Chapter 5Consultation
5.1Consultation around aircraft noise, airport developments, and flight path changes occurs through both permanent, and ad hoc or time-limited mechanisms.
5.2This chapter examines evidence on existing consultation mechanisms and processes, including:
the role and performance of Community Aviation Consultation Groups and equivalent groups;
Airservices' consultation on flight path design; and
consultation processes led by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (department).
5.3Proposals to improve these mechanisms and processes are outlined, followed by the committee's views and recommendation/s.
Community Aviation Consultation Groups
5.4Airports are required to support the establishment of Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs). These are permanent bodies which operate under Guidelines issued by the department. CACGs must be convened by an independent Chair. Membership and composition are a matter for the airport operator and the Chair. CACGs are designed to be 'a mechanism to ensure appropriate community engagement on airport planning and operations'. The Guidelines stipulate that airport operators are 'expected to give serious consideration to recommendations made by their CACG, particularly in relation to Master Plans and [Major Development Proposals (MDPs)]'.[1]
5.5Airservices is not formally a member of any CACG but attends meetings to provide information and 'assist in discussions'. Airservices engages with CACGs 'on flight path and airspace changes, as well as technical reviews, such as noise monitoring and noise abatement procedures'. CACG membership varies by airport, but generally includes:
airport management
aircraft operators
community organisations or representatives
representatives from state, territory or local government bodies
local tourism and business groups.[2]
5.6Other consultation bodies include:
Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF)—established in July 1996 to address the noise impacts from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport (KSA) in consultation with affected residents. SACF is the CACG for Sydney Airport but is not run by the airport operator. It includes representatives from the community, local councils, industry, and the Commonwealth and New South Wales (NSW) state parliaments. Secretariat support is provided by the Commonwealth Infrastructure Department.[3]
Forum on Western Sydney Airport (FoWSA)—the main forum of engagement linking the community, the Government and Western Sydney Airport Corporation (WSA Co) during construction of Western Sydney International Airport (WSI).[4]
Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB)—a permanent, independent community body, established in 2023 to 'better manage consultation on aircraft noise impacts around Brisbane Airport'.[5]
Perth Airport Community Forum (PACF)—the CACG for Perth Airport. Another entity—the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Technical Working Group—is responsible for managing aircraft noise impacts of Perth Airport. The group is chaired by Airservices Australia and includes Perth Airport, Airservices and airlines.[6]
5.7Along with these permanent bodies, community consultation processes are conducted by airport operators, the Infrastructure Department, and/or Airservices. These are usually in relation to Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes for major developments, and in relation to significant flight path changes. The 2023 Draft EIS process for WSI's flight paths provides the most recent example.
5.8Inquiry participants, including most current and former members of most CACGs, were dissatisfied with existing consultation mechanisms and processes, which they saw as unproductive and frustrating.
5.9President of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils Ltd (WSROC), Mr Barry Calvert said:
There is just token consultation and then we are placated with the idea that this will create jobs, and therefore you should accept it. The councils of Western Sydney are saying, 'We don't want token consultation anymore. If we are going to discuss airport noise then we want a body that will listen to us.' We don't want them to just tick a box and say, 'Yes, we have listened to you. Now, move on.' We want an organisation that will listen to the community of Western Sydney properly so that we are part of the decisions about our future.[7]
5.10BFPCA described existing consultation as 'talkfests' and 'engagement theatre'. According to BFPCA, this encompasses 'lodging complaints that go nowhere, writing submissions that get ignored, attending consultation workshops that have no impact, joining sham-forums that have no authority'. BFPCA said what is needed is 'honest, easy-to-understand and accurate information' and genuine action on noise mitigation.[8]
5.11Mr John Cincotta, member of the Moorabbin Airport CACG and of Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA), maintained that CACGs 'do not resolve community concerns; nor do they have any decision-making powers'. According to Mr Cincotta, Airservices and aviation sector members of CACGs have no 'motivation to change the status quo' and Airservices attends only to 'minimise anything that will impact what they need to do'.
5.12President of the Gold Coast Lifestyle Association, Mr John Hicks described his experiences with the CACG for Gold Coast Airport. Despite introducing 'a strategic work program' designed to address 'issues of significance', progress has been limited. In addition, since the pandemic, departmental officers no longer attend CACG meetings in person, making it difficult to establish an 'ongoing dialogue and relationship'. Mr Hicks argued that the CACG guidelines should be updated to include a requirement 'that senior [departmental] officers attend in person to hear the concerns of the community and form an ongoing dialogue through that mechanism'.
5.13Mr Cincotta described his experiences as a member of the Moorabbin Airport CACG. While community members have 'a really good relationship with the CACG … and the airport', the CACG is 'very much just an information-sharing exercise' where the airport tells stakeholders about 'what's happening'. According to Mr Cincotta, discussions around the issue of noise are 'shut down' because the aviation sector members are not willing to consider 'anything that will impact the operations of the airport'. Without 'regulatory pressure', Mr Cincotta noted:
There's nothing that forces the airport to make those changes when it impacts their operations. So, between the chair of the CACG and the CEO of the airport, they make no allusions to the fact that they're there to run an airport and run it to be commercially viable, which is disappointing from the community point of view.
5.14Airport operators are clear that CACGs do not have any decision-making power. On its 'Consultation' webpage, Hobart Airport notes that Hobart Airport's Community Aviation Consultation Group is 'not an arbitration or decision-making body and has no power to direct or implement policy in regards the development of Hobart Airport'.[12]
5.15Inquiry participants also expressed frustration that certain mitigation strategies are considered 'off limits' and cannot be discussed in any forum. For instance, Mr Trevor Neal, Secretary of Residents Against Western Sydney Airport (RAWSA), observed that curfews for WSI and Brisbane Airport have been explicitly 'ruled out' by government, while no 'definitive or analytical reasoning' has been provided. Mr Neal said this prohibition limits RAWSA's ability to meaningfully engage with consultation processes.[13]
Sydney-based forums
5.16One exception to inquiry participants' generally negative perception of CACGs was the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF). SACF members were largely positive about the role it has played in relation to noise mitigation, although they expressed some concern that the role of SACF is now being diminished.
