Chapter 1Introduction and background

Referral and conduct of the inquiry

1.1On 6 February 2024, the Senate referred an inquiry into aircraft noise to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (committee), with a reporting date of 8 October 2024. On 15 August 2024, the Senate granted an extension of time to report to 31 October 2024.[1]

1.2On 25 October 2024, the committee tabled a progress report and extended the time to report to 20 November 2024. Then, on 19 November 2024, the Senate granted a further extension of time to report to 27 November 2024.[2]

1.3The inquiry was established to look into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise on residents and business in capital cities and regional towns, with particular reference to:

(a)the effect of aircraft noise on amenity, physical and mental wellbeing and everyday life of residents;

(b)the effect of aircraft noise on small business;

(c)any proposals for the mitigation and limitation of aircraft noise, including flight curfews, changes to flight paths and alternatives to air travel;

(d)any barriers to the mitigation and limitation of aircraft noise; and

(e)any other related matters.

1.4The committee called for submissions by advertising the inquiry on its website and writing to a broad range of stakeholders to invite submissions. Submissions were scheduled to close on 5 April 2024. However, this was extended to 30 April 2024, and a number of late submissions were also accepted. A total of 700 submissions were accepted and are available on the committee's website. A list of submissions and additional documents is provided at Appendix 2.

1.5The committee held four public hearings, including: Brisbane on 15 April 2024; Penrith, New South Wales (NSW), on 9 August 2024; Hobart on 28 August 2024; and Canberra on 20 September 2024. A list of witnesses is provided at Appendix 1.

1.6The committee also conducted a site visit of Western Sydney (Nancy Bird-Walton) International Airport (WSI) as part of the inquiry.

1.7On Tuesday 29 October 2024, Senator the Hon Carol Brown and Senator the Hon Bridget McKenzie were welcomed by Western Sydney Airport Corporation Chief Executive, Mr Simon Hickey, and staff, and provided with a short presentation and a tour of the runway and terminal construction zone. A brief site visit report is provided at Appendix 3.

Acknowledgements

1.8The committee thanks the many individuals who made written submissions and gave evidence at public hearings. The opportunity to hear directly from so many people about their experiences significantly enhanced the committee's understanding of the impacts of aircraft noise.

Notes on terminology

1.9The regulatory architecture surrounding airport development is complex and involves a number of Commonwealth ministers and departments. To reduce the potential for confusion throughout the report, the committee generally specifies which minister or department it is referring to, using the following terms:

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts is referred to as the 'Infrastructure Department'.

The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Catherine King MP, is referred to as the 'Infrastructure Minister', or in some cases, the 'Transport Minister'.

The Minister for the Environment and Water is referred to as the 'Environment Minister'.

1.10Where the term 'the department' is used, this refers to the Infrastructure Department.

Note on references

1.11References to 'Committee Hansard' in this report refer to Proof Committee Hansards, which were available at the time of drafting. There may be minor variations between the Proof and Official Hansards, including page numbers.

Structure of the report

1.12Chapter 1—Introduction and background—covers referral and conduct of the inquiry, committee acknowledgements, and background to the inquiry. The background section introduces Australian aviation and aircraft noise, regulation and responsibilities, Airservices' handling of flight path design consultations, and the background to four airport case studies:

Brisbane's New Parallel Runway

Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport (WSI)

Hobart Airport flight path changes

Melbourne Airport's third runway, and

Moorabbin Airport (light aircraft).

1.13Chapter 2—Impacts of aircraft noise—provides evidence from experts, organisations and individuals on the impacts of aircraft noise, including:

the international context

physical and mental health impacts, including sleep disturbance

social impacts, including impacts on disadvantaged communities

financial impacts, including on small businesses

environmental impacts, impacts on First Nations, and heritage

impacts on aviation sector workers

complaints about aircraft noise, and

the need for further research.

1.14Chapter 3—Mitigation and limitation of aircraft noise—discusses:

noise standards, aircraft and equipment and technology

noise sharing and noise plans

flight operations to reduce noise

operation of airports, including caps and curfews

compensation schemes and noise levies, and

reducing the impacts from general aviation/light aircraft.

1.15Chapter 4—Flight path design—covers:

Australian airspace and flight path design

issues with Airservices' flight path design processes

international models, approaches including the United Kingdom's altitude based airspace management, and

the need for better integrated flight path design across metropolitan areas.

1.16Chapter 5—Consultation—outlines existing aviation consultation mechanisms and considers:

issues with Airservices' consultation

Airservices' handling of the Noise Complaints and Information Service

evidence on ad hoc and time-limited consultations, including the consultation processes for WSI, and

suggested improvements.

1.17Chapter 6—Options for regulatory reform—outlines proposals for reforming the regulation and administration of airport design and planning, including:

consideration of noise in Major Development Plans and airport Master Plans

the current MDP cost threshold

Environmental Impact Statement processes for airport developments

regulation relating to noise levels

measuring, mapping and monitoring noise, including the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF)

the appropriateness of the current administrative architecture, including the role and performance of Airservices Australia (Airservices)

land use planning processes, and

proposals in the Government's Aviation White Paper.

Background

Australian aviation and aircraft noise

1.18Aviation makes a significant economic and social contribution in Australia. According to analysis commissioned by the Australian Airports Association (AAA) in 2022, during that year, Australia's airports:

Contributed $105 billion of value-added economic activity (around 5% of Gross Domestic Product [GDP]) and supported 690,000 full time equivalent (FTE) jobs (approximately 5% of all jobs).

Transported 117 million passengers and facilitated freight exports worth $51 billion.

Provided a place of learning for student pilots, hosting 337,000 flight training hours, mostly at capital city 'metro' airports.

Facilitated international and domestic tourism worth $34.9 billion and support[ed] 263,000 FTE jobs in tourism and related sectors.[3]

1.19Airports represent critical infrastructure across the nation, connecting people and moving goods through domestic and international transport networks. The aviation sector plays a particularly critical role in regional and remote Australia, where other forms of transport may not be available. According to the 2023 Aviation Green Paper:

Aviation underpins our national and international supply chains, and enables our tourism, mining, construction, manufacturing and higher education sectors. The visitor economy is particularly dependent on aviation, along with high value, low volume freight.[4]

1.20Increases in international travel and flight volumes over time have coincided with amplified community concern around aircraft noise. An unavoidable by-product of aviation, aircraft noise levels are influenced by a range of factors, including:

planning and development decisions at airports

design of flight paths

use of noise abatement procedures

types of aircraft

volume of air traffic

land use planning and building standards in areas surrounding airports.[5]

1.21Once owned and operated by the Commonwealth Government, a number of Australia's major airports were leased to private companies in the late 1990s and 2000s, whilst control of many regional and remote airports was transferred to state and local governments.[6]

1.22The 22 federally leased airports around Australia are located on Commonwealth land and subject to Commonwealth laws. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (Infrastructure Department/department) is responsible for the administration of 'the airport environmental regulatory regime' applying to these airports. This includes the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) (Airports Act) and the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997. This regulatory framework 'applies to the management of all on-ground environmental issues, including air, soil, water, noise and chemical pollution on-airport'. It explicitly excludes aircraft noise off-airport.[7]

Responsibility for aircraft noise

1.23There is no single entity with responsibility for, or control over, all of the factors that contribute to the level of aircraft noise experienced in the community. Governments, planners, regulators, airports, airlines and air service providers all play a role, including:

Federal Minister: The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Infrastructure Minister/Transport Minister) regulates planning, development and some elements of environmental protection at 22 leased Federal airports under the Airports Act. The Minister is also responsible for approving or refusing Airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (MDPs) (discussed below).

Commonwealth infrastructure department:The department administers the Airports Act and supporting regulations, including the curfews in place at a number of airports. A number of community forums established to facilitate community engagement are also managed by the department. These include:

Sydney Airport Community Forum

East Melbourne Aircraft Noise Taskforce

Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board

Commonwealth environment department: The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (Environment department) administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and is involved in assessing any proposed changes to aircraft operations that trigger 'significance' under this Act. The Commonwealth Minister for Environment (Environment Minister) provides advice on these changes.[8]

Airservices Australia: Airservices is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity, established by the Air Services Act 1995 (Air Services Act) as part of the Transport portfolio. Under the Act, Airservices is accountable to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Airservices ensures the safety and efficiency of air navigation in Australian administered airspace by providing 'air traffic services, aeronautical information service, aeronautical radio navigation service and aeronautical telecommunications service'. Airservices is also tasked with handling aircraft noise complaints. (More information about Airservices is provided in the following sections.)

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA): CASA is an independent statutory authority which administers and regulates Australian airspace. CASA considers and approves requests made by the Department of Defence, airspace users, or Airservices to change the use of Australian airspace.

Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO): Independent of Airservices, the ANO 'conducts reviews of the handling of noise complaints by Airservices' and presents its findings and recommendations to the Board of Airservices.

Aircraft manufacturers: Manufacturers must comply with international noise standards that have been adopted into Australian law through regulation. These standards are administered by Standards Australia.

Airports/airport-lessee companies: Airport lessees hold Commonwealth leases to operate 22 airports across Australia and have obligations under the Airports Act, including to engage with communities about developments which impact noise, 'having regard to community views and developing plans to manage the impact of aircraft noise in nearby areas'.

State and territory governments: Most land use planning decisions and development approvals near airports are the responsibility of state, territory and local government planning authorities. A cross-jurisdictional body—the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG)—develops and maintains the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF), which includes guidelines on 'how to minimise noise-sensitive developments'. However, the NASF is 'a non-binding document'.[9]

1.24This devolved regulatory architecture means that efforts to minimise or limit the impacts of aircraft noise are highly complex to realise.

Airport developments and flight path changes

1.25Decisions about new airports, and new or altered runways, impact the volume of air traffic, local communities and environments, and which communities and environments are 'flown over'. As such, the Airports Act requires airport-lessee companies (airports) to develop Airport Master Plans and/or MDPs for all relevant projects. These must be approved by the Minister for Infrastructure, and include consideration of noise impacts.[10]

1.26Under the Airports Act, MDPs must also be referred to the Environment Minister for assessment under the EPBC Act, before being approved by the Infrastructure Minister. The Environment Minister determines if there is a need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in relation to the project. (Most major developments require an EIS.) The EIS 'examines the environmental, social, heritage and economic impacts of a project and proposes measures to reduce the impacts to communities and the environment'.[11] It is under this mechanism that the impacts of aircraft noise are formally considered.

1.27Other changes that may impact noise, such as changes to flight paths or air traffic management, may also be subject to environmental impact assessment. Section 28 of the EPBC Act requires Commonwealth agencies, including Airservices, to assess the potential environmental significance of any 'actions' they take, and section 160 of the EPBC Act requires Airservices to consider the Environment Minister's advice 'before giving authorisation in relation to the adoption or implementation of a plan for aviation airspace management, involving aircraft operations that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment'. However, according to technical staff at Airservices, there are 'no quantitative criteria' prescribed by the Environment Department for determining the significance of aircraft noise impact, so referrals are made on a case-by-case basis.[12]

1.28The process for MDPs and Airport Master Plans includes the requirement to provide an ANEF for the airport and surrounding areas. The ANEF outlines the likely noise effects and the airport's plans for 'managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels'.[13]

1.29According to the department, the ANEF is:

… a geographical representation of where aircraft noise is expected to occur, overlayed on a map of the areas surrounding an airport. Contours are represented on the map, corresponding to noise exposure levels (20, 25, 30, 35 and 40+) with higher numbers indicating higher levels of noise exposure.

… Australian Standard AS2021:2015 refers to the ANEF noise exposure levels in its guidance about the types of development and building standards that are appropriate in areas subject to aircraft noise.[14]

1.30The ANEF for each airport is calculated by aggregating total daily noise expectations, with nighttime movements being given a higher weighting. Some Australian airports include other noise metrics in their Master Plans and MDPs, but this is 'not a regulatory requirement, and the department does not have a role in the approval or verification of these metrics'. These metrics include 'number above' metrics, and 'maximum noise level' metrics, and are considered to provide a 'real-world' impression of the likely noise impacts of a new airport or runway.[15]

1.31Master Plans and MDPs are subject to state and local government consultation, public exhibition, and community consultation, before being submitted to the Infrastructure Minister. These processes may take 18 months or longer. Where an EIS is required, this can add an additional 18 months or longer to the process. The Infrastructure Minister then considers the submission, and may refuse or approve the development, with or without conditions.[16]

1.32While indicative flight paths must be provided (where relevant) during the Master Plan/MDP process, detailed design of flight paths does not commence until after the development has been approved. This process is generally managed by Airservices, with 'minimal involvement' from the department.[17] An exception to this is the new Western Sydney International Airport (currently under construction). WSI is discussed further on in this chapter.

Regulation and monitoring of noise levels

1.33Existing regulations set out noise standards that aircraft must comply with to be allowed to fly in Australia. However, there is no legislation or regulation specifying maximum noise levels allowed in the community or enabling any agency to monitor or enforce noise levels.

1.34The department administers the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 (Aircraft noise regulations), which 'require most aircraft operating in Australian airspace to comply with noise standards and recommended practices introduced under the Convention on International Civil Aviation'. These regulations 'specify the amount of noise that may be emitted by [specific] type[s] or model[s] of aircraft'. According to Airservices, once aircraft are certified under the Aircraft noise regulations, 'there is no legislation or regulation that enables any agency, including Airservices, to police its noise levels'.[18]

1.35Some aircraft are exempt from the Aircraft noise regulations. State aircraft, hot air balloons, and propeller-driven aircraft specifically designed and used exclusively for aerobatic, firefighting, agricultural or environmental purposes are excluded, and other exemptions can be granted by the department, generally on a temporary basis.[19]

1.36Airservices' Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS) collects noise and flight path data at Brisbane, Cairns, Canberra, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne, Essendon, Adelaide and Perth airports. The system collects data from 'every aircraft operating to and from' these airports, operating 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week. According to Airservices:

NFPMS uses long-term noise monitors located within local communities and is the world's largest, most geographically-spread system of its type. Some long-term monitors have been in place for more than 20 years.[20]

1.37Airservices also undertakes short-term noise monitoring, deploying monitors for limited periods of time (usually three months) in other locations. Live and historic noise monitor reporting is available on Airservices website.[21]

1.38While it collects noise data, Airservices acknowledges that noise monitoring 'is not undertaken to determine compliance with aircraft noise regulations'. As there are no Australian regulations which specify 'a maximum, allowed level of aircraft noise within the community', Airservices has stated that there is 'no objective measure to determine whether any aircraft flying in Australia is "too noisy", or whether the combined load of aircraft experienced by a community is "too much" noise'.[22]

1.39Instead. Airservices states that noise monitoring is undertaken to:

1. Provide accurate information on aircraft flight paths and noise to the community, external stakeholders (such as the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, and the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman), and for internal use by Airservices.
2. To reduce uncertainty around aviation noise impacts on the community, while ensuring we provide safe and efficient air navigation services.
3. To provide data to determine potential environmental (noise) impacts from existing and proposed new flight paths and noise abatement trials, including post-implementation reviews.
4. To provide data to validate aircraft noise modelling results produced using specialist software for a range of purposes (including environmental impact assessment of proposed flight path changes).
5. To provide a framework to identify the acoustic impacts of current and historic aviation activity, and to guide decisions on proposed future changes to aircraft operations.[23]

Airservices' handling of flight path design consultations

1.40Airservices was established in 1995. It is a Corporate Commonwealth Entity funded by industry. It charges international and domestic aviation providers for its services, with these charges being regulated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). Among other roles, Airservices is responsible for:

operating the NFPMS;

endorsing the technical accuracy of ANEFs for airport Master Plans and MDPs;

operating a public Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS); and

undertaking flight path design and noise abatement design—when engaged by airport corporations to do so.[24]

1.41Airservices submitted that its key responsibility under its enabling legislation, the Airservices Act 1995 (Cth) (Airservices Act), is 'to provide services and facilities for the safety, regularity or efficiency of air navigation in Australian administered airspace'. However, it is also 'committed to transparent and proactive aircraft noise management, international benchmarking, and collaboration across industry to minimise as far as practicable the impact of aircraft noise'.[25]

1.42In undertaking flight path design, Airservices consults with relevant stakeholders—including government agencies, industry and aviation bodies, and community representatives—and aims to:

… minimise the impact of aircraft operations on the community where practicable. This includes designing flight paths to avoid overflying residential areas, where possible, and consulting with the community and aviation industry on proposed flight path and airspace changes to achieve the best outcome, balancing the needs of all stakeholders.[26]

1.43Concerns about Airservices' handling of issues associated with aircraft noise, including community consultation on flight path design, have been the subject of numerous inquiries and reports.

