The committee held a public hearing in Melbourne on Friday, 22 June. The
list of witnesses is available at Appendix 2.
Acknowledgement
1.7
The committee thanks the organisations and individuals that made
submissions to the inquiry. This work has informed the committee's deliberations.
Structure of the report
1.8
This report consists of six chapters. This chapter provides an overview
of the bill and provides background information on the committee's engagement
on aircraft noise matters. Chapter 2 discusses the key provisions of the bill.
Chapter 3 considers the concerns raised in evidence regarding consultation and
representation on aircraft noise. Chapter 4 looks at the bill's proposal for an
Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. Chapter 5 explores evidence in relation to the
proposals in the bill regarding Melbourne flightpaths, and the review of flight
paths while the committee's conclusions are set out in Chapter 6.
Purpose of the bill
1.9
The 10 proposed items in the bill seek to amend the Air Services Act
1995 (Air Services Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and has consequences for the Airspace
Act 2007 (Airspace Act).
1.10
The Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 has two primary aims. The first is
to provide a consultation and reporting structure around aircraft noise.
Measures in this regard include:
-
requirements upon Airservices Australia (Airservices) to consult with
local communities affected by aircraft noise and to report on aircraft noise;
-
requirements upon Airservices to minimise the impact of aircraft
operations on the human and natural environment, community amenity and
residential areas;
-
the establishment of an Independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
(ANO/Ombudsman);[1]
and
-
the establishment of an independent Community Aviation Advocate
(CAA/Advocate).
1.11
The second aim of the bill is to require Airservices to engage with the
flight paths over Melbourne Airport and to provide for a review of flight paths.
To this end, the bill seeks to empower Airservices with the authority to
prepare a plan for management of flight paths and air space in central
Melbourne. As part of this plan, the flights of helicopters and fixed wing
aircraft below 2,000m above sea level within 5 kilometres of central Melbourne would
be prohibited, with exemptions for emergency services, hospitals, defence and
related purposes.
Provisions of the bill
1.12
The bill would amend the Air Services Act to provide for a comprehensive
consultation and reporting system, primarily with regard to aircraft noise.
1.13
The bill comprises 10 new items. The substantial majority of the
proposed amendments relate to the responsibilities of Airservices and establishment
of an Ombudsman. Key provisions are discussed in Chapter 2, and an overview of
significant amendments is discussed below.
Responsibilities of Airservices Australia
1.14
The bill prescribes a range of roles and responsibilities to Airservices.
These are prescribed primarily within item 4 of the bill, which substitutes
section 10 of the Air Services Act.
1.15
The bill amends paragraph 8(1)(d) and subsection 9(2) of the Air Services
Act regarding Airservices' functions to require Airservices to conduct a range
of activities directed at protecting the human and natural environment,
community amenity and residential areas from the effects of aircraft noise.
1.16
Under paragraph 8(1)(d) of the Air Services Act, Airservices is currently
required to conduct activities to 'protect the environment from the effects of,
and the effects associated with, the operation of: (i) Commonwealth
jurisdiction aircraft, whether in or outside Australia; or (ii) other aircraft
outside Australia'.
1.17
The bill proposes to omit the words 'the environment' and 'the
environment is' in paragraph 8(1)(d) and subsection 9(2) respectively of the
Air Services Act, and to substitute both with 'the human and natural
environment, community amenity and residential areas'.
1.18
It is suggested in the Explanatory Memorandum (EM), that the current
provisions contained in paragraphs 8(1)(d) and 9(2) serve as a restriction on
Airservices which is unable to manage aircraft in relation to community amenity
or residential areas.
Amendments to section 10
1.19
The bill also seeks to repeal section 10 of the Air Services Act concerning
Airservices' functions and powers and to replace it with a number of new
provisions which widen the scope of Airservices' responsibilities to include
consultation on aircraft noise.
1.20
The bill seeks to introduce new requirements on Airservices to provide
advice during consultation on how to make a complaint about Airservices'
conduct, including to the Ombudsman. In addition, Airservices is required to
establish community consultation groups which represent communities affected by
aircraft operations and to consult with them about significant proposed changes
to flight paths and new flight plan routes. Thereafter, Airservices is required
to publish details about the consultation process on its website including
consideration by Airservices.
1.21
The bill further proposes three new subsections to the Air Services Act including
10A – consulting with communities; 10B – Melbourne flightpaths and 10C – Review
of flight paths created or changed on or after 1 January 2012.