5.17SACF was established by the federal Infrastructure Minister in 1996 as part of the implementation of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney (LTOP), and is the main forum for community consultation on the plan. Unlike other CACGs, SACF's Chair is appointed by the Minister, not the airport, and its terms of reference are largely focussed on noise issues. According to SACF participant, Mr John Clarke, this structure has made SACF more effective and responsive than other CACGs.
5.18Participants maintained that SACF has historically represented best-practice. However, they were concerned that SACF is being undermined or weakened, with meetings no longer held in person, opportunities for community input removed from the agenda, and less accurate formal Minutes being prepared.[15]
5.19Residents of Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains were less positive about consultation forums designed to facilitate consultation around WSI. Blue Mountains Residents described FoWSA as 'a group that has no community representative and holds its meetings incognito', saying SACF 'has much greater influence and input to aviation decisions at KSA'. The residents concluded that community aviation forums:
… need to have clearly defined responsibilities and abilities and influence in developing aviation policy in Australia and protecting communities and have consistency in formation, operation, and reporting.
5.20The Draft EIS for WSI includes establishment of a CACG by the end of 2024. WSROC recommended that this forum includes the Mayors of Western Sydney, and FOWSA is 'not regarded as an effective mechanism for dealing with substantive and sometimes contentious issues'.
Brisbane-based forums
5.21As outlined in Chapter 1, noise issues relating to Brisbane Airport may be discussed through the Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group (BACACG) but are now generally referred to the AAB. According to BACACG, since the opening of the new parallel runway (NPR) in 2020, BACACG meetings have continued to address aircraft noise-related concerns. However, 'noise related issues are generally referred to [the AAB]'.
Brisbane Airport Community Aviation Consultation Group
5.22Some BACACG members outlined concerns with the forum, including:
more time being allocated to corporate/industry representatives than community representatives;
corporate representatives providing dense, highly technical presentations that are difficult for community representatives to understand;
inadequate number of meetings per year (four);
'repeated evasions and denials' by Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) and Airservices;
'collusion' between BAC and Airservices around 'faux community consultations and self-verification of flight path planning';
lack of engagement from the airport and aviation industry members with community and expert evidence around noise impacts; and
vast disparities in 'power, time and resources' between community and corporate representatives.
5.23Other BACACG members were more complementary. For instance, the Representative for the State Seat of Clayfield described a previous successful noise mitigation outcome achieved through BACACG, saying:
For residents of Pinkenba, [advocacy through BACACG] eventually led to a correcting of a flight path from the Legacy Runway and to the relief for residents—less noise over all from the morning passenger jets. This was prior to the NPR (New Parallel Runway) 2020.
5.24Asked to respond to some of the concerns, the Chair of BACACG, Mr Nigel Chamier AM, reported that he has 'increased the time for representatives to ask questions and make presentations to some 50% of the meeting time', in response to feedback.
5.25BACACG representatives held differing views on whether discussion of noise should now be limited to the AAB. The Representative for the Federal Seat of Brisbane argued that BACACG's role is to 'act as an interface' between the airport and the community. Because 'noise impacts … suffered by citizens arise directly from the operations of the Brisbane airport', BAC has an obligation to listen to, and act on, community concerns in this area:
These issues should be dealt with fully in BACACG and there is no reason to defer to AAB on this issue, as the focus in both cases is on the responsibility for mitigation of noise harms (through AAB in the case of Airservices, and through BACACG in the case of BAC).
5.26Conversely, the Representative for the State Seat of Clayfield was 'glad' that the Government established a separate forum for the noise action plan, as it 'allows an extra ability and accountability for noise related issues to be addressed'. This also allows BACACG to be 'more proactive on other issues that come up for community and businesses'.
Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board
5.27Chair of the AAB, Mr Ron Brent, and AAB participants, including Ms Tess Bignell, reported being frustrated or disappointed with the forum. Ms Bignell submitted that AAB:
… lacks independency and authenticity. Members are there solely for the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane with a small window of time being a few minutes to ask questions or make presentations on behalf of community. When issues are raised, they are often settled out of session by email without further rebuttal. Issues appear to have a foregone conclusion. Thus far, not one issue raised has resulted in a positive outcome for community or Industry concession for community. Issues impacting community are often held as Unauthorized for distribution.
5.28Ms Bignell said community representatives are simply used to 'check' Airservices' presentations before they are distributed more widely, suggestions for improvements are often ignored, and Minutes of the meeting do not record discussions—only outcomes—which ' leaves a lot of questions in the community unanswered as to how these results were obtained'. Community representatives have also been 'barred from disseminating' certain information, with discussions on sensitive topics excluded from the official Minutes.
5.29According to Mr Brent, while Airservices has 'made serious efforts to improve the noise outcomes for Brisbane', the new runway 'has serious negative consequences for a lot of people in Brisbane', and these will 'continue to be a problem', regardless of any improvements made. Mr Brent was frustrated that the AAB has a 'rather narrow brief', faces 'difficult challenges' and, has not been able to achieve as much as he would have expected:
I think at the margin we can point to some things where consultation and documentation were improved and communications were improved but, fundamentally, I cannot point to noise reductions that we can claim credit for. That does raise a question about the future of the AAB, but, as long as it exists and I'm chair, I'll work hard to get the best value out of it.