1.44On 25 November 2009, the Senate referred an inquiry into Airservices' management of aircraft noise to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) References Committee. At that time, community concerns were focussed on flight path changes at Perth airport. However, the committee chose to focus its inquiry more broadly, identifying 'long standing issues associated with the management of aircraft noise at airports around Australia'.[27]

1.45In its August 2010 report, the committee concluded that Airservices' ineffective community engagement had 'clearly contributed to a loss of community confidence in Airservices Australia', exacerbated by perceptions that Airservices 'places the interests of the aviation industry above those of local communities'. The committee was especially critical of Airservices' tendency to 'delegate' its responsibility to consult to 'second parties', including members of Airport Community Consultation Forums.[28]

1.46The committee made a number of recommendations for improving how Airservices consults communities in designing flight paths. Some of the recommendations were already in progress as a part of the then Government's Aviation White Paper process. Since 2010:

Airservices has participated in, and provided data to support Commonwealth Government Community Aviation Consultation Groups;

an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman was established, has conducted a number of reviews, collects data and reports on Airservices handling of complaints;

Airservices was given new guidance for triggering environmental referrals;

Airservices introduced new Flight Path Design Principles; and

revisions were made to the Environmental Management of Changes to Aircraft Operations National Operating Standard (NOS) to take into account increased impacts of aircraft noise in rural areas, the increased impact of nighttime noise, and consideration of 'newly overflown' communities.[29]

1.47In designing flights paths, Airservices now applies a set of Flight Path Design Principles, published in 2020. The Principles stipulate that safety is the first priority, followed by:

a balance of 'efficiency and operational needs';

minimising noise and environmental impacts of aircraft operations; and

providing 'equity of access to airspace'.[30]

1.48Designing flight paths necessitates significant community consultation in the design phase, and Airservices will also 'generally' commence a Post Implementation Review (PIR) twelve months after implementing a new flight path. This review considers five key elements—safety, operations, environment, community and industry outcomes.[31]

1.49Despite changes made in 2010, Airservices' consultation on flight path design continued to come under criticism, including by the ANO, which published an Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart (the ANO investigation) in April 2018. The ANO investigation found that:

… many of the issues that arose in Airservices' introduction of the flight path changes in Hobart are the same issues that arose in Airservices' introduction of flight changes in Perth in 2015.It appears that, while Airservices may have taken steps to address the 2015 Perth flight path change issues, those steps were not effective.[32]

1.50In its report, the ANO made 13 recommendations, including that Airservices should:

better integrate analysis of noise impacts 'from the commencement of flight path design' and 'throughout the design process';

'broaden the purpose of environmental assessment' and consider a wider range of criteria when conducting assessments;

adopt a more 'analytical perspective' in assessing the potential community impacts of flight path design;

improve complaint management and communication with complainants; and

develop a more 'sophisticated', transparent and modern approach to consultation, guided by consultation experts.[33]

1.51The ANO also recommended Airservices 'review' its reliance on Community Aviation Consultation Groups 'as the primary site of community consultation'.[34]

1.52Airservices accepted all of the report's recommendations and admitted that it 'failed to adequately inform and engage with residents' on the changes to flight paths at Hobart airport. Contracting consultation experts, Airservices committed to 'working with the affected communities, undertaking open and transparent consultation regarding proposed flight path changes to rebuild goodwill and trust with local residents'.[35]

1.53Around the time the ANO's report was released in 2018, the Senate considered a private senator's bill, introduced by former Senator Janet Rice, designed to further regulate Airservices, increasing its focus on environmental and community concerns, and setting up a new community consultation mechanism. The bill was referred to the RRAT Legislation Committee, which reported in August 2018. The committee agreed that Airservices' consultation mechanisms were inadequate, but did not support the mechanism proposed in the bill, instead encouraging Airservices to use an upcoming review of the Airservices Communication and Consultation Protocol to develop 'a more detailed community engagement strategy'. The bill did not proceed.[36]

1.54In May 2021, Airservices released its Environmental Sustainability Strategy 2021–2026, which 'includes Aircraft Noise as a strategic pillar'. According to Airservices, this strategy underpins its approach by improving the 'balancing of competing flight path design constraints', expanding flight path monitoring data, and supporting the implementation of 'continuous descent operations' and uncrewed traffic management (drones).[37]

1.55In 2023—following a seven-week consultation—Airservices released its new Community Engagement Standard for Flight Path and Airspace Change Proposals (the Community Engagement Standard). According to the department, the Community Engagement Standard 'sets out better practice approaches to consultation on proposed flight paths'.[38]

1.56Despite changes implemented by Airservices since 2018, community groups are still concerned with its practices, arguing that 'similar issues' continue to occur. For instance, national anti-aircraft noise network, the Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA) recently criticised flight path changes at Sunshine Coast and Brisbane Airports, citing key issues, including:

1. A legacy culture within Airservices Australia that lacks respect for community stakeholders, with a subsequent reluctance to genuinely engage with communities as partners in decision-making about flight path design.

2. Current aviation policy offers little protection to overflown communities. For example it does not recognise the impact of aircraft operations (such as noise) on human health and relies solely on legislation designed to protect the natural environment to mitigate the impact of aircraft operations on community.
3. Decisions about flight path changes are not subject to merit-based review and challenge requires a costly judicial review process.[39]
   57. In its submission to the current inquiry, the ANO also indicated that it still has concerns about Airservices' consultation, saying:

The ANO's experience from reviewing complaints is that major flight paths have been designed by Airservices with no consideration of the impact on affected communities. Similarly, once flight paths began operating little heed was paid to community reaction. … The integration of outcomes of community engagement into Airservices operational areas remains a challenge.[40]

1.58Acknowledging this criticism, Airservices stressed that its flight path design work must 'balance community expectations and social licence regarding aircraft noise … with the need for the industry to maintain connectivity and growth'. Airservices noted it has no control over the location of airports and the configuration of existing runways, does not regulate the noise levels produced by aircraft, and is not an environmental regulator. Its flight path design is guided by the objectives of the Airservices Act, which identify safety as the primary consideration. Other key considerations include an imperative to 'optimise airport capacity and meet future airport requirements', and the need to 'optimise overall network operation', noting the interconnectedness of Australian aviation.[41]

1.59Airservices submitted that it 'does not have the power to determine what times aircraft operate, what noise levels aircraft produce or to prevent an aircraft operating based on noise levels if it is operating as permitted by the [Aircraft Noise Regulations]'. Power to grant exemptions or impose flight curfews rests with the department.[42]

1.60In addition, Airservices stated that does not have a role in 'determining the thresholds used for aircraft noise annoyance' and does not regulate allowable levels of aircraft noise—responsibility for these matters rests with the Commonwealth, and state and territory governments.[43]

Case studies

1.61Many communities around Australia are impacted by aircraft noise. Over the course of the inquiry, the committee received evidence from communities impacted by airports including Brisbane Airport, Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport, Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport, Sunshine Coast Airport, Hobart Airport, Moorabbin Airport (Victoria), Perth Airport, Jandakot Airport (Western Australia), and a number of others. It also received several submissions from communities that will be affected by the new Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport, including communities in Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains.[44] However, submissions to the inquiry were overwhelmingly focussed on the impacts in Brisbane and surrounds, and Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains, NSW. Over three quarters of the submissions received were focused on Brisbane and the surrounding areas, with the next largest share of submissions dedicated to the likely impacts of the new Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.

1.62The committee has chosen to highlight four case studies—Brisbane Airport's new parallel runway, the new Western Sydney Airport, flight path changes at Hobart Airport, Melbourne Airport's third runway, and issues with Moorabbin Airport (general aviation). These case studies provide insights into common problems associated with aircraft noise and aviation regulation around Australia and will be referenced throughout the report. However, the committee's conclusions and recommendations will apply broadly.

Brisbane Airport's New Parallel Runway

1.63Brisbane Airport operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with two major terminals accommodating 23 airlines flying to 74 domestic and international destinations. Brisbane is the third-largest airport in Australia by passenger numbers (after Sydney and Melbourne); in financial year 2020–2021, 7.8 million passengers transited through Brisbane Airport, with the pre-pandemic number reaching 23.8 million passengers in 2019. According to the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), 'airport operations and projects' contribute around $5.3 billion to the Queensland economy each year, over 20000 people work on-site, and the airport enables a further 125000 jobs across the state.[45]

1.64Brisbane Airport's New Parallel Runway (NPR) was the result of decades of planning involving the Commonwealth Government, Queensland State Government, Brisbane City Council, and—following its purchase of the airport in 1997—BAC. BAC retained the original vision for expanding Brisbane airport through an NPR in its first twoMaster Plans (1998 and 2003). In 2005, BAC commenced planning and approval processes for the new runway.[46]

History of community consultation

1.65The development was referred to the Minister for the Environment in 2005 under section 160 of the EPBC Act. Public consultation was held between November 2006 and February 2007 on a draft Environmental Impact Statement (the 2007 EIS). The 2007 EIS outlined options for potential flight paths and recommended a preferred option. The EIS was approved in 2007. Airservices was eventually engaged by BAC to design the flight paths and, in 2017, Airservices completed a preliminary design for the NPR and conducted a review. The design was finalised in December 2018.[47]

1.66According to the ANO, Airservices entered into an agreement with BAC that BAC would 'take the lead' on community consultation on the flight paths, and Airservices would 'play a support role'. However, BAC determined that formal community consultation had been 'completed by the 2007 EIS process and subsequent community engagement would consist only of the provision of information'. Airservices agreed with this position.[48]

