Additional comments from Australian Greens Senators

1.1The Australian Greens welcome the majority of recommendations agreed to by the committee as small positive steps towards alleviating aircraft noise for affected residents. However, our general view is that these recommendations do not address the structures that prioritise the profits of the aviation industry over the health, wellbeing and amenity of residents.

Structural changes are needed to actually address noise

1.2Most notably, the committee does not recommend implementing or even considering curfews or movement caps at any airports in Australia that do not already have them.

1.3The inquiry heard significant evidence both for and against movement caps and curfews. Various studies have been conducted by airports showing the potential economic impact of curfews and movement caps. However, as the majority report notes, no equivalent modelling exists measuring the economic cost of not having a curfew through lost productivity and health impacts from loss of sleep and general amenity.

1.4In the case of Brisbane, the study commissioned by Brisbane Airport and conducted by Queensland Economic and Advocacy Solutions (QEAS) received significant scrutiny in submissions. Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) noted, for example, the fact that the QEAS study does not appear to account for schedule changes as a result of curfews or movement caps, or alternative methods of transport. Similarly, the argument that a curfew and movement cap would hurt regional Queensland was questioned at the Brisbane hearing in April by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, forcing Brisbane Airport Corporation to admit that, in fact, prioritisation of regional flights in slot allocation would mitigate these concerns.[1]

1.5In the case of Melbourne, where a new third runway has been approved, and with the approval of the new Western Sydney International Airport, curfews would play an important role in minimising noise pollution for residents. According to Melbourne Airport, the Melbourne third runway will see an extra 136500 additional flights each year. Commercial flights arriving and departing Melbourne airport use a turning point over Burnley which means that all large aircraft travel over East Melbourne enroute to or from Melbourne airport. For residents of Melbourne's western suburbs and East Melbourne the additional noise impacts of these additional flights, without curfew, risk devastating consequences on the wellbeing of residents.

1.6It is therefore unclear why the committee did not recommend an independent study into the potential economic impacts and benefits of having curfews and movement caps at additional airports around Australia, to ensure that the Government's position on these issues is in line with the evidence, and not simply reliant on studies provided by the for-profit aviation industry. Such a study should explicitly include an assessment of the equivalent economic impacts of unrestricted nighttime operations, and operations without a movement cap.

1.7The majority report asserts that 'caps and curfews tend to be blunt tools that restrict all types of aircraft, even ones that may not cause a significant noise impact'. This is not the case even here in Australia. For example, the dispensation scheme at Sydney Airport excludes specific types and uses of aircraft from the curfew. There is no reason why similar or more extensive exceptions could not be included if other curfew and cap schemes were introduced around the country. We submit that in fact, the 'blunt tool' is the unrestricted 24/7 operation of aircraft at most airports around Australia, with little to no regard to community impact.

1.8It is clear that communities impacted by aircraft noise (both those who live close to, and those who live further away from, airports) do not feel that their concerns are being adequately heard or addressed by those with responsibility for aircraft noise.

1.9The committee also avoids specifically recommending a Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) be developed for Brisbane. It is unclear why the committee did not recommend this, as the report notes extensive evidence that, while the Sydney Airport LTOP is not perfect (and arguably needs to be updated to modernise it), its role in noise mitigation is critical. The committee does not provide any evidence why an LTOP should not be developed for other airports around Australia.

1.10While acknowledging the role of this inquiry in examining the more immediate impacts and direct mitigation of aircraft noise, the Australian Greens would also have liked to see more consideration of broader issues in the sector—like high speed rail uptake as a long-term alternative to air travel, and the case for broader public ownership of the sector. These two issues were within the terms of reference but were not closely examined.

1.11As for-profit entities, airlines and airports have an obligation to maximise shareholder returns, and the effect of that is that they will advocate against substantial measures to address aircraft noise. For example, the majority report notes the disproportionate access to the Minister that the airlines, airports and industry groups enjoy, compared to community groups like BFPCA and even the Chair of the AAB who have both been unable to secure a meeting with the Minister in this term of Parliament.

1.12Even the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission notes that airports, in particular, are natural monopolies:

Each airport, just as any other private business in Australia, seeks to maximise its profits. As monopolies that are not constrained by competition, airports seek to achieve this by charging monopoly prices, while limiting output and service levels. Airports may also under or over invest in their infrastructure and lack incentives to operate efficiently or to adopt innovative technologies and service models.[2]

1.13They also, of course, lack incentives to reduce noise. To stop the exploitation of this natural monopoly, the Government should consider bringing airports back into public ownership, or at the very least re-examine the costs and benefits of privatisation before each of the 99-year airport leases are up for renewal in the 2040s.