5.30BACACG Representative for the Federal Seat of Brisbane argued that, while the AAB's mandate is to consult on the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane, 'health and pollution issues are an important impact'. However, the Minister excluded this topic from discussion at AAB. Mr Brent expressed a personal view that the AAB would be 'a good forum' to consider the health impacts of noise in Brisbane.
5.31Mr Brent suggested the AAB's brief be expanded so that it could consider health impacts, and 'go beyond the noise abatement program':
… if everything that's [included in the Noise Action Plan for Brisbane] is done, there will be a great many people in Brisbane still significantly dissatisfied with the outcome, because it's not going to fix the problem, make it go away or turn us back to the situation we had prior to the second runway. So I think we do need to have a way of exploring broader options.
5.32Adding to the frustration of Brisbane-based groups, BFPCA reported that it has attempted to secure a meeting with the federal Infrastructure Minister or her staff, and has been unsuccessful. Mr Brent and Mr Chamier also reported that they had not met with the Minister.[31] In contrast, the CEO of BAC confirmed he has met with the Minister multiple times, as has the CEO of Tourism and Transport Forum Australia, and the Queensland Tourism Industry Council has also met with the Minister.[32]
5.33The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) recommended that both BACACG and AAB be discontinued, as they have 'both proven to be meaningless and inconsequential'. BFPCA recommended the establishment of a 'strong, independent, permanent, and fully funded Brisbane Airport Community Forum', which would be 'chaired independently', have 'broad' terms of reference, which avoid the perception of 'industry capture, including by regulators, aviation companies, or the airport operator', and receive secretariat support from the department.[33]
5.34Mr Clarke suggested the establishment in Brisbane of an airport community forum like SACF, saying SACF's independence from the airport, along with its 'community, industry, and political membership' mean it has been more 'responsive and effective' than other CACGs.
Technical knowledge and expertise
5.35Community members who have participated in CACGs highlighted the fact that 'aircraft operations and noise are highly technical and complex issues, and the community members are only volunteers'. Mr Clarke submitted that, in order to be effective, community representatives need 'independent expert assistance to carry out their responsibilities'.
5.36The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) attends CACGs and CACG equivalents across Australia. It agreed that 'the knowledge of community representatives varies significantly between the different groups', impacting their relative efficacy and influence. SACF has a 'well-informed' group of community representatives because it was previously supported by an 'Aviation Community Advocate'. This expert role was funded by the department and provided support to the community representatives of SACF by undertaking research and analysis and providing technical advice.
5.37According to SACF participant, Mr Bob Hayes, the Aviation Community Advocate position was funded and filled from 2007–2009, after which it was 'abolished for "Budgetary reasons" and remains so, despite repeated requests from the SACF Community Members for reinstatement'. Mr Clarke said reinstatement of the position would 'facilitate community input, represent community interests, develop proposals for change and investigate community concerns'. This national role would need to be 'appropriately' funded and resourced.[37]
5.38BACACG Representative for the State Seat of Clayfield noted the limited resources available to community representatives and said, 'perhaps community representatives can be supported more to be able to facilitate their role for the areas they represent'.
5.39SACF Community Representative for the West, Ms Maria Patrinos suggested strong community representative committees be established in the early stages of any airport development, before legislated community consultation commences, and that government fund and 'provide access to independent technical advisers' to help nominated community advocates make more effective submissions to authorities.[39]
5.40The ANO echoed this recommendation, saying:
Accessibility to a technical expert by CACG community representatives is a pathway that could not only enable more well-informed discussions in CACGs but also support community representatives in making submissions to community consultative procedures for major airport developments. This model could be offered as a resource to all CACGs to work on individual projects or on combined projects of shared concerns.
Updating CACG Guidelines
5.41Aviation White Paper 'Initiative 38' outlines the Government's intention to update CACG Guidelines by June 2025 to 'set out ministerial expectations for greater community input into the CACG work programs, greater community involvement in CACG meetings and more widespread dissemination of CACG information to community members'. These changes aim to address community concerns, including:
… difficulty accessing CACG meeting papers and information about meeting outcomes; and … concerns that CACGs do not always agree to consider issues of priority to the community.
5.42The Aviation White Paper does not propose to change the structure or membership of CACGs, or to reintroduce an Aviation Community Advocate role, or the provision of independent technical support.
Airservices' consultation
5.43As outlined in Chapter 1 of this report, Airservices' community consultation on flight path design and airspace management is widely seen as inadequate. Airservices has taken steps, over the last five years in particular, to improve the quality and efficacy of its consultation. However, evidence indicated that significant issues remain unresolved.
Community Engagement Standard
5.44Airservices' community engagement includes a range of policies, and:
Engage Airservices interactive engagement platform—an online engagement portal, providing information on current flight path and airspace changes and engagement activity. Community members can register to receive updates and alerts of new flight path and airspace changes and upcoming engagement activity.
Airport noise portals—our Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS) for 15 capital city and regional airports provides public reporting of information on air traffic movements, runway use, and flight paths, and complaints summaries and statistics. It also includes summaries of noise improvement investigations and outcomes.
Aircraft in your Neighbourhood airport gateways—an online airport gateway for Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast airports, that provides community members with a fully interactive opportunity to access air traffic and noise related information relevant to their address, suburb or general area. This includes flight paths and aircraft flow and links to useful resources.
WebTrak—a tool that enables the community to see where aircraft fly and explore historical trends and patterns. Aircraft noise data is also displayed, collected daily from noise monitors strategically located around communities close to the airport.
Noise and Complaints Information Service (NCIS)—our aircraft noise complaints, information and investigation service, providing the community with information about aircraft operations, and conducting targeted investigation into air traffic noise impacts to identify noise improvement opportunities and report on compliance of Fly Neighbourly Procedures and Noise Abatement Procedures.