Proposed subsection 10A –
Consulting with communities
1.22
This subsection proposes that Airservices take certain actions when
proposing a new flight path that would likely impact on the human or natural
environment, community amenity or residential areas. Under this provision,
Airservices would be required to arrange community consultations.
1.23
In addition, Airservices would be required to advise the Minister for
the Environment and Energy (Minister for Environment) responsible for the EPBC
Act of the consultations undertaken and to request that the Minister for
Environment appoint a CAA to represent the affected community.
Proposed subsection 10B – Melbourne
flightpaths
1.24
This subsection proposes that Airservices prepare a plan for the
management of flight paths and air space within 5 kilometres of central
Melbourne.
1.25
The EM acknowledges that Airservices is not responsible for flight paths
over Melbourne where a substantial number of small aircraft fly at low altitude
over residential areas. However, the bill seeks to empower Airservices to give
effect to a flight plan, following community consultation, which would prohibit
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft from flying below 2,000 metres above sea
level, with exemptions for emergency and related services.
Proposed subsection 10C – Review of
flight paths
1.26
This new subsection would allow a person affected by aircraft noise to
request a review of any new or changed flight path made on or after 1 January
2012.
Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
1.27
Item 1 inserts a definition of the ANO to be established under a new
proposed section 73A of the Air Services Act.
1.28
The ANO would be responsible to review the handling of complaints,
report to the relevant agencies and ministers, monitor and report on the
effectiveness of the community consultation initiatives undertaken by
Airservices, and make recommendations.
Community Aviation Advocate
1.29
The bill seeks to insert a new section 160A into the EPBC Act to provide
for a CAA.
1.30
The role of the Advocate would be to assist, inform and advocate on
behalf of communities likely to be affected by proposed changes in the
management of aircraft noise or airspace.
Scrutiny of Bills Committee
1.31
In Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2018 dated 9 May 2018, the Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny Committee) raised specific concerns with regard to
proposed section 73F of the bill.
1.32
The proposed section provides that the ANO may, by written instrument,
delegate his or her functions and powers to an Senior Executive Service (SES)
employee in the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
(the Department/DIRDC), or an Australian Public Service (APS) employee holding
or performing the duties of an Executive Level 1 or 2 position in the Department.
1.33
The Scrutiny Committee raised concerns that the proposed section 73F
allows the delegation of administrative powers to a 'relatively large class of
persons, with little or no specificity as to their qualifications or
attributes'. The Scrutiny Committee continued:
Generally, the committee prefers to see a limit set either on
the scope of powers that might be delegated, or on the categories of people to
whom those powers might be delegated. The committee's preference is that
delegates be confined to the holders of nominated offices or to members of the
Senior Executive Service. Where broad delegations are provided for, the
committee considers that an explanation of why these are considered necessary should
be included in the explanatory memorandum. In this case, the explanatory
materials provide no information about why these powers are proposed to be
delegated to departmental employees holding or performing the duties of
Executive Level 1 or 2 positions.[2]
1.34
The Scrutiny Committee drew its concerns to the attention of senators
and left it to the Senate as a whole to determine the appropriateness of
allowing the Ombudsman to delegate his or her functions and powers to
departmental employees in Executive Level 1 or 2 positions.
1.35
The Scrutiny Committee also raised concerns with regard to Item 8 of
Schedule 1 of the bill which leaves significant matters to be set out in the
regulations. It reiterated its view that significant matters should be included
in primary legislation unless 'a sound justification for the use of delegated
legislation is provided'. However, it notes that in this instance, the EM does
not contain an explanation as to why it is necessary to leave these matters to
be set out in the regulations.[3]
Note on references
1.36
References to the Committee Hansard are to the proof Hansard: page
numbers may vary between the proof and the official Hansard.
Background
1.37
Managing aircraft noise is recognised as seeking a balance between the
needs and interests of an extensive range of parties and affected groups
including:
-
pilots who want easier access to airports;
-
passengers who want shorter flights;
-
airlines which seek to minimise the levels of fuel consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions;
-
local communities who do not want to have their health and
lifestyle disrupted;
-
airports which want to maximise flight numbers;
-
local businesses which enjoy the economic benefits of local
airport growth; and
-
all parties who want to ensure the safety of passengers and local
communities alike.