1.14Under the Government's current plan, high speed rail connecting the east coast capital cities—Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne—is not likely to be fully completed and operational until the 2060s, or possibly even the 2070s. The Greens submit that this timeline should be accelerated, not just due to aircraft noise, but also for the other substantial benefits of high speed rail: reduced emissions, competition to the airline sector, and economic development for regional communities.

1.15The Australian Greens recommend that the Government accelerates the timeline for the construction of the East Coast High Speed Rail project.

Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)

1.16The inquiry heard extensive evidence, especially at the Canberra hearing, regarding the outdated ANEF. Most notably, the study it is reliant on for calculating noise impacts is more than 40 years old.

1.17The Australian Greens support directing Standards Australia to update the underlying calculations behind the ANEF, and making the contour levels as clear and accessible as possible to the public, given they are the main legislative requirement for calculating noise impacts when new airports and runways are approved. It is unclear why the committee did not make this an explicit recommendation, despite the large amount of evidence included in the majority report.

1.18The Australian Greens recommend that the Government directs Standards Australia to update the underlying calculation behind the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast.

Health impact study must be independent of the aviation industry

1.19The Australian Greens strongly support further study into the health impacts of aircraft noise, noting the lack of Australian research into this area.

1.20We have heard from our local communities how deleterious the impact of aircraft noise has been on their lives. For example, the East Melbourne community has shared with us for over a decade their daily suffering and reduced quality of life as a result of the combined effect of overhead flights—both light and large aircraft—which has resulted in a concentrated noise corridor over inner Melbourne. We have heard how residents in Melbourne's west and inner suburbs have been unable to use their outdoor spaces due to noise, how their homes shake and rattle from helicopter noise, how their conversations inside are often disrupted by aircraft noise, and of the physiological and mental health consequences of the noise on their lives.

1.21Communities in Brisbane face very similar challenges and impacts to their health. A recent survey exposed the extent of the impacts Brisbane residents face due to aircraft noise. Many expressed that they were unable to get a good night's sleep: 35% of respondents were woken up more than two times in a night due to aircraft noise, while 94% of respondents experienced interrupted sleep overall. The survey also highlighted a concerning trend in mental health deterioration. People expressed frustration over the lack of sleep, but also felt they could not enjoy their homes and recreational spaces, leaving them with little reprieve from the daily stresses of life: 74% of respondents said their mental health had deteriorated over time due to aircraft noise. Another concerning trend is the amount of people responding that reported depression and anxiety symptoms alongside 57% of respondents reporting physical symptoms of stress.[3]

1.22We submit that the committee's recommendation should be more specific about the independence of this study, given previous instances of the Government relying on studies commissioned by airports themselves. For example, the health assessment that the Minister relied on for the approval of Melbourne Airport's third runway was conducted by Australia Pacific Airports Corporation (Melbourne Airport).

1.23Melbourne Airport noted their health assessment had received criticism during the Canberra hearing of this inquiry. Despite this, the department confirmed that only the Melbourne Airport study had been considered in the approval of the third runway, explicitly excluding other evidence, such as the independent health assessment commissioned by Brimbank City Council. That assessment concluded that, among other impacts, the third runway would result in developmental delays in children.[4]

1.24The government should not be relying on studies commissioned by entities that have a profit incentive to increase aircraft volumes, and therefore levels of noise. Relying on these studies, where conflicts of interest exist, also negatively affects public perception and the social licence of the resulting approvals.

1.25The Australian Greens recommend that health impact studies must not be commissioned by entities that have a conflict of interest in relation to the aviation industry.

ICAO Balanced Approach to Noise Chapter 14

1.26The committee's recommendation adopts one of the suggestions from Brisbane Airport Corporation's supplementary submission, which is to require aircraft operating at night to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Chapter 14 requirements. This appears to be the most significant recommended change that the committee has agreed to for Brisbane Airport, and would lead to actual noise reductions for Brisbane residents. However, it is unclear exactly what the implications would be. It is our understanding that different combinations of aircraft models and engine types are certified under different ICAO noise chapters, so it is difficult to determine if certain flights, like the daily Emirates 1:55am service to Dubai currently operating on an Airbus A380, would be excluded from nighttime service without further technical advice.

1.27The Australian Greens support a curfew and movement cap for Brisbane Airport as a measure necessary over the long-term to combat excessive aircraft noise. As a meaningful step towards a full curfew, we would also encourage the Government to consider smaller changes that restrict the noisiest and largest types of aircraft that are typically used only for international flights—such as the Airbus A380 and A330, and the Boeing 777—at nighttime.