5.45On 12 September 2023, Airservices released a new national Community Engagement Standard(CES), developed in response to recommendations outlined in the ANO's 2020 Review of Airservices Australia's systems for community engagement. The CES 'provides a clearly defined process' for engagement with the public on flight path and airspace changes 'of various scope, scale and complexity', and establishes a performance benchmark.
5.46The CES outlines an engagement approach that:
categorises change proposals into three levels to define the scope and scale of engagement required
includes 10 principles that will guide engagement activity
involves five steps that each flight path and/or airspace change would be taken through, to provide a consistent, repeatable, effective engagement experience
facilitates the iterative development of flight path and airspace changes in consultation with the community.
5.47The CES was developed following a process of engagement with industry and community stakeholders. While engagement with industry commenced in February 2023, a public consultation process was conducted by independent consultancy, Aurecon, from 3 May to 2 July 2023. According to Airservices, Aurecon was commissioned in order to provide 'assurance of a rigorous and transparent engagement process'. Over 560 people participated in the process, 'providing over 800 individual comments' which were considered as input for the final Standard.
5.48When it released the final standard, Airservices provided a copy of the draft CES showing 'mark ups to identify the changes made as a result of feedback', a copy of the consultant report 'detailing the national engagement and recommendations', and a copy of Airservices' response to the recommendations. A key recommendation that Airservices rejected was that all consultations should be conducted in person, even for Level 3 (lower level) changes.
5.49The final standard limits the engagement activities required by Airservices for Level 3 changes, which may include 'proposals to introduce a new Instrument Landing System', 'proposals to replicate existing flight paths with new more precise routes', or 'proposals to introduce new hours of operation, carriers or new aircraft types to the existing flight paths'. Level 3 is also defined as changes that have:
A narrow set of specific impacts.
Few potentially viable alternative flight path design options apart from making no change.
A limited number of geographically confined stakeholders affected.
5.50Any change Airservices categorises as a Level 3 change only requires a 'desktop analysis of affected stakeholders and local area', a published 'engagement plan' with a 2–4 week online information campaign (feedback may not be sought), publication of an 'engagement report', and informing affected stakeholders of implementation timing.
5.51Some inquiry participants had concerns about the CES. For instance, Blue Mountains Residents said the CES:
would be effective 'only if it is implemented in a consistent, transparent way for all stakeholders, not just government and industry';
should be reviewed every 3–5 years to ensure Airservices is 'remaining current with community feeling'; and
should be 'free of statements that are open to interpretation and misrepresentation'.
5.52BFPCA called Airservices' community engagement framework (built around the CES) 'fraudulent', saying it outlines a goal of 'reducing noise "impacts" without there being any metrics to evaluate actual net noise and thus harm reductions'. The Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group (Flight Path Opponents Group) said the community engagement framework 'appears more protective of [Airservices'] interests than genuinely inclusive of community input'.
5.53Dr Andrew Terhorst, from the Flight Path Opponents Group, said the CES's categorisation of change proposals into 'three levels' represents 'a form of triage' in which changes impacting small communities would be 'deprioritised'. He added that the CES does not address 'the nub of the matter, which is co-design and shared decision-making'.
5.54Hobart Airport praised Airservices' decision to update its consultation policies, but said the new CES has provided 'no perceptible improvements in engagement between [Airservices] and local community members' in Hobart.
Community experiences
5.55The Flight Path Opponents Group was critical of Airservices' use of 'one-on-one' drop-in sessions for face-to-face consultation, saying they prefer to consult as a group, and that one-on-one conversations allow Airservices to 'avoid transparency'. They argued that Airservices' reliance on CACGs, and its Engage Airservices consultation platform, 'falls short of addressing the diverse needs of noise-impacted communities'.[54]
5.56Noise-affected Tasmanian resident, Mrs Sharon Fotheringham, said Airservices had repeatedly failed to meet its own timeframes, promising consultation sessions then failing to set dates or nominate venues, and distributing flyers with 'a barcode' (QR Code) which 'a lot of community members, being elderly, can't access'. Mrs Fotheringham added, 'They just don't want to communicate. And they only give us the bare minimum that they have to'.
5.57Hobart Airport echoed these concerns, saying, a 'series of community engagements, surveys, assessments, post implementation reviews, and noise abatement trials led by Airservices Australia has fomented further frustration resulting in a breakdown of trust'.
5.58According to Mrs Fotheringham, Airservices' personnel are 'totally unapproachable'. During a consultation session in Dunalley on 22 November 2024, there were not enough seats, and elderly people were expected to stand up for long periods of time. Mrs Fotheringham said:
They display no empathy or understanding to communities or of the negative effects they have lumbered on our communities. Airservices is autocratic, dictatorial, bullying and harassing in its attitude to the community. This never changes. They have no concept of the term 'community engagement'.
5.59Mr Russell Hall, a resident of Hamilton (6km from Brisbane Airport), maintained that Airservices pays 'lip service' to consultation but fails to act:
We attended the Airservices Australia briefings at New Farm Bowls club 18 months ago and listened to [the Head of Community Engagement] state 'ASA have 15 [Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)] certified flight path designers ready to act'. Listen to her state 'we hear you', 'we hear you'. Nothing has changed in reality and the same patronising and superior attitude prevails.
5.60East Melbourne Group submitted that, instead of consulting community members directly about flight paths over East Melbourne, Airservices relied upon presentations to the Melbourne Airport CACG, where it 'emphasised the safety benefits while minimising the environmental impact'.
5.61Some airport operators said Airservices' consultation reflects poorly upon them. For instance, Asia Pacific Airports (Melbourne) reported that it receives a lot of community frustration directed towards Airservices.
