Committee view
6.1
A considerable number of submissions to the inquiry supported the
overall aim of the bill in relation to greater community consultation with
regard to aircraft noise. However, many of these submissions did not elaborate
on how the specific provisions of the bill will contribute to achieving this
aim.
6.2
Some supporters of the bill argued that it establishes a more formalised
consultation process by imposing requirements upon Airservices and providing
for a CCA and ANO in legislation. They argued that this formalised approach is
needed to ensure that community concerns regarding aircraft noise are taken
into account as current consultation and complaint mechanisms have proven
inadequate and ineffectual.
6.3
However, Airservices, DIRDC, CASA and the AAA argued the point that the
bill will not address its supporters' concerns. They held the view that the
bill will fail to achieve its objectives and will only duplicate pre-existing
complaint and community consultation mechanisms. Further, they made the point
that if enacted, the bill will potentially jeopardise air safety, increase
costs and have adverse environmental and economic impacts.
Melbourne flight paths and air
space
6.4
Advocates of the bill supported provisions that address issues
concerning flight paths in and out of Melbourne, and enact restrictions on
aircraft activities operating over residential areas, excluding operations in
the public interest. Community groups also supported the proposed provision to
enable affected individuals to request retrospective reviews of flight paths
created or changed on or after 1 January 2012.
6.5
However, Airservices, DIRDC, CASA and the AAA specified a number of
issues and limitations with the bill in this regard. As a starting point, they
raised concern that the bill incorrectly attributes Airservices as the
responsible agency for administering flight paths, whereas CASA, under the
Airspace Act, is the agency responsible.
6.6
Airspace regulators and business operators also expressed concern with
the proposal to prohibit helicopters and fixed wing aircraft from flying at
less than 2,000 metres above sea level over residential areas in Melbourne. They
made the point that if enforced, the 2,000 meter threshold would implement an
approximate 6,500 feet requirement, which would have significant adverse
consequences for airport operations in and around Melbourne.
Community consultation and
transparency
6.7
The committee recognises that many communities located within close
proximity to air transport infrastructure are suffering. It appreciates that
these communities feel that their concerns are not being listened to and that
their suggestions for co-existence and ideas for collaboration are ignored. The
committee acknowledges, moreover, that many submissions to the inquiry from
affected communities support the bill on the basis that it seeks to provide a
formal consultation mechanism which would require Airservices to engage with
local groups.
6.8
While the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by community groups
and affected individuals with regard to aircraft noise, it takes the view that
the aspiration for greater and more effective consultation will not be realised
by the passage of this bill. The committee is concerned that some of the
proposed provisions will effectively duplicate legislated requirements and
practices already in place, thereby inadvertently making an already complex
process more multi-layered, opaque and difficult to understand.
6.9
However, it is clear to the committee that there are significant noise
impacts that affected communities are facing which are not being considered,
let alone addressed, within the existing consultation framework. It is also
clear that current processes, including the CACGs, are not operating as originally
intended. Noting that the government previously described the proposal for a CAA
position as a 'duplicate' of the role intended for community representatives
within CACGs, the committee recognises the need for a significant change to the
way in which Airservices consults with, and takes into account, the views of
involved communities both within and outside of the CACG process.[1]
6.10
Airservices has acknowledged on a number of occasions that improvements
can, and should be made to the way in which it engages with affected
communities. The 2018 ANO investigation into amended flight paths at Hobart
Airport has thrown into sharp relief the inadequacy of Airservices' current
consultation framework. The concerns raised by the ANO were echoed in evidence
throughout the course of the inquiry. In fact, most submitters raised concerns
regarding the nature, quality and effectiveness of consultations undertaken,
the level of transparency and quality of information provided to the public,
the handling of community complaints and action taken by Airservices in
response to community concerns.
6.11
The committee is cognisant that many of the concerns raised with regard
the current consultation processes were considered by the References Committee
in its 2010 inquiry. However, it would appear that the same concerns with
regard to the lack of adequate community consultation still remain. To this
end, the committee endorses the References Committee recommendation that
Airservices serve as a permanent member of all federal airport CACGs. Notwithstanding
this, however, the committee also supports the ANO's April 2018 findings in
relation to Hobart Airport regarding the need for Airservices to conduct its
own community consultation program and for Airservices to prioritise
transparency towards communities impacted by aircraft noise.[2]
6.12
The committee recognises that CACGs are only one forum through which
community concerns can be raised and considered. While Airservices should
engage on CACGs, it should not be the only mechanism that it utilises to
conduct consultation and engage with the wider community. As noted by the ANO
in relation to the Hobart Airport flight path changes, 'CACGs cannot offer
reach to all residents potentially affected by Airservices' initiated changes'.[3]
Moreover, Airservices own Community Consultation Protocol recognises the need
for 'different forms of communication and consultation activities' in
accordance with the level of change and likely impact.[4]
6.13
The committee supports the ANO's April 2018 recommendations including
that Airservices access expertise in community consultation which can inform
the development of a comprehensive Airservices community consultation strategy.[5]
The committee takes the view that implementation of the ANO's recommendations,
coupled with full compliance by Airservices of its own protocols and operating standards
will go a considerable way towards achieving the key objectives contained in the
bill.[6]
6.14
The committee recognises that the review of the Airservices
Communication and Consultation Protocol provides the prime opportunity to
address many of the concerns raised with regard to community engagement and consultation
during this inquiry. The committee highlights the point made by the ANO that as
part of reviewing its protocol and National Operating Standard, Airservices
must now develop a 'more detailed community engagement strategy'.[7]
6.15
The committee also supports the ANO's recommendations which are designed
to strengthen Airservices complaint management process and ensure that the
concerns of affected residents are effectively managed. The committee
recognises that the implementation of these recommendations by Airservices
should provide the necessary transparency and timely information required by
affected communities. Moreover, as suggested by the ANO, effective complaint
handling can benefit Airservices by providing an early warning system, uncovering
errors or oversights and enabling an 'early and appropriate management
response'.[8]
6.16
Noting that the ANO will report on Airservices' progress against the
recommendations through regular published quarterly reports, the committee will
monitor Airservices progress in implementing these important recommendations.
Co-existence and collaboration
6.17
The committee heard a number of proposals to address aircraft noise
issues and ways to improve the existing consultation and complaint framework
from community groups. These include:
-
establishing Airservices as a permanent member of CACGs;
-
improving the transparency of CACGs and its engagement with
communities;
-
conducting periodic reviews of Fly Neighbourly Agreements;
-
implementing curfews and restricting flights at training
aerodromes, particularly for circular movements;
-
moving training airports to regional areas and away from
residential density;
-
reviewing the governance arrangements with regard to the ANO to
enhance its independence and effectiveness;
-
raising awareness of the role of the ANO;
-
reviewing urban flight paths for aircraft operating at 1500 feet,
and establishing designated flight paths that largely operate over
non-residential areas.
6.18
While an examination of these suggestions is outside the scope of this
inquiry, they could be considered by involved stakeholders within the existing
legislative framework.
6.19
The committee the committee strongly encourages Airservices to reform
its consultation approach and processes to take into account community views as
well as suggestions for collaboration and co-existence.
6.20
The committee will continue to monitor the effectiveness with which
Airservices engages with affected communities on aircraft noise and is more
transparent with regard to proposed changes.
6.21
While the committee recognises that there is significant scope for
improvement in the way in which Airservices engages with affected communities,
it takes the view that the bill before it will not provide the effective
consultation mechanism as envisaged. Therefore, the committee does not support
the passage of this bill.
Senator Barry
O'Sullivan
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page