1.67In the absence of broad community consultation, community input into the flight path designs was facilitated through the Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (BACACG). Established by BAC in 2009, BACACG operates according to guidelines administered by the department and brings together 'government, the aviation industry, and the community, to discuss various topics related to Brisbane Airport', including 'aircraft noise, airport developments, airport operations, and terminal access'. BACACG meets four times a year, with members being 'nominated by elected government representatives, including those whose seats directly border the airport or are within a 30-kilometer radius'.[49]

1.68According to BACACG, from 2010 to 2020 it was 'a vital forum to allow engagement between Airservices, BAC, airlines and the community to address issues related to aircraft noise and flight path design'. BACACG also provided feedback to BAC on its Community Engagement Plan.[50]

1.69In March 2020, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Michael McCormack MP, approved Brisbane Airport's 2020 Master Plan. The new runway was opened in July 2020 and by June 2021, the ANO had received 265 complaints from affected residents, including a complaint from the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) which included a survey of '2075 residents adversely affected'. Complainants felt they had been misled by BAC and Airservices, who had downplayed the noise impacts of the new runway, claiming 'simultaneous take-offs and landing over Moreton Bay' would minimise noise over the suburbs to the southwest of the new runway.[51]

ANO investigation (2021)

1.70According to the ANO, Airservices' 2017 design process failed to assess 'the differences between the flight paths [now] proposed and those put forward in the 2007 EIS'. Then, in 2018 BAC commissioned a Noise Footprint Comparison to compare the newly proposed flights paths with those proposed in the 2007 EIS and found there would be 'no significant difference'. This finding was endorsed by Airservices and communicated to the Environment Minister. However, in its 2021 investigation report into complaints about the Brisbane NPR, the ANO found that Airservices had 'not adequately addressed the question of whether the flight paths ultimately designed had an environmental impact that was similar to, or significantly different from, those proposed in the 2007 EIS'.[52]

1.71ANO recommended further consultation with communities on the flight paths, along with substantial changes to Airservices managerial structures, policies and processes, to ensure better consultation and a more transparent approach to flight path design.[53] Airservices accepted all the recommendations made by the ANO and 'evolved' its processes for community engagement.[54]

Airservices Post Implementation Review

1.72Airservices commenced a Post Implementation Review (PIR) in July 2021. Then, in September, the Australian Government announced the establishment of the Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (BAPAF). The BAPAF was established to 'complement existing public engagement outlets' by reviewing and providing advice to Airservices on matters relating to the PIR.[55]

1.73Following the ANO's report, and reports from the BAPAF, in January 2022 Airservices engaged consultants, Trax International, to conduct an independent review which would 'make improvement recommendations across all aspects of the design and conduct of Airservices PIR'. The Trax Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight paths Post Implementation Review Independent Review Final Report was published in August 2022 and fed into Airservices' final PIR report.[56]

1.74In September and October 2022, prior to finalising the PIR, Airservices consulted community and industry stakeholders on its proposed recommendations:

This included nine community workshops attended by 232 community members from 88 suburbs, as well as two industry workshops and monthly working group discussions. [Airservices conducted a] four-week public comment period, receiving 450 written community submissions, including one submission attaching a petition signed by 1,284 community members. Submissions were also received from Australia's two largest domestic airlines and from Brisbane Airport Corporation...[57]

1.75Airservices also consulted with BAPAF. According to Airservices, these consultation processes influenced its final approach, which incorporated four key pillars:

'strong, transparent and representative governance';

maximising flights over water;

reducing the frequency and concentration of flights over communities; and

'optimising the performance' of the wider Brisbane airspace system.[58]

Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board

1.76The BAPAF's final report was published on 15 December 2022 and the Forum was wound up. In its place, the Australian Government established the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB) as an 'ongoing, independent community-based consultation body'. According to the department, 'AAB provides an opportunity to share information and advice to and from the community to better manage consultation on aircraft noise around Brisbane Airport'.[59]

1.77BACACG continues to exist. However, its role in consultations around aircraft noise has become limited. According to BACACG, while its meetings continue to 'address aircraft noise-related concerns', noise related issues are now generally referred to the AAB.[60]

Noise Action Plan for Brisbane

1.78The PIR ultimately recommended aircraft noise be handled going forward through a new Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, noting that 'as the aviation industry and regulatory landscape evolves, the Noise Action Plan may also evolve'. The Noise Action Plan was published in December 2022 and outlined 11 recommendations, with 82 individual actions to be undertaken across 2023 to 2025.[61]

1.79In its submission to the inquiry, Airservices stated that it has 'taken the learnings of Brisbane' and is looking to include 'external independent assurance review in other projects', to ensure it incorporates 'best practice' in its processes, and to incorporate 'validation by a third party of [its] designs'.[62]

1.80As part of its engagement process around the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, Airservices Australia launched an engagement hub on its website. This service responds to the community's 'desire for greater transparency and reporting of aircraft operations', and includes information on:

adherence to Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs)

use of Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS)

aircraft tracking and altitude

noise information

complaints and our responses to these.[63]

1.81Community members are also able to view reports about noise and flight movements in their area on "Aircraft in your Neighbourhood".[64]

1.82A timeline depicting the milestones for engagement is provided below:

Source: Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane (accessed 6 September 2024).

New flight path concepts released

1.83On 14 August 2024, Airservices announced the release of concepts for flight path changes that have been developed by Trax International as part of Package 3 of the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane. According to Airservices, these are 'concepts for reducing frequency and concentration of aircraft over some communities that experience the highest volumes of air traffic'.[65]

1.84The five 'concepts' were published, with Airservices inviting interested stakeholders to review their 'potential effectiveness, and what local factors we should also consider when developing detailed flight paths based on these concepts'. The five concepts are explained below:

Set 1: Departures over land to the west and northwest from the new runway (and the legacy runway at night). Purpose: To reduce the frequency and concentration of departing flights over communities aligned with the new runway, and under these departure paths in Brisbane's inner west and outer north-west (including suburbs within Moreton Bay City Council).

Set 2: Arrivals over land from the north and west via the new runway. Purpose: To reduce the frequency and concentration of arriving flights over communities in Brisbane’s outer north-west (including suburbs within Moreton Bay City Council)

Set 3: Departures over land to the south and east from the legacy runway. Purpose: To reduce the frequency and concentration of departing flights over communities in Brisbane's south-east (including suburbs within Redland City Council and Logan City Council)

Set 4: Independent Parallel Runway Operations. Purpose: To facilitate the introduction of simultaneous arrivals using both runways (including suburbs within Brisbane City Council, Logan City Council and Moreton Bay City Council).

Set 5: Non-jet (turboprop) arrivals from the north. Purpose: To reduce the frequency and concentration of non-jet flights over communities in Brisbane's north-east (including suburbs within Moreton Bay City Council).[66]

1.85On 6 August 2024, prior to releasing the concepts, Airservices announced a number of in-person and online engagement opportunities, with written feedback on the concepts scheduled to close on Sunday, 15 September 2024.[67]

Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport

1.86Operating since 1919, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is Australia's busiest and oldest airport. In December 2023, a total of 3.58 million passengers passed through its domestic and international terminals.[68] However, governments have long understood that Sydney Airport would be unable to meet the demands of future aviation growth, with demand for aviation services in Sydney predicted to double by 2040. According to the department, even if the existing curfews were removed at Sydney Airport, it would be unable to meet Sydney's long-term aviation needs:

The Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport will help support this growth and connect businesses to national and international markets. It will deliver world-class transport systems, improve business links and provide economic benefits.[69]

1.87In 2014—after fifty years of discussion, research and debate around the location for a second Sydney airport—the Prime Minister, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, announced that Badgerys Creek, a suburb in Western Sydney, had been chosen. With a growing population of over two million people, Western Sydney was already equivalent to Australia's 'fourth-largest city' and 'third-largest economy' at that time. The Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport (WSI) was forecast to create up to 60 000 jobs and stimulate economic activity that would increase Australia's gross domestic product (GDP) by almost $24 billion.[70]

1.88WSI is being developed by the government and is scheduled to open in 2026. It is being built, and will be operated, by WSA Co Limited, which is a Government Business Enterprise whose shareholders are the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the Minister for Finance.[71] The Australian Government has committed up to $5.3 billion in equity over 10 years to develop WSI, which will be a 'full-service airport', able to handle 10 million passengers, along with freight services. The Government plans to expand the airport in stages as demand grows, eventually adding a second runway. WSI is expected to service up to 82 million passengers annually by 2063.[72]

1.89While most major airports have engaged Airservices to develop their flight paths, the design of flight paths for the new Western Sydney Airport is being managed by 'a multi-agency design group', led by the department. This group includes Airservices, CASA and Western Sydney Airport Corporation (WSA Co) (the airport corporation).[73]

Source: DITRDCA, Western Sydney fact sheet: Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Overview, 2020, p. 1. Note: Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FoWSA).