5.62In its submission to the Aviation White Paper, the ANO suggested Airservices' internal focus on 'servicing, promoting and fostering the aviation industry' means the organisation has historically 'taken a minimalist approach to its engagement with the community, tending to avoid it where possible'.
5.63Current Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, Mr Keiran Pehm said the ANO monitors Airservices' consultation events. This is mostly done 'remotely' as consultations are broadcast. Mr Pehm noted that 'there's a degree of hostility and mistrust' from communities towards Airservices, which can make it difficult to assess the quality of its engagement. However, he also observed the Dunalley event, saying:
I did see the Tasmanian evidence, and I was concerned about the lack of chairs and about Airservices allegedly making people feel uncomfortable and discouraging engagement. We've had complaints from one of the people who gave that evidence, and we're looking into that now. We'll get a response from Airservices.
5.64Airservices submitted that it 'does not rely solely on website-based material' and CACG briefings for engagement:
In our most recent engagement in Hobart, we … also use media articles, newspaper advertising, alerts to local elected representatives and multiple face-to-face engagement sessions to provide a range of channels through which to learn about and participate in our engagement.
Information materials are available in print and digital formats. Alerts were sent to community members registered with us from previous engagement phases and also to our Noise Complaints and Information Service Hobart database.
Outcomes
5.65Inquiry participants were concerned that, even where consultation is sufficient, its outcomes rarely alter Airservices' plans.
5.66Mr Pehm noted that the ANO is primarily involved when changes have been made to flight paths or new runways have opened and, subsequently, 'the community has gone crazy'. In these cases, the ANO examines 'what went wrong in the consultation period', prepares a report and makes recommendations to Airservices. While Airservices has implemented many of the ANO's recommendations, this has not 'changed the noise outcomes', as Airservices continues to not act on outcomes of community engagement. Mr Pehm provided an example from Hobart:
… where a change was proposed through community engagement [in relation to Hobart flight paths], we're still not sure exactly who in Airservices nixed that proposal. More complaints were received. When we examined it, we saw that the reasons for negating or not approving the proposal were opaque and unclear. They've implemented that change now…
5.67The ANO recommended Airservices reviews its internal procedures for how the outcomes of community engagement are considered. While this is starting to occur, Mr Pehm said it is 'a slow process'. Also noting the slow pace of change in Airservices, Brisbane resident, David Swan said, while Airservices has implemented 'an extensive consultation program for Brisbane', it is questionable whether this process 'actually amounts to meaningful consultation designed to provide impacted communities with a real opportunity to influence outcomes'.
5.68BAC said Airservices 'should be commended' for developing the CES, but there should be a 'robust framework' for presenting decisions, then refining and/or reviewing decisions based on public feedback, rather than 'an open-ended process of selecting options'. This would avoid the current 'endless cycle of engagement with little buy in from key stakeholders'.
Third party consultations
5.69Inquiry participants suggested Airservices' desire to avoid consultation informed its decision to outsource community consultation on Brisbane's new parallel runway to BAC—a decision which angered noise-affected Brisbane residents.
5.70BAC argued that its community consultation was 'very broad' and 'extensive', and blamed Airservices for its failure to implement optimal flight operations, saying this has led to a 'gulf … between the way we described it operating as the way that the runway system was designed and the way that it's operating now'.[69]
5.71Airservices was asked if it had provided oversight of BAC's consultation, and Mr Curran confirmed it had not, but that Airservices had learned from this decision:
… we had a very technical role supporting it. It was never our role to oversight it. I think we're very much clearer post the Brisbane experience that our obligations are never extinguished by a third party's activities, and so today we take a stronger focus on understanding the messages a third party, airport or anyone else engaged in a proposal that will lead to a flight path change will be providing. We ensure that they meet the standards to which we are held to account, through our national operating standard, and where necessary we augment community engagement to ensure that we've extinguished our obligations.
Future improvements
5.72In his opening statement to the committee, Airservices' new interim CEO, Mr Rob Sharp acknowledged that Airservices has not 'always got consultation right'. He argued that 'significant progress has been made' with the development of the CES. Airservices is now 'implementing enhanced decision-making processes to improve' its 'final decision-making processes when considering community feedback'.
5.73Aviation White Paper Initiative 37 sets out the Government's intension to improve engagement with communities affected by changes to airspace and flight paths:
The Australian Government has set expectations for Airservices Australia to apply best-practice consultation when designing airspace and flight path changes, consistent with the Community Engagement Standard for Flight Path and Airspace Change Proposals finalised in 2023.
5.74The ANO noted section 81 of the Airports Act 1996 (Cth) requires the minister to take into account consultations undertaken with communities, and the views of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Airservices, when approving airport developments. The ANO suggested Airservices should 'be able to advise the Minister on the adequacy of community engagement in the development of the flight paths in the plan as well as the purely operational aspects'.
Noise Complaints and Information Service
5.75Airservices provides the Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) which manages complaints and enquiries about aircraft operations and Airservices' community engagement activities. Providing a complaints service is not a function specifically outlined in the Airservices Act 1995 (Cth). However, ministerial statements of expectations for Airservices Australia, issued under section 17 of the Act, have regularly outlined the Government's expectation that Airservices will provide 'appropriate resourcing of the Airservices Noise Complaints and Information Service to continue to improve the flow and quality of information to noise affected communities'.
5.76Airservices' website states that it uses 'complaints and enquiries to help us identify operations of concern and possible opportunities for improvement'. The website also provides the following warning, offers free counselling services and provides phone numbers for mental health support lines:
Figure 5.1Screenshot from Airservices' NCIS website
Source: Airservices Australia, Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) (accessed 11 October 2024).
5.77This section considers inquiry evidence about the performance of the NCIS and people's experiences with it. Data on noise complaints is discussed in Chapter 2 of this report.