1.38
One of the primary characteristics of many airports in Australia is that
they operate in close proximity to residential areas. In fact, there has been
considerable population growth near and around airports in Australia over some
years. As a case in point, there was no residency around the Moorabbin Airport
when it opened in 1949. Today, there is 100 per cent residential density and
the airport lies approximately 21 kilometres from Melbourne's central business
district (CBD).[4]
In the 1950s, there were 65,000 aircraft movements a year and by 1966, there
were 300,000 traffic movements recorded at the airport.[5]
Today, the airfield is open 24/7 and has become the second busiest airport in
the country. The 236,438 recorded movements in 2016 do not include night
circuit training and other movements that take place when the Moorabbin tower
is closed.[6]
The committee was informed that Moorabbin Airport's target is to reach 500,000
movements in the future.[7]
1.39
The committee is also acutely aware of the impact of aircraft noise on local
communities and personal wellbeing. Over many years, the committee has received
complaints from members of the public about aircraft noise and its impact on
local communities. The committee has often taken up these concerns and raised
them directly with the relevant agencies at Senate Estimates hearings.
1.40
Therefore, the committee appreciates the extent of frustration and
concern amongst a number of communities affected by aircraft noise. During this
inquiry, the committee was provided graphic, detailed accounts of the impact of
aircraft noise on people's health and quality of life. Evidence received by the
committee argued that aircraft noise has had a significant and ongoing impact
on communities under flight paths and around airports. Mr Ian Mitchell,
President of the East Melbourne Group explained the impact on his community in
East Melbourne:
Our elderly and sick residents complain continuously about
the noise. Significant sleep disturbance from aircraft noise is experienced by
many residents and impacts general and mental health. It's starting to have an
impact on mental health. House lights shake and doors and furniture rattle as
aircraft pass overhead. Residents with children find it hard for them to rest with
constant noise. There's documented evidence in the medical literature that
aircraft noise can cause all sorts of impairments, hypertension, sleep
disturbance, et cetera.[8]
1.41
A substantial number of submissions to the inquiry also detailed
efforts, often over many years, to engage in airport consultation forums. These
efforts, and the attendant frustrations for community groups were expressed by
Mr Frank Rivoli, Secretary of the Hume Residents Airport Action Group who
observed that:
The issues we raise are dismissed by the airport operator,
stakeholders, the department of infrastructure and Airservices, on the basis
that the airport is an important piece of infrastructure and economic driver.[9]
1.42
To some extent, the sentiments of Mr Rivoli underpin the primary issues
raised during the inquiry regarding the need for balance between community
amenity, safety and wellbeing on the one hand with that of aviation safety and
sustainability as well as local economic development on the other. They also
speak of the need for effective and meaningful community consultation and
engagement mechanisms, as well as clarity with regard to division of
responsibilities regarding aircraft noise matters. These concerns were echoed
in Senator Rice's second reading speech. She made the point that affected
communities had no formal role in consultation processes and she argued for
legislative provisions to provide clarity regarding roles and responsibilities:
What is clear is that we need legislative change to clarify
responsibility and affirm meaningful community consultation and involvement in
the processes that lead to aircraft noise impacts on residents.[10]
1.43
In 2010, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References
Committee (References Committee) tabled its inquiry report into the
effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise. The
committee received 181 submissions and conducted four hearings to produce an
extensive report with 10 recommendations.[11]
1.44
Many of the findings and a number of the References Committee's
recommendations remain relevant today.[12]
The work of the References Committee is considered throughout this report.
Aircraft Noise
1.45
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) recognises that
aircraft noise is the most significant cause of adverse community reaction
related to the operation and expansion of airports. It has made the point that:
As part of proper land-use planning and management,
community engagement by airport operators and other aviation stakeholders is
the key link between environmental stewardship and mitigating environmental
constraints to aviation operation and growth.[13]
1.46
Internationally, aircraft noise has been controlled since the 1970s
through Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs). SARPs set noise limits for
aircrafts by ensuring the latest 'noise reduction technology is incorporated
into aircraft design' and 'demonstrated by procedures that are relevant to
day-to-day operations'.[14]
1.47
The Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 require all
aircraft operating in Australian airspace to comply with noise standards and
recommended practice introduced under the Convention on Civil Aviation.[15]
Under the regulations, aircraft that do not meet these standards are prohibited
from engaging in air navigation in Australia.[16]
1.48
Although regulations are in place to limit the noise emitted by aircraft,
there is no national threshold for a limit on aircraft noise. Mr Jason
Harfield, Airservices' Chief Executive Officer (CEO) clarified that government
agencies are unable to enforce compliance with noise standards because there
is:
...no standard on what an acceptable noise threshold is, and
none of the entities in the management of aircraft noise—whether it's CASA,
[Airservices], airports, airlines or the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman—has a power
to enforce a standard that doesn't exist.[17]
1.49
Mr Harfield added that there are discussions of what is deemed an
acceptable and unacceptable noise threshold, and although it appears to be a
simple concept, it is in practice 'quite complex'.[18]
Mr Harfield further clarified that Airservices lacks regulatory powers to
establish maximum noise levels or enforce compliance related to aircraft noise.[19]
Noise Abatement Procedures
1.50
Noise abatement procedures (NAPs) are used to reduce aircraft noise.