1.90Unlike Kingsford Smith, WSI is set to operate without a curfew. According to the department, this is because planning restrictions 'have largely protected the surrounding area from encroaching residential development'. The nearest suburban area to the runway will be over 10 kilometres away, keeping 'the number of people highly affected' by the airport 'as low as possible'.[74]

1.91The airport development includes significant related infrastructure investment. The Australian Government, NSW State Government and eight local governments have formed a '20-year partnership agreement', called the Western Sydney City Deal, which will create the 'Western Parkland City', delivering rail infrastructure, employment, educational opportunities and new community infrastructure which is designed to support Western Sydney's growth:

Key commitments

The Australian and NSW Governments will jointly fund and deliver Stage 1 of the Sydney Metro—Western Sydney Airport (North-South Rail Link), from St Marys to the Western Sydney Aerotropolis via Western Sydney International (the Australian Government has announced $5.25 billion towards the delivery of the rail line).

A $190 million Western Parkland City Liveability Program to deliver community facilities.

A $30 million Western Sydney Housing Package.[75]

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Airport Plan (2016)

1.92On 19 October 2015, a draft Environmental Impact Statement and draft Airport Plan for WSI were released for public consultation by 18 December 2015. The draft EIS included results of substantial community consultations undertaken to-date. That day, in response to a question without notice, then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Warren Truss MP, argued there would be no houses in the vicinity of the airport and 'noise at major centres like Penrith will be roughly equivalent to a car travelling on a suburban street'.[76] However, the EIS identified 'noise' and 'flight paths' to be the two most significant concerns for affected stakeholders.[77]

1.93Concerns about the potential environmental and noise impacts of the new airport were raised in parliamentary speeches by Ms Susan Templeman MP, the Member for Macquarie, NSW, and Mr Ed Husic MP, the Member for Chifley, NSW, echoing complaints raised by their constituents. Ms Templeman also criticised the consultation process surrounding the draft and final EIS.[78]

1.94Following consultation, the 2016 EIS was approved in September 2016, and the Airport Plan was agreed in December 2016, authorising construction and operation of Stage 1. The 2016 Airport Plan outlined requirements for the development and assessment of the preliminary airspace design for WSI, including its 24-hour operation.[79] The WSI Airport Plan would later be updated in July 2020, to 'authorise environmental mitigation and utility works in areas of Badgerys Creek and Oaky Creek that adjoin the Airport site', and again in September 2021, to 'provide authorisation for the sections of the Sydney Metro —Western Sydney Airport rail line to be built on the WSI site'.[80]

Flight path design

1.95The 2016 EIS and Airport Plan provided 'proof of concept' flight paths which 'demonstrated that WSI could operate safely and efficiently in the Sydney Basin'. Condition 16 of the Airport Plan set out design principles for the next phase of flight path design, known as the 'preliminary airspace design':

This included the future airspace design principles and the establishment of an Expert Steering Group. Key to these design principles was the need to optimise flight paths on the basis of safety, efficiency, capacity of WSI, and noise and environmental considerations, while minimising changes to existing airspace arrangements in the Sydney basin airspace.[81]

1.96An Expert Steering Group led by the department then developed the preliminary flight paths and airspace arrangements for WSI and progressed community consultation on the designs with the release of the Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport—Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement in June 2023 (2023 draft EIS).[82]

1.97The 2023 draft EIS included a draft 'noise insulation and property acquisition policy'. Consultation was open between 24 October 2023 and 31 January 2024 and a total of 8477 submissions were received. Early submission analysis suggested key issues for submitters related to aircraft noise and key aspects of the project, including the airport's hours of operation, flight paths, aircraft movements and flight path design.[83] The department provided the following timeline for finalising the flight path designs:

Source: DITRDCA, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Draft EIS submissions overview, May 2024, p. 1.

1.98In response to the submissions, the Hon Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, acknowledged that WSI's flight paths have 'caused some concern for community members, particularly around aircraft overflight noise'. The Minister added:

The EIS included assessments of the noise, social and environmental impacts of the WSI preliminary flight paths and the Australian Government's proposed actions to mitigate these impacts.

This included a draft policy for noise treatments to existing properties most impacted by aircraft noise and considerations for any potential acquisition of property.

This feedback will be considered when finalising the flight path design.[84]

1.99The final EIS and final noise insulation and property acquisition policy are expected to be released in the second half of 2024. According to the department, the flight paths for WSI will then 'undergo detailed design and will be finalised in advance of WSI's opening, by late 2026'.[85]

Hobart Airport flight path changes

1.100Hobart Airport operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hobart is Australia's ninth busiest domestic airport; in financial year 2022–23, 2.7 million passengers transited through Hobart Airport. According to Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd, the airport's operator, the airport provided a direct economic contribution to the Tasmanian economy in 2018.[86]

1.101In October 2019, a consortium comprised of Australian-based asset manager QIC and Dutch-based airport operator, Royal Schiphol Group acquired a 70 per cent equity interest in Hobart Airport. National superannuation fund, Spirit Super, holds the remaining 30 per cent equity interest.[87]

1.102In June 2015, CASA conducted an audit at Hobart Tower and recommended that Airservices conduct a review of the route structure in both high level and low-level airspace to ensure that any unnecessary crossovers and undue complexity were minimised or removed. In 2016, CASA conducted an Aeronautical Study of Hobart and published a report in February 2017. The report endorsed flight path redesign work that was then in progress:

To improve efficiencies and predictability, taking into account [Performance Based Navigation] PBN requirements Airservices should continue redesign work for flight routes into and out of Hobart, make improvements to existing [Terminal Instrument Flight Procedures] TIFPs and introduce [Standard Arrival Routes] STARs into Hobart.[88]

Implementation of flight path changes

1.103On 14 September 2017, Airservices introduced changes to arrival and departure flight paths at Hobart Airport, with the goal of standardising routes and allowing for increasing flight traffic. The standardisation of flight paths aimed to reduce complexity for pilots and air traffic controllers. The changes included a Standard Instrument Departure (SID) and a Standard Instrument Arrival (STAR) for each end of the main runway, aimed at improving the safety of aircraft landing at and departing from the airport. Incorporating separation standards into the airspace design for departing and arriving aircraft was also designed to enable pilots to improve fuel management and reduce emissions using on-board systems.[89]

1.104The new flight paths provoked immediate community concerns due to increased overflights and aircraft noise. Airservices acknowledged that adequate community consultation on the changes had not been undertaken. To respond to community complaints, Airservices announced a review of the flight path, which noted that that 92 residents had contacted NCIS since the flight path change, none of whom had been aware of the change before it occurred. Airservices also convened a community consultation session in Dunalley, receiving an additional 45 complaints. The review noted that Airservices had underestimated the effect of the new flight path on a quiet rural area with little ambient noise.[90]

ANO investigation (2018)

1.105The ANO commenced an investigation of the implementation of Hobart Airport SIDs and STARs in October 2017, with the aim of examining Airservices' consideration of potential noise impacts in flight path design; its community consultation and public information prior to implementation; and the quality of its responses to complaints.[91]

1.106The ANO made a total of 13 recommendations for action by Airservices, covering issues including:

better consideration of potential noise impacts at all stages of the flight path design process;

more comprehensive environmental assessments that consider a wider range of potential impacts on the community;

improved complaint management; and

developing and supporting an approach to community consultation and engagement in line with modern standards.[92]

1.107Airservices accepted all of the ANO's recommendations, noting that its internal review had identified 29 improvement activities, many of which mapped to the ANO recommendations. Airservices also identified an additional three areas of focus for future work to improve its performance:

improving how community engagement is planned and delivered, including through engaging external expertise;

reviewing internal environmental criteria against the EPBC Act, to be validated by the then Department of the Environment and Energy; and

management accountability to improve governance and the decision making process from the commencement of any proposed flight path change.[93]

Hobart Airspace Design Review

1.108As part of its response for community concern about the new flight paths, Airservices introduced a modification to the new routes on 1 March 2018. The response was supported by a comprehensive review of the changes between January 2018 and March 2019, known as the Hobart Airspace Design Review. Airservices conducted consultation on its proposed fight path designs between 31 October 2018 and 21 December 2018, with submission accepted until 7 January 2019. The final design incorporated community feedback and was implemented on 7 November 2019.[94]

Airservices Post Implementation Review

1.109In November 2020, Airservices commenced a PIR to consider the November 2019 airspace and flight path changes, the supporting environmental assessments, and community information regarding aircraft operations and forecast noise. To inform the PIR, three short-term noise monitors were installed at Richmond, Primrose Sands and Connellys Marsh for six months from 18 December 2020.[95]