5.78Noise-affected residents and community groups—especially those in Hobart and Brisbane—were highly critical of the NCIS. Samford Area Aircraft Action Group said the NCIS has been 'an epic failure', exacerbating the stress experienced by communities impacted by Airservices' flight path design. It is 'understaffed and under resourced', and Complaint Statistics published by Airservices are 'understated':
Airservices now include a Suicide Hotline and Counselling Service on their automated response to noise complaints. This speaks volumes about the impact of Airservices behaviour and absolute lack of real community engagement!
5.79Mr Cincotta described the NCIS as an 'ineffective complaint-handing system' which does not address 'the root cause for complaints' and leaves people feeling 'frustrated by the process'. East Melbourne Group said its members have 'given up lodging complaints as we are told nothing can or will be done'. Mr Robert James, a resident of Brookfield (30km from Brisbane Airport) said Airservices has established 'communication barriers' to 'circumvent complaints' through the NCIS, such the use of pre-scripted responses and a daily limit on complaints:
Despite receiving many thousands of complaints none have been investigated and the NCIS have redirected any aggrieved residents to contact Lifeline regarding the criticalness the aircraft noise is causing them.
5.80Kensington (Perth) residents, Ron and Anthea Harding said that, despite 'several email and phone complaints' to NCIS, 'nothing is done'. They also stated that Airservices did not inform them about the Senate's inquiry into aircraft noise, even though they were in email contact during the inquiry's submission period. They eventually found out about the inquiry from the ANO.
5.81Members of the House of Representatives for inner-urban Brisbane seats representing the Australian Greens submitted that there is 'no real avenue for dealing with complaints' within Airservices. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests from BFPCA indicate NCIS 'staff are explicitly trained to stonewall and deflect residents' concerns' and to ignore residents who have complained repeatedly. Counselling may be offered, but there is 'simply no consideration given to actual steps to resolve complaints by implementing suggestions from the community to reduce noise'. In addition, documents received through FOI suggest staff receive almost no training on conducting 'noise complaint investigations' and no investigations have been conducted through this mechanism since at least 2018.
5.82BFPCA submitted that responses from the NCIS are 'typically delayed by several weeks, sometimes months, if indeed any response is provided', and that most people 'give up because the process is so complex and depressing'. BFPCA pointed out the contrast between Airservices' complaint handling processes and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's 2023 edition of the Better Practice Complaint Handling Guide. The Ombudsman's Guide notes that people's expectations of complaint handling have increased, and provides principles and key considerations to support government entities to develop 'resilient and successful' systems. BFPCA argued that the NCIS fails to meet the Ombudsman's definition of a 'good complaint handling service' and its practices have led to 'customer disengagement', 'reputational damage', and 'loss of trust in government'.
5.83CAAA maintained that ministerial statements of expectations only require the NCIS to be 'an information response and data logging service', not to investigate or resolve complaints. As such, the NCIS 'adds no value to the administration and mitigation of complaints'. CAAA suggested the NCIS 'role, charter and reporting structure' be reviewed with a view to transferring the complaints function to a new independent ANO.
5.84Aviation sector stakeholders also noted the limited efficacy of the NCIS. Mr Shannon Wells, Managing Director, Airlines of Tasmania; and Cambridge Aerodrome, was asked if complaints about the Cambridge Aerodrome are handled by Airservices. Mr Wells indicated they manage their own complaints, mitigating and sharing noise as much as possible. He added, 'I can contact Airservices and it will disappear into bureaucracy, if I could be as blunt as that'.
5.85Emirates Airline referred the committee to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) submission on the Aviation Green Paper, which included a number of suggestions for improving the NCIS, including:
improved complaints data and analysis;
better communication with communities and complainants, including better complaint resolution;
working more closely with the ANO to identify solutions; and
improving the quality of the complaints process through seeking and acting on feedback.
5.86Virgin said that the NCIS 'plays a crucial role in investigating and addressing noise complaints related to aviation activities'. However, the placement of the NCIS within Airservices is a 'limitation', as it 'poses potential conflicts of interest when balancing the aviation industry's needs with community concerns'.
Consultation role of air navigation service providers in other jurisdictions
5.87Airservices submitted that an 'extensive list of obligations' has been placed on Airservices over time which are 'significant in comparison to other air navigation service providers around the world'. Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSP) in comparable countries generally have limited responsibility for community engagement on noise and are not expected to provide a service for noise complaints and information. ANSPs in the United Kingdom (UK), Ireland and Canada are not responsible implementing noise abatement procedures, consulting with community stakeholders about the impacts of noise, or managing noise complaints and information; these responsibilities 'fall to the airports'.
5.88Table 5.2 below 'compares and contrasts' the responsibilities of Airservices with corresponding organisations in comparable countries. The wide responsibilities of Airservices are unique. In other jurisdictions air traffic control activities are contracted directly by airports in a contested market, with separate government oversight of environmental and other impacts. Arrangements like this are in place in the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and North America:
Table 5.2Comparison on ANSP responsibilities for aircraft noise management
Source: Airservices Australia, Attachments to Submission 42 (received 10 April 2024), [p. 29].
5.89Only the United States (US) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has responsibilities comparable to Airservices. However, it regulates and oversees all aspects of civil aviation in the US, including air traffic control operations. In addition to air traffic control and safety, the FAA manages environmental impacts, sets standards for noise abatement procedures, funds noise mitigation programs, and facilitates 'community involvement through public hearings and workshops on noise management issues'.
5.90While the FAA does not 'directly handle noise complaints from the public about specific incidents' (this is done by airports), it 'plays a central role in overseeing the broader regulatory framework within which noise enquiries and complaints are managed'. This includes providing guidance and support to airports regarding their handling of noise complaints, and an Ombudsman scheme to resolve issues.