According to Airservices, NAPs reduce the impact of noise on communities by
implementing procedures for runway use and flight paths to minimise the number
of flights over residential areas. Air traffic control is responsible for
implementing NAPs, which may be subject to weather conditions and aircraft
requirements.
1.51
Airservices conducts reviews of NAPs in order to check their
effectiveness. As part of this review process, Airservices will consult
community forums.[20]
Presently there are five reviews publicly available for Brisbane, Gold Coast, Canberra
and Perth (for which there are two reviews).[21]
Monitoring aircraft noise
1.52
The Airservices Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS) collects
aircraft noise and flight path data from major airports in Brisbane, Cairns,
Canberra, the Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Essendon, Adelaide and Perth.
NFPMS monitors are located amongst local communities situated around those
airports; however, monitoring does not occur on private property.[22]
1.53
The noise monitoring program is not conducted in order to determine
compliance with aircraft noise regulations; due to the fact that there are 'no
regulations which specify a maximum, allowed level of aircraft noise'. Instead,
monitoring is conducted to determine the aircraft noise contribution to the
overall noise to which a community is exposed. Amongst its other purposes is to
assist government with implementing legislation such as curfew acts and
regulations.[23]
1.54
In addition to the NFPMS, which is a long-term monitoring program,
Airservices manages a short-term program that deploys monitoring units for a
period of one to 12 months. These units are typically used for areas that do
not require permanent noise monitoring, or in a location where a permanent unit
cannot be installed. This data is published, and assists with determining the
impact of procedural changes and suitable NFPMS sites as well as refining noise
modelling activities.[24]
1.55
Noise monitoring data is produced quarterly, and reviewed regularly by
Airservices to 'ensure they meet current needs'.[25]
Presently there are four noise monitoring network reviews publicly available
for Perth (2011), Melbourne (2012), Gold Coast (2012) and Canberra (draft –
2015).[26]
Responsibility for managing
aircraft noise
1.56
Aircraft noise management is shared between Commonwealth, state and
local governments, airlines, aircraft operators, air navigation service
providers and airports. Stakeholders include:
-
Airservices, which has a major role in managing aircraft noise
and distributing information about aircraft noise management (including
aircraft noise monitoring). It works closely with airports and airlines to
ensure, if possible, that flight paths avoid residential areas and
noise-abatement principles are implemented. Airservices handles aircraft noise
enquiries and complaints through its Noise Complaint and Information Service.[27]
-
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is an independent
statutory authority that is responsible for the regulation of civil aviation
operations in Australia, and the operation of Australian aircrafts overseas.
Its primary consideration is air safety, with environmental effects of aircraft
activities considered thereafter. CASA, through the Office of Airspace
Regulation, is responsible for airspace regulation.[28]
-
DIRDC advises government on the policy and regulatory framework
for Australian airports and the aviation industry, including management of
aircraft noise and regulatory oversight.[29]
-
The ANO conducts independent reviews of Airservices' and the
Department of Defence's management of aircraft noise-related activities. These
reviews typically consider the handling of complaints, community consultation
processes and the presentation and distribution of aircraft noise-related
information.[30]
-
Australian airports help ensure, whenever possible, that their
noise-generating activities have minimal impact on local communities. Federally
leased airports are required to develop a Master Plan that incorporates an
Environmental Strategy that includes the noise impact of its operations.
Airports are also required to engage with stakeholders through Community
Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs) and Planning Coordination Forums (PCFs).[31]
-
The Department of Defence (Defence) works with communities and
local councils located near its bases and training areas to provide advice on
land zoning and to reduce aircraft noise impacts. Defence has an Aircraft Noise
Management Strategy and endorsed Air Force Fly Neighbourly Policy with impacted
communities.[32]
-
State and territory governments determine planning frameworks for
areas adjacent to airports. These frameworks ensure that development is avoided
in areas impacted, or likely to be impacted, by high aircraft noise. Local
councils are responsible for implementing these frameworks.[33]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page