1.110The PIR included a period of community engagement, from 11 March to 19May2021, for the community to suggest alternative flight paths. The proposed alternatives were assessed on four criteria: safety and operational compliance; operational efficiency and feasibility; environmental; and network.[96]

1.111The PIR made 11 recommendations for Airservices to take action, including:

selecting more representative samples for future noise monitoring;

releasing updated community information on the altitude and frequency of flights;

further assessment of community flight path alternatives;

further assessment of Noise Abatement Procedures (NAPs) at sensitive times of day; and

reviewing available noise modelling software tools to better account for noise reflection over water.[97]

Noise Abatement Procedures

1.112On 13 June 2024, Airservices commenced a Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) trial, for a period of six months. Aircraft arriving at runway 30 are to use the area navigation (RNAV) approach (also known as the long approach) between 2pm and 8am, with exemptions for emergency operations and operational requirements such as safety and weather.[98]

1.113To record noise levels throughout the trial, Airservices is installing noise monitors in Primrose Sands and Connelly's Marsh, with a third to be installed in the vicinity of Dunalley.[99]

1.114The success of the NAP trial is to be measured against three main criteria:

managing safety risks to As Low As Reasonably Practicable;

reducing use of the RNP-AR short approach from 80 per cent to 40–60 per cent of arrivals; and

reducing by 20 per cent or more the numbers of dwellings, people and noise sensitive sites within the 60 decibel and above noise contour.[100]

Runway upgrade

1.115The Hobart Airport Master Plan 2022 notes that upgrades to the runway will be needed in the short term to support Code E aircraft, such as the Boeing B777 and B787 series and the Airbus A330. This is to enable direct Hobart-Singapore passenger flights, provide a faster route to market for Tasmanian goods, and enhance Hobart's role as the 'Gateway to the Antarctic'.[101] The upgrade is projected to create an additional $122 million in economic activity and an additional 1,261 jobs.[102]

1.116In October 2022, the Australian Government provided $60 million for the runway upgrade.[103] Construction commenced in July 2024, with completion anticipated by May 2025.[104]

Terminal expansion project

1.117Hobart Airport Master Plan also outlines the need for upgrades to the terminal. The current terminal was designed for 1.5 million passengers per year and currently handles 2.6 million, nearing capacity at peak times, with forecasts of 3.5 million by 2030.

1.118Hobart Airport has commenced a $200 million upgrade to terminal facilities, which will eventually double the area of the terminal.[105]

Melbourne International Airport's third runway

1.119Melbourne Airport, located 22 kilometres from the Melbourne central business district, is Australia's second busiest airport and is currently Australia’s busiest airport that operates twenty-four hours a day.[106] Owned by Australia Pacific Airports (APA) and operated by Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne), in the 2022–23 financial year the airport saw 30 million travellers pass through its terminals and, according to APA (Melbourne), contributed $17.7 billion to the economy.[107]

1.120As early as 1939, the need for a new airport for Melbourne was identified to replace Essendon as the city’s main airport. Planners sought a site that was reasonably accessible to the city while being far enough away from developed areas; this made Tullamarine the ideal location. Since the early planning stages in the 1960's, it was envisaged that Melbourne International Airport would be designed to accommodate up to four runways.[108] The then Prime Minister, Sir John Gorton, stated in a speech at the opening of Melbourne Airport in 1970 that he hoped the airport would be able to operate 'seven days a week and for twenty-four hours a day', as the chosen location included a buffer zone without houses, to allow the airport to 'operate as an international airport'.[109]

1.121The Victorian Government introduced the Melbourne Airport Environs Overlay (MAEO) in 2008 to help guide and limit development around the airport to protect the airports operations. This planning strategy has incorporated provisions for up to four runways using ANEF data.[110]

1.122As Melbourne has grown, aircraft are flying over more residential areas, more frequently. The airport currently comprises a north-south and an east-west runway in a cross formation. The direction of wind determines which flight paths and runways are used. Residents in Melbourne's western and northern suburbs are most impacted by noise from the airport, with some experiencing 100 to 199 noise events over 60 decibels in a twenty-four-hour period.[111]

1.123APA (Melbourne) argues the configuration of the current runways limits the efficiency of operations, as the runways are unable to facilitate simultaneous take-offs and landings. As a result, the airport has long envisaged that a third runway would need to be built, in line with increasing demand.[112]

1.124The Melbourne Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (CACG) was established by Melbourne Airport in 2011, in response to the Australian Government's 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper. The CACG was designed to provide a forum for discussion between community members, representatives from key participating agencies and the Airport on a range of issues, including the runway development.[113]

1.125The original plan was for a second east-west runway. However, in 2019 Melbourne Airport announced that it would instead focus on constructing a second north-south runway to the west of the airport. This was a result of updated wind modelling, which indicated a runway with north-south alignment would be more available for use.[114] As a result of this change, residents in the established suburbs of Keilor, Keilor Park and Keilor North, as well as numerous suburbs in Melbourne's west, will now be underneath the approach to the new runway, thereby increasing the quantity of noise events impacting these communities.[115]

1.126Since 2019, no progress has been made on the physical construction of the new runway, due to impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the slow recovery of the aviation and tourism industries.[116] In 2022, it was reported that the third runway will open before 2030, with the current runway configuration forecast to reach capacity by 2026. Melbourne Airport has projected that the additional runway will allow the airport to handle 76 million passengers a year by 2042 and would double current freight volumes handled by the airport.[117]

1.127After the alignment of the third runway was decided in 2019, Melbourne Airport began to undertake impact assessment for the 2022 Master Plan and Third Runway MDP. This process eventually culminated in a Draft Preliminary 2022 Master Plan and Draft Preliminary Major Development Plan for Melbourne's Third Runway being released for consultation in February 2022. These documents were discussed at a CACG the following day. At this meeting the airport emphasised that the alignment of the third runway was 'non-negotiable from the airport's point of view'. However, the way it operates would be open to community influence.[118]

1.128Following this meeting, the airport provided 60 days for community members to respond to the Master Plan and MDP before it was submitted to the Minister for approval. The airport stated that additional community engagement would be undertaken for the planning of detailed airspace and flight path design once the MDP had been approved by the Minister. Once the runway was operational, a PIR would be completed by Airservices to review the operations of the new runway.[119]

1.129In November 2022, Minister King approved the 2022 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, which included the Melbourne Airports intentions to construct a new north south runway. In September 2024, Minister King approved the major development plan for the third runway, allowing APA (Melbourne) to begin detailed planning and construction.[120]

1.130Several stakeholders that live close to the airport argue that the third runway should not be built, insisting that other alternatives should be adopted to manage demand.[121] A high speed rail network was suggested by stakeholders as an alternative approach. A high speed rail network would reduce demand for air travel, therefore ameliorating aircraft noise and the need for a third runway.[122]

1.131When the third runway is built, members of the community suggest that a curfew should be implemented at Melbourne Airport, as they are concerned that the added capacity will consequently increase the amount aircraft noise experienced across Melbourne at all hours of the day.[123]

Moorabbin Airport

1.132Along with the impacts of major Australian airports, the committee heard and considered evidence about impacts from smaller airports, including impacts from general aviation and light aircraft. Moorabbin Airport provided an example of these impacts.

1.133Moorabbin Airport, located 21 kilometres southeast of the Melbourne central business district, is one of the busiest airports in Australia in terms of aircraft movements, with over 250000 movements each year.[124] The airport opened in 1949 and is currently operating five runways. Most of the airport's movements are for the purpose of general aviation, in particular, pilot training. This supports the qualification of around 28 per cent of Australia's pilots each year.[125]

1.134The world's largest civil aviation training network, CAE Aviation, operates one of its six global aviation academies at Moorabbin Airport.[126] Moorabbin does not currently have a curfew, unlike Essendon Fields, located in the Melbourne's northern suburbs.