1.28The Australian Greens recommend that the Government implements a curfew and movement cap for Brisbane Airport.

1.29The Australian Greens recommend that the Government considers smaller changes that restrict the noisiest and largest types of aircraft that are typically only used for international flights, at nighttime.

Changes to Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs)

1.30The majority report notes extensive evidence to the inquiry from members of CACGs, and Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB), of the lack of tangible noise reduction outcomes from these groups, with the notable exception of the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF). Limitations include lack of technical advice, and lack of engagement from the department with suggestions from the community.

1.31The Australian Greens support measures to reform these groups to be more effective in representing community concerns. We submit that the committee's recommendation should go further and direct the Minister to consider reinstating the Aviation Community Advocate role to provide independent technical advice to forum participants. This role should be very clearly separate and independent from Airservices Australia.

1.32We also submit that, in the case of Brisbane, where Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (BACACG) and AAB have overlapping remits, these entities should be merged into a new, independent forum with expanded terms of reference, similar to the SACF. The expanded terms of reference should include health and other adjacent areas that are currently excluded from AAB's terms of reference.

1.33The Australian Greens recommend that the Government introduces reforms to Community Aviation Consultation Groups that would support them to more effectively represent community concerns.

1.34The Australian Greens recommend that the Government reinstates the Aviation Community Advocate, separate and independent from Airservices Australia.

1.35The Australian Greens recommend that, where the Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group and Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board have overlapping remits, these entities be merged into a new, independent forum with expanded terms of reference.

Impact of General Aviation

1.36The majority report notes evidence from community groups around the country detailing issues with General Aviation (GA) airports and recommends increased use of 'Fly Neighbourly' agreements. The Greens also support further use of these agreements but note that they are non-binding with no enforcement mechanisms. As such, the Greens submit that stricter regulations, like 'no-fly' zones over residential areas, should be considered.

1.37For example, for flights departing from the two GA airports in Melbourne (Essendon and Moorabbin) there was previously an understanding that aircraft would fly over transport corridors, the Yarra River and Port Phillip Bay, avoiding residential areas. However, this no longer occurs, and pilots are free to choose their flight paths, including over areas such as the Central Business District, which present a safety hazard in addition to noise, as incidents involving light aircraft and resulting in casualties have been reported over the years.

1.38Similarly in Brisbane, flights out of Archerfield Airport fly at low altitudes underneath the arrival and departure paths from Brisbane Airport. Residents have raised concerns about the use of leaded fuel ('AvGas') in these aircraft, noting the lack of prescribed flight paths and the lack of monitoring by any Federal agency, as revealed in the inquiry. This was raised with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the department and Airservices after the committee was made aware through a confidential submission of a positive lead test in tank water in Brisbane.[5]

1.39The Australian Greens recommend that the Government considers introducing 'no-fly' zones over residential areas for General Aviation aircraft.

1.40The Australian Greens recommend that the Government urgently develops a scheme to monitor the use of leaded fuel by General Aviation aircraft and ensure it is not adversely affecting the health of nearby residents.

Over water operations

1.41The committee heard extensive evidence on over water operations, especially the use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPs) mode at Brisbane Airport, which is generally considered to be the best operational mode for noise reduction as it directs both arrivals and departures over the water.

1.42At the Canberra hearing, Airservices confirmed that the recent Ministerial Direction implemented SODPROPs as preferred operating mode 24/7 at Brisbane Airport from 28 November 2024. This commitment was secured by the Greens with the backing of the Brisbane community late last year. 24/7 SODPROPs as preferred mode was originally promised with the approval of the second runway, but was quietly dropped before it opened.

1.43Airservices should consider whether similar changes are possible at other airports around Australia, where an operational change could enable more flights to be concentrated over water rather than over peoples’ homes.

1.44The Australian Greens recommend that the Minister should direct Airservices to explicitly prioritise over water operations, as much as possible, when they would alleviate the issue of aircraft noise impacting residents, without shifting the problem onto others.

Footnotes

[1]Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA), Submission 4.1, p. 9; Mr Gert-Jan de Graaff, Chief Executive Officer, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Committee Hansard, 15 April 2024, p. 50.

[2]Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Airport monitoring report 2021–22, August 2023, p. 15.

[3]BFPCA Survey, November 2024.

[4]Ms Laura Brannigan, Senior Manager, Major Project Approvals, Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 32; Mrs Sarah Nattey, Assistant Secretary, Airports Branch, Domestic Aviation and Reform,Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 63.

[5]Mr Andreas Marcelja, Acting Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Committee Hansard, 20 September 2024, p. 49.