Department-led consultation (Western Sydney International Airport)
5.91Consultation on the flight paths for WSI is being conducted by the department. Details of this process are outlined in Chapter 1 of this report. This section presents community and residents' feedback on the consultation process so far.
5.92RAWSA maintained that while the department and Airservices' consultations have improved in the last decade, they are still largely one-way, with agencies just 'providing information'. Blue Mountains Mayor, Mr Mark Greenhill OAM, supported this view, saying the department-led consultation on flight paths for WSI has 'essentially been informing us about a fait accompli'. Mr Neal added that community groups and residents want more than just information, they want to be able to contribute ideas and see action taken on those ideas.[87]
5.93Community and residents' groups in the Blue Mountains said information provided through the EIS process was 'poorly researched', and 'difficult to read and comprehend'. Mrs Annette Cam, President, Blue Mountains Conservation Society (BMCS), criticised the department's Aircraft Overflight Noise Tool saying, despite spending 'a lot of time using the noise tool', it was 'hard to know from that tool exactly what the impacts will be'.[88]
5.94Blue Mountains resident, Ms Krista-Ann Forsstrom submitted that 'the information presented by WSI and the way in which it was presented to the public was confusing, indirect, inaccessible and insufficient'. The Noise Tool, Draft EIS and Detailed Noise Charts make it difficult to determine the total numbers of flights and the impact on specific areas. Community members have dedicated countless hours attending consultation session, writing submissions, and reading lengthy, technical documents, trying to understand how their communities will be impacted.
5.95Ms Forsstrom criticised the inaccessibility of the Draft EIS and Noise Tool, saying:
The information provided by WSI was confusing to the average person. The Draft EIS included 25 chapters and their respective technical papers. Chapters varied in length between approximately 10–20 pages. Technical papers varied in length, some up to 800 pages, such as the technical paper on Aircraft Noise. … The WSI Noise Tool was residents' way of understanding what flights were going to affect their homes. However, it did not take into account the altitude of the Blue Mountains and based altitudes of aircraft movements on runway level. It did not reflect noise levels as outlined in the Draft EIS. … To fully understand all flights going over a persons home, they had to compare and count up information from approximately four different screens and although a 'property report' generator was introduced during late 2023, many of the details given in this property report differed from those outlined in the Draft EIS…
5.96Communities took matters into their own hands, conducting 'informal conversation with neighbours', holding 'small group meetings to formulate actions to be taken as community', attending local citizens association meetings, and creating 'a community flyer with a summary of key points from the Noise Tool and Draft EIS'. Ms Forsstrom concluded that her community hopes that the department will 'consider more equitable and accessible ways to communicate such life altering information with residents of affected communities'.
5.97Representatives of the Luddenham Progress Association said WSI is actually being built in Luddenham, 'not Badgerys Creek, as is the common perception', and Luddenham community members were only informed about the EIS process through a 'two-hour pop-up store outside the IGA on a wet Sunday morning'. Other nearby suburbs had more consultation through community feedback sessions, which Luddenham residents could attend if they made 'an appointment'. However, information was provided in English, and languages including Chinese and Arabic, which were not suited to the demographics of the suburb, which is dominated by Maltese and Italian speakers.
5.98Mayor of Wollondilly Shire Council, Mr Matt Gould said residents in Wollondilly 'really feel let down' by the consultation process. Revisions to the flight paths that the Government is currently considering will impact most on Wollondilly, 'yet there wasn't a single planned community consultation session in Wollondilly until I jumped up and down about it'.
5.99Asked if consultation with the department has been different than consultation with Airservices, Mayor Greenhill said, the 'mindset' has been the same: 'It was almost like they were given a brief "go and deliver this", and that's it'.
5.100The committee held a community open session at its hearing in Penrith, where 20 residents of Western Sydney and the Blue Mountains gave evidence. During the open session, a number of speakers stated that the department's consultation processes lacked rigour and were disingenuous.
5.101Representatives from WSA Co maintained that the department is leading the consultation on the flight paths. They were asked if WSA Co believes this consultation has been 'adequate'. Executive General Manager Commercial and Strategy, Ms Alison Webster said, 'we felt that we were contributing and playing a critical role in a very important community consultation program'. In addition, Ms Webster reported that WSA Co has had over 85000 visitations to the 'experience centre' at the airport site and prioritises positive engagement with local communities.
What do communities want?
5.102Noise-affected residents and community groups overwhelmingly wanted more effective community consultation mechanisms, more accessible information, and to know that their concerns and suggestions had been properly considered by Airservices, airport corporations and the Government. Mr Cincotta said:
We know that airports will continue to grow. It's a big business opportunity for this country. We need to find a way so the communities can have a seat at the table and be a stakeholder going forward in the plans about how their interests are going to be protected.
5.103Dr Andrew Terhorst, from the Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group, said Airservices needs to stop trying to 'control the narrative' and implement more of a 'co-design' approach:
That's what I think needs to happen, and shared decision-making ... Airservices Australia sort of decides for us what it thinks, and that's very high-handed. I understand that they are experts in their flight path design and all that, but they should actually listen more and tell less.
5.104Mrs Fotheringham said, in cases where 'conflict arises', access to an 'advocate' who is experienced in flight path design would assist communities to 'reach an acceptable solution' in conjunction with Airservices.
Committee view
5.105Aviation is critical to Australia's economy and way of life and connects and sustains regional areas. Noise and other environmental impacts are an intrinsic part of aviation and are increasing with the growth of the sector over time. Impacts on people and communities are also increasing.
5.106Governments must take a balanced approach to supporting the growth of Australian aviation while minimising impacts where possible and taking the views of communities affected by flight path decisions into account.
5.107Airservices, airport corporations, the Minister and their department need to provide timely, specific and easily understood information and be up front with communities about how aircraft noise will impact them. Where community groups or individuals have reasonable suggestions for noise mitigation, these should be genuinely considered.