1.135As a result of Moorabbin predominantly being used by general aviation and training flights, the surrounding suburbs in southeast Melbourne will often experience aircraft flying over at low altitudes, such as 1000 feet(ft). To mitigate impacts, Moorabbin Airport has developed the 'Fly Friendly' program, which the airport states:

… identifies practical measures to decrease noise, such as using the least noise-sensitive runways, providing a special test area for aircraft maintenance, limiting training hours and flights over residential areas, and promoting the good behaviour of pilots.[127]

1.136An example of this initiative is the restriction on circuit training. Circuit training involves repeated take offs and landings in quick succession, requiring aircraft to fly lower than the required 1000ft above residential areas. Moorabbin airport currently restricts circuit training to the hours between 8am and 9pm, Monday to Friday, and 9am and 6pm on weekends, as well as encouraging pilots to be aware of noise sensitive areas and keeping their circuits 'compact' to avoid these areas.[128]

1.137While Moorabbin Airport is working with the surrounding community to reduce the impacts of its operations to nearby residents, noise generated by general aviation, which includes helicopters and light recreational aircraft, still impacts several communities across the Melbourne.[129]

1.138Residents of the adjacent suburb of Dingley Village are regularly overflown due to Moorabbin Airport's operations, and reported feeling as though 'there is nowhere to go' and 'no accountability' from the Government or Moorabbin Airport for the impacts of aircraft noise on residents.[130]

Aviation Green and White Papers

1.139The Government released its Aviation Green Paper on 7 September 2023, marking 'an important stage in developing the Aviation White Paper which will set the policy direction for the aviation sector out to 2050'. The Green Paper process provided an opportunity for stakeholders to communicate advice to Government on aviation matters, including:

airlines, airports and passengers—competition, consumer protections and disability access settings

regional and remote aviation services

maximising aviation's contribution to net zero

airport development planning process and consultation mechanisms

general aviation

fit-for-purpose agencies and regulations

emerging aviation technologies

future industry workforce

international aviation.[131]

1.140The Green Paper was informed by a report undertaken for the department by L.E.K. Consulting—Scenario Analysis of the Future of Australian Aviation. The department ran consultation on the Green Paper from 7 September 2023 to 30 November 2023, publishing 355 submissions.[132]

1.141Some submitters to this inquiry made reference to the Aviation Green and White Paper processes, with the AAA saying:

The AAA notes the Inquiry takes place within the context of existing work by the Australian Government, including the Aviation White Paper (White Paper) and review of the National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy (NFSCS Review). The White Paper and NFSCS Review both address aircraft noise, with the AAA making submissions to both. The AAA appreciates the statement in the Aviation Green Paper which affirms 'The Australian Government is not considering imposing any additional constraints on airports such as curfews or movement caps'.[133]

1.142The Aviation White Paper was released on Monday 26 August 2024. Incorporating 56 policy initiatives, it sets out the Australian Government's 'vision for Australia's aviation sector towards 2050 to ensure it remains safe, competitive, productive and sustainable'. The 56 policy initiatives cover ten key areas, including:

a better passenger experience

a competitive and efficient aviation sector

a skilled, secure and productive workforce

maximising aviation's contribution to net zero

connecting regional Australia

regenerating General Aviation

a balanced approach to airport planning and noise

world leading safety, security and airspace regulation

enabling new aviation technologies

connecting Australia to the world.[134]

1.143Chapter 9 of the Aviation White Paper addresses airport planning and noise. The Government outlined plans to:

work with states and territories to improve land use planning near airports to 'avoid further incompatible development';

establish a new executive position in Airservices responsible for noise and other environmental concerns;

improve transparency about aircraft noise and improve engagement with affected communities;

update guidelines for Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs);

establish an independent Aircraft Noise Ombuds Scheme (discussed below); and

require additional information to be included in Airport Master Plans and MDPs, including 'how development of the airport will address climate change resilience, decarbonisation and disability access'.[135]

1.144In addition, the Government sets out a commitment to review the Airports Act 1996 by 2030, saying:

The Australian Government will conduct a comprehensive review of the legislative and regulatory arrangements for the ownership, planning, development and environmental management of the 22 Leased Federal Airports. This will provide regulatory certainty for airport lessee companies, ahead of applying to exercise their right to extend the initial 49-year airport lease period for a further 50 years.[136]

No additional curfews or movement caps

1.145The Aviation White Paper also reaffirms the Government's commitment 'not to impose any additional operating constraints on airports, such as curfews or movement caps, where they currently do not exist'.[137]

New aviation industry ombudsman

1.146In its White Paper, the Australian Government announced that it will seek to establish a new independent aviation industry ombuds scheme by 2026. As well as providing a consumer protection role, the new ombudsman would take on the functions and powers of the current ANO, which is administered by Airservices, and reports to the Board of Airservices Australia and the Chief of Air Force (Department of Defence). Submissions from community groups, airlines and airports to the Aviation White Paper 'raised concerns about the ANO's perceived independence'. According to the department, the current reporting arrangement 'creates the potential for conflicts in the ANO's role, and can undermine public confidence in its findings and recommendations'. As such, the government has decided to structurally separate the ANO from Airservices Australia and the Australian Defence Force, to 'increase its independence and to enhance community trust and confidence in its findings'.[138]

1.147The new ombuds scheme will require changes to legislation. A separate stakeholder consultation has commenced on arrangements for transitioning the functions of the ANO into the independent Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme. According to the department:

The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme will have the power to conduct independent investigations into aircraft noise complaints handling, publish reports and make recommendations to government about the handling of noise complaints, community consultation processes and the presentation of noise related information.[139]

1.148Consultation on the new Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme commenced on 26 August 2024. Outcomes of the consultation will be considered by government in early 2025, and the scheme is expected to be in place in 2026.[140]

1.149The implications of initiatives announced in the Aviation White Paper are explored in subsequent chapters of this report.

Footnotes

[1]Senate Journals No. 95—6 February 2024, pp. 2800–2801; Senate Journals No. 123—15 August 2024, p. 3746.

[2]Senate Journals No. 140—19 November 2024, p. 4271.

[3]Australian Airports Association (AAA), Submission 13, p. 2.

[4]Commonwealth of Australia, Aviation Green Paper: towards 2050, 2023, p. 5 (accessed 25 June 2024).

[5]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (DITRDCA), Submission 55, p. 5.

[6]Airservices Australia, Submission 7, p. 5.

[7]DITRDCA, Airport environmental management, current as at 27 August 2024 (accessed 27 August 2024). See also: Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, Part 1, 1.02 'Objects' and Part 1, 1.03 'Limited application to aircraft activities' (accessed 12 October 2024). Note: There are currently 21 federally leased airports in operation; the new Western Sydney International Airport will bring the total to 22.

[8]Airservices, Our Commitment to Aircraft Noise Management, January 2022, p. 3 (accessed 27 August 2024).

[9]DITRDCA, Submission 55, pp. 5–7 and pp. 17–18.

[10]A detailed outline of the submission and approval process for a Master Plan or MDP is outlined from pages 11 to 14 in DITRDCA, Submission 55.

[11]DITRDCA, Submission 55, pp. 13–15.

[12]Dr Clyton Moyo, Mark Latimore, Belinda Fenner and Paul Zissermann, 'Assessing the environmental impacts of aircraft noise', Acoustics 2019 Conference paper, pp. 1–2 (accessed 16 September 2024).

[13]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 3.

[14]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 8.

[15]DITRDCA, Submission 55, pp. 8–9.

[16]DITRDCA, Submission 55, pp. 14–15.

[17]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 15.

[18]Airservices, How much noise are aircraft allowed to make?,30 April 2020 (accessed 27 August 2024).

[19]DITRDCA, Aircraft noise regulations (accessed 27 August 2024).

[20]Airservices, WebTrak sites (live noise monitoring) and Airport sites (historic data) (accessed 27 August 2024).

[21]Airservices, WebTrak sites (live noise monitoring) and Airport sites (historic data).

[22]Airservices, 'Why do you undertake noise monitoring?', Noise and flight path monitoring system, current as at 27 August 2024 (accessed 27 August 2024).

[23]Airservices, Noise and flight path monitoring system, current as at 27 August 2024;

[24]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 3; Airservices Australia, Submission 7, p. 3.

[25]Airservices, Submission 42, p. 20. See also: Airservices Act 1995 (accessed 27 August 2024).

[26]Airservices, Submission 42, p. 20.

[27]Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) Legislation Committee, The effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise, June 2010, p. 1 (accessed 8 July 2024).

[28]RRAT Legislation Committee, The effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise, June 2010, pp. 68–69.

[29]Airservices, Submission 42, pp. 7–8.

[30]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 15.

[31]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 16.

[32]Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, p. 4 (accessed 8 July 2024).

[33]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, pp. 1–2.

[34]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, pp. 1.

[35]Airservices Australia, Airservices Statement on ANO report findings, 27 April 2018 (accessed 8 July 2024).

[36]RRAT Legislation Committee, Air Services Amendment Bill 2018, 16 August 2018, p. 51 (accessed 8 July 2024); Parliament of Australia, Air Services Amendment Bill 2018(accessed 8 July 2024).

[37]In a Continuous Descent Operations (CDO) approach the aircraft flies from cruise altitude all the way down to the runway in one smooth and uninterrupted descent. CDO provides airlines a predictable idle descent, saving fuel, reducing carbon emissions and potentially decreasing descent noise. Airservices, Submission 42, pp. 20–21.

[38]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 15.

[39]Community Aviation Alliance Australia, Reducing the impact of flight path changes (accessed 8 July 2024).

[40]ANO, Submission 30, p. 2.

[41]Airservices, Submission 42, pp. 21–23.

[42]Airservices, Submission 42, p. 23.

[43]Airservices, Submission 42, pp. 23–24.

[44]Submissions are available on the committee's website.

[45]Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), BNE Quick Facts (accessed 16 July 2024).

[46]Paul Coughlan, 'Brisbane Airport's new runway: What it means for the future growth and development of Brisbane', International Airport Review, 31 March 2021 (accessed 9 July 2024).

[47]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runways, August 2021, p. 3 (accessed 9 July 2024); Airservices Australia, appendices for submission to inquiry into aircraft noise (received 12 April 2024), [p. 10].

[48]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runways, August 2021, p. 4.

[49]Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (BACACG), Submission 6, [p. 1].

[50]BACACG, Submission 6, [p. 1].

[51]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runways, August 2021, pp. 1–4.

[52]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runways, August 2021, pp. 3–4.

[53]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runways, August 2021, pp. 4–5.

[54]Airservices, appendices for Submission 42, inquiry into aircraft noise (received 12 April 2024), [p. 11].

[55]DITRDCA, Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (accessed 15 July 2024).

[56]Airservices, Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR): Final Report, 14 December 2022 p. 1 (accessed 15 July 2024).

[57]Airservices, Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR): Final Report, 14 December 2022 p. 1

[58]Airservices, Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR): Final Report, 14 December 2022 p. 2.

[59]DITRDCA, Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum.

[60]BACACG, Submission 6, [p. 2].

[61]Airservices, Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR): Final Report, 14 December 2022 pp. 27–30; Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, last updated 15 July 2024 (accessed 15 July 2024).

[62]Airservices, appendices for submission to inquiry into aircraft noise (received 12 April 2024), [p. 12].

[63]Airservices, Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR): Final Report, 14 December 2022 pp. 27–30; Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, last updated 15 July 2024 (accessed 15 July 2024).

[64]Airservices, Aircraft in your Neighbourhood (accessed 6 September 2024).

[65]Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, 'Package 3 engagement', 14 August 2024 (accessed 6 September 2024).

[66]Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, 'Package 3 engagement', 14 August 2024.

[67]Airservices, Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, 'Package 3 engagement', 6 August 2024.

[68]Sydney Airport, Sydney Airport Traffic Performance December 2023, 22 January 2023 (accessed 17 July 2024).

[69]DITRDCA, Why another airport? Meeting Sydney's future aviation needs (accessed 17 July 2024).

[70]The Hon. Tony Abbott MP, Prime Minister, The Hon. Warren Truss MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development;Joint press release: Western Sydney Airport to Deliver Jobs and Infrastructure, 14 April 2014, p. 1 (accessed 17 July 2024).

[71]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 18.

[72]DITRDCA, Western Sydney fact sheet: Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Overview, 2020, p. 1 (accessed 17 July 2024).

[73]DITRDCA, Submission 55, p. 15.

[74]DITRDCA, Western Sydney fact sheet: Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Overview, 2020, p. 2.

[75]DITRDCA, Western Sydney fact sheet: Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Overview, 2020, p. 2.

[76]Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Warren Truss MP, House of Representatives Hansard No. 16, 19 October 2015, p. 11561.

[77]Western Sydney Airport, Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Volume 1: Project background, 2015, p. 274 (accessed 17 July 2024).

[78]Dr Daniel May, Western Sydney Airport: a chronology 2012 to 2021, Parliamentary Library Research Paper Series, 2022–23, 6 September 2022, pp. 11–12.

[79]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part A: Background, 2023, p. 1 (accessed 17 July 2024). The most current variation of the Airport Plan is Airport Plan (September 2021) is available here: PDF: 4.7 MB.

[80]DITRDCA, Airport Plan (accessed 17 July 2024).

[81]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part A: Background, 2023, p.1.

[82]Commonwealth of Australia, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport – Airspace and flight path design, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Part A: Background, 2023, p.1.

[83]DITRDCA, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport: Draft EIS submissions overview, May 2024, pp. 2–3 (accessed 17 July 2024).

[84]Hon Catherine King MP, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Media release: Around 8,000 submissions received for Western Sydney Airport draft Environmental Impact Statement, 1 February 2024 (accessed 1 February 2024).

[85]DITRDCA, Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport airspace and flight path design (accessed 17 July 2024). See also: Submissions.

[86]Hobart Airport, Submission 72, p. 1.

[87]Hobart Airport, Our story (accessed 20 August 2024).

[88]Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Aeronautical Study of Hobart, February 2017, p. 6.

[89]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airport: Changes to arrival and departure flight paths, September 2017, p.1 (accessed 20 August 2024).

[90]Airservices Australia, Community consultation sessions, September 2024 (accessed 18 November 2024).

[91]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, p. 1.

[92]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, pp. 1–2.

[93]ANO, Investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, April 2018, pp. 60–61.

[94]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airspace Design Review: Final Report, March 2019, pp. 1, 5 and 8.

[95]Airservices Australia, Post Implementation Review of the Hobart Airspace Design Review: Consideration of Feedback on the Draft PIR Report, April 2022, p. 3.

[96]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airspace Design Review: Post Implementation Review Report, April 2022, p.24.

[97]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airspace Design Review: Post Implementation Review Report, April 2022, pp.7–8.

[98]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airport Runway 30 Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) trial, June2024. p.1.

[99]Airservices Australia, Runway 30 NAP Trial Implementation, 10 June 2024 (accessed 13 August 2024).

[100]Airservices Australia, Hobart Airport Runway 30 Noise Abatement Procedure (NAP) trial, June2024, p.2.

[101]Hobart Airport, Master Plan 2022, p. 50 (accessed 20 August 2024).

[102]Hobart Airport, Runway strengthening now a reality, Media release, 25 October 2022.

[103]The Hon Catherine King, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Investing in Australia's future, Media Release, 25 October 2022.

[104]The Hon Catherine King, Minister forInfrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Runway works underway to help Hobart take flight, Media Release, 19 July 2024.

[105]Hobart Airport, Terminal Expansion Project (accessed 20 August 2024).

[106]Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne), Submission 40, p. 7.

[107]Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne), Submission 40, p. 7.

[108]Melbourne Airport Corporation, 2022 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, p. 43 (accessed 20 August 2024).

[109]Prime Minister and Cabinet, Opening of Tullamarine Airport, 1 July 1970, p. 2.

[110]Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne), Submission 40, p. 28.

[111]Melbourne Airport Corporation, Aircraft Noise (accessed 20 August 2024).

[112]Melbourne Airport Corporation, 2022 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, p. 53.

[113]Melbourne Airport Community Aviation Consultative Group, Guidelines (accessed 9 September 2024).

[114]Melbourne Airport Corporation, 2022 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, p. 141.

[115]Brimbank City Council, Submission 54, p. IV.

[116]Melbourne Airport Corporation, 2022 Melbourne Airport Master Plan, p. 142.).

[117]Australia Pacific Airports (Melbourne), Submission 40, p. 9.

[118]Melbourne Airport Community Aviation Consultative Group, Minutes February 2022, p. 3 and p. 5 (accessed 9 September 2024).

[119]APAM, Melbourne Airport’s third runway: why we need it 2022 (accessed 9 September 2024).

[120]APAM, Master Plan (accessed 20 August 2024) & APAM, Melbourne Airport’s third runway to keep Victoria flying, 13 September 2024 (accessed 26 September 2024).

[121]Frank Rivoli, Submission 204, p. 4; and Jim Sowersby, Submission 93, [p. 1-3].

[122]Frank Rivoli, Submission 204, p. 4; and Name Withheld, Submission 148, p. 2.

[123]Maria Mizzi, Submission 310, p. 1; Name Withheld, Submission 502, p. 2: and Mr Adam Bandt MP, Submission 37, p. 37.

[124]Moorabbin Airport, Overview (accessed 20 August 2024).

[125]City of Kingston, Submission 53, [p. 2].

[126]CAE Aviation, Locations (accessed 20 August 2024).

[127]Moorabbin Airport, Fly Friendly Booklet, [p. 2](accessed 20 August 2024).

[128]Moorabbin Airport, Fly Friendly Booklet, [p. 2](accessed 20 August 2024).

[129]East Melbourne Group, Submission 48, pp. 2–3.

[130]Dingley Village Community Association, Submission 28, p. 6.

[131]DITRDCA, Aviation Green Paper (accessed 24 July 2024).

[132]DITRDCA, Have your say: Aviation Green Paper (accessed 24 July 2024).

[133]AAA, Submission 13, p. 1.

[134]DITRDCA, Aviation White Paper, 26 August 2024 (accessed 28 August 2024).

[135]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, pp. 152–154 (accessed 28 August 2024).

[136]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 153.

[137]Australian Government, Aviation White Paper: towards 2050, August 2024, p. 154.

[138]DITRDCA, The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme–Consultation paper, August 2024, 5–10 (accessed 28 August 2024).

[139]DITRDCA, The Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme–Consultation paper, August 2024, pp. 5–10.

[140]DITRDCA, Establishing the Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme, 26 August 2024 (accessed 28 August 2024).