5.108The committee heard time and time again that communities are frustrated. They feel ignored, disregarded and in some cases, betrayed. Too often decisions have been taken before consultation occurs. In these circumstances, consultation becomes a 'tick-a-box' exercise, with no meaningful purpose and no substantive outcomes for those who are consulted.
Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs)
5.109Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACGs) were designed to facilitate a meaningful connection between airport corporations, the aviation industry and communities. The concerns of community members should dominate the agenda of CACGs, and corporate members should engage in good faith. However, noise should not be the only issue discussed at CACG meetings.
5.110Where noise impacts are so significant that they dominate CACG meetings, the Government should give consideration to establishing a second consultation mechanism specifically to address noise and meaningfully consider mitigation strategies in partnership with the airport, airlines, Airservices and community representatives.
5.111Current guidelines do not require that Commonwealth officials, including officers from the Infrastructure Department, attend all CACG meetings—simply that they attend 'as appropriate'. Inquiry participants reported that, since the COVID-19 pandemic, departmental officials generally attend remotely. Departmental staff should attend CACGs and other forums in person, wherever possible, and be prepared to provide information, communicate the Government's position, and bring significant community concerns back to the Minister. At any meeting of this nature it is often the sideline conversations that occur before and after the formal proceedings that can provide the most insight. Such opportunities are denied when officials are only appearing via online means.
5.112The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government directs departmental representatives to participate fully in Community Aviation Consultation Group meetings, preferably attending in person.
5.113The committee appreciates that aviation is a highly complex and technical field and community representatives on CACGs are unpaid volunteers. Airports, airlines and Airservices have an obligation to provide honest, transparent and accessible information on airport operations, flight paths and airport developments to ensure community representatives can participate in an informed manner. As part of their support for CACGs, airport corporations should provide technical support to community representatives, including access to technical experts.
5.114The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts facilitates the provision, through the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman or Airservices Australia, of appropriate technical support for noise related issues to community representatives, including access to technical experts, where necessary.
5.115Where government decisions impact airport operations, departmental representatives must also be prepared to provide comprehensive, easy to understand information, and provide an avenue for CACG members to seek answers to questions they may have. Departmental representatives must relay community concerns to the Minister and ensure community concerns are provided with a response, which should be added to the agenda for discussion at a future CACG meeting.
Airservices' consultation
5.116Airservices' history of absent, inadequate and poorly managed engagement has led to a loss of trust in the organisation that will be difficult to rebuild. Community members who dedicate countless hours to researching flight paths and options for noise mitigation overwhelmingly feel that Airservices does not take their concerns and suggestions seriously, does not properly consider them, and does not explain why they are rejected.
5.117Despite investments designed to enhance Airservices' consultation approach and processes, the committee is not convinced that Airservices has changed its attitude towards the role and value of community input. It is still business as usual at Airservices.
5.118The committee supports calls by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) and others that Airservices should prioritise developing internal procedures for genuinely and efficiently considering and responding to the outcomes of community engagement.
5.119When new or changed flight paths or procedures are likely to significantly increase noise for communities, Airservices must engage before it makes changes. No one should wake up to find that flights are now suddenly going over their previously quiet neighbourhood, without reasonable steps taken to inform and consult them.
5.120Just as local authorities implement development application processes, providing public information and seeking feedback from local communities, Airservices should have a clearly defined, transparent process for consulting stakeholders on proposed changes to airspace. These processes should also be efficient. The committee appreciates that long drawn-out engagements do not benefit anyone—especially in cases where consultation is unlikely to affect the outcome.
5.121Where Airservices is unable to adequately address community concerns, it must justify its decisions, show how it has sought to minimise noise impacts, and actively consider reasonable suggestions for further noise mitigation that are made by community members. Where community suggestions cannot be implemented, Airservices should provide transparent and comprehensive reasoning in a public statement.
5.122The committee recommends that Airservices Australia builds upon work already undertaken to improve its community engagement framework by urgently developing robust processes for considering, responding to, and—where applicable—implementing outcomes of consultation processes.
Noise Complaints and Information Service
5.123Airservices' Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) is understaffed and ineffective. Inquiry participants were highly critical of the quality and accessibility of information provided, the way in which complaints are treated, responses provided by Airservices, and a failure of Airservices to investigate or resolve complaints.
5.124The committee understands that Airservices is investing in improving its processes in relation to complaints. However, communities are understandably sceptical and many have disengaged from the process entirely.
5.125The committee notes that air navigation service providers in comparable countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland are not responsible for providing public information and complaints services. These are generally handled by airports, under regulatory oversight, with conflicts resolved through an aircraft noise ombuds scheme.
5.126Airservices' primary role is to be Australia's air navigation service provider. While it is government-owned, it is largely funded by industry and must be responsive to industry, within the bounds of its Act, relevant regulations, and ministerial directions.
5.127The committee believes the reform process associated with the Aviation White Paper provides an opportunity to review the scope of Airservices' role. The Government should investigate the efficacy of consultation models in other jurisdictions, including the UK, Canda and Ireland, and consider if airports, or another entity, such as an expanded, independent ANO, could be better placed to provide public information and complaint services.
5.128The role of the Airservices and the ANO are further discussed in Chapter 6 of this report, which considers possible improvements to the regulatory and administrative arrangements around aircraft noise.
5.129The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigates international approaches to the provision of public information about aircraft and noise and flight movements, and alternative models for noise complaint handling services. The Noise Complaints and Information Service function should be removed from Airservices Australia. A replacement service should aim to provide a more effective service for community members and allow Airservices to concentrate on its core functions. The Government should consult with affected communities about what alternative body should handle complaints and what oversight should be provided to the complaints handling service.