Chapter 6Regulation and administration
6.1As outlined in Chapter 1, 22 of Australia's largest airports are located on Commonwealth land and fall under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Infrastructure Minister and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department/Infrastructure Department).
6.2With the exception of the new Western Sydney International Airport (WSI), these airports are run by private companies who hold long-term Commonwealth leases. Commonwealth laws and regulatory processes apply in relation to planning, development and environmental management of these sites—including the management of noise. However, land use planning in areas close to airports is within the jurisdiction of state and territory governments.
6.3Airservices manages Australian airspace and undertakes the majority of flight path design for Federally-leased airports. Within the Airservices agency—but operating with a degree of independence—is the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO), who conducts reviews of the handling of noise complaints and community consultation by Airservices.
6.4This chapter outlines the committee's consideration of evidence relating to the legislative and administrative arrangements governing the management of Federally-leased airports in Australia, and presents the committee's views and recommendations; it addresses:
issues with the current legislative framework, including the processes for Airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (MDPs);
measuring, mapping and monitoring aircraft noise, and regulation of aircraft noise levels;
administrative arrangements, including the role and performance of Airservices, and the role of the ANO;
how the management of aircraft noise is funded; and
land use planning and oversight.
Issues with the current regulatory framework
6.5Many inquiry participants argued that the existing arrangements are not fit-for-purpose and called for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework and administrative arrangements applying to aircraft noise.
6.6Mr Trevor Neal from Residents Against Western Sydney Airport (RAWSA) described the existing legislative framework as 'broken', and Hobart-based residents' organisation, Carlton River, Primrose Sands and Forcett Flight Path Opponents Group (Flight Path Opponents Group), argued:
The existing legislative framework addressing aircraft noise in Australia, including the Civil Aviation Act 1988, Air Services Act 1995, Airports Act 1996, and the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018, needs to be more cohesive. … This fragmentation highlights the urgent need for comprehensive umbrella legislation coordinating these agencies' efforts to minimise noise impacts effectively.
6.7Mr John Cincotta, from the Community Aviation Alliance Australia (CAAA), said existing arrangements are 'heavily weighted towards promoting unfettered growth of the aviation industry'. The Commonwealth relies on state-based planning regimes to limit residential development near airports, but fails to include provisions that would 'protect residents from the noise impacts of growing aircraft traffic at these existing airports or the development of new airports in other locations'.
6.8The Flight Path Opponents Group noted that the Air Services Act 1995 (Cth) (Airservices Act) does not require Airservices to 'comprehensively consider the socio-economic and environmental implications of flight path changes', and there are 'no specific regulations which 'cap noise exposure for communities'.
6.9The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) noted that section 9, paragraph 2 of the Airservices Act requires Airservices to 'consider environmental protection whilst performing its functions' but does not stipulate how Airservices should prioritise environmental protection factors. This means, for instance, there is no guidance on how to balance noise impacts against increased fuel emissions, which can result from flight path changes designed to mitigate noise.
Consideration of noise in Master Plans and MDPs
6.10Under the Airports Act 1996 (Cth)(Airports Act), proposals for new runways and other major airport developments must be prepared and submitted by airport corporations to be approved by the Infrastructure Minister. Under section 71(2)(d), an airport's master plan must specify the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) for areas that surround the airport, and the minister takes this into account when deciding whether to approve a master plan. Following this approval, the airport produces an MDP, which must 'set out whether the development could affect noise exposure levels at the airport', and 'present plans for managing aircraft noise intrusion in areas forecast to be subject to exposure above the significant ANEF levels'.
6.11In addition, the Airports Regulations 2024, which were recently updated following a period of consultation, stipulate that airports must address 'the generation of noise' in their master plans and 'the proposed systems of testing, measuring and sampling to be carried out for possible, or suspected, pollution or excessive noise'.
6.12Asked if the airport needs to demonstrate how it plans to reduce or mitigate noise, Mrs Sarah Nattey from the department's Airports Branch explained that the Airports Act does 'not specifically' require this. The Act requires the proponent to demonstrate appropriate 'management' of noise in relation to the development. In practice, this means the department checks the development against a table within Australian Standard AS 2021:2015 Acoustics—Aircraft Noise Intrusion—Building Siting and Construction (Australian Standard 2021:2015, discussed below). If the development meets the criteria in the Standard, it goes to the minister for approval. The minister then considers five criteria, including:
the extent to which carrying out the plan meets the needs of civil aviation users of the airport and other users of the airport;
the effect that carrying out the plan would be likely to have on the future operating capacity of the airport;
the impact that carrying out the plan would be likely to have on the environment (including noise);
whether consultation has been adequate in preparing the plan and how the airport company has taken into account the outcomes of those consultations; and
the views of [the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)] and Airservices in regard to safety aspects and operational aspects.
6.13Mrs Nattey noted the minister has the flexibility to impose conditions on a development, including conditions relating to noise amelioration. She also acknowledged that the Airports Act was created in 1996, and 'community expectations have changed around the impact of noise', so the minister is taking this into account in making decisions, and 'using the discretion that she is able to under the act'.
6.14Wilderness Australia maintained that 'decision making for other urban development proposals is better regulated', with application processes moderated by 'independent decision making and review processes', and strategies to mitigate impacts required from the outset. Honorary Projects Officer at Wilderness Australia, Mr Keith Muir suggested legislating a requirement to comprehensively address mitigation of noise, and legislating pollution controls on the aviation industry.
6.15Melbourne Airport's MDP states that 'no specific noise legislation exists against which [Melbourne Airport's third runway] could be assessed'. Choosing to conduct its own health study, representatives maintained that Melbourne Airport went 'well far and above the statutory requirements of the Airports Act, which we've treated as a minimum'.
6.16Qantas recommended strengthening the requirements of the Airports Act and creating a national register for Master Plans and MDPs to 'improve the consultation process and increase transparency'.
6.17The Aviation White Paper states that the Minister has written to airport operators saying, for master plans or MDPs that involve 'new or changed runways, the Minister will also have regard to the suitability of the airport's plans for noise mitigation, including the appropriateness of noise sharing arrangements'.
MDP threshold
6.18In 2021 the Government considered raising the threshold for when an MDP is required from projects with a value of $25 million to projects with a value of $35 million. The proposed increase was intended to 'ensure the threshold corresponds with inflation and construction cost increases', and it would not apply to developments with 'a significant environmental, ecological or community impact'. An MDP would still be required for projects in that category, regardless of value.
6.19Following consultation, the then government decided to retain the existing threshold, saying:
Taking all stakeholder feedback into consideration, the threshold will remain at $25 million in line with subsection 89(9) of the Act while the Department investigates opportunities to reform and streamline overarching MDP arrangements. This may include moving towards a performance-based approach, where the assessment and approval process is more directly linked to the expected impacts of particular developments.
6.20In its 2022–23 Federal Budget submission, the Airports Association responded that this decision 'transfer[ed] significant time and money costs on operators of Federally leased airports for preparation and public exhibition of MDPs' and recommended that raising the threshold be considered again at the next opportunity.
6.21Under the subsection 89(10) of the Airports Act, there is an opportunity to increase the threshold for MDPs before each third anniversary of the subsection commencing. The subsection commenced on 28 September 2018, meaning the next opportunity to reconsider the threshold is due.
6.22The department is currently reviewing the Airports Act and associated regulations, including MDP provisions, to 'cut red tape, streamline Commonwealth processes and modernise airport planning regulations'.
Environmental approvals
6.23Major airport development projects generally trigger referral to the Environment Minister for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is generally required. Under the EPBC Act, the EIS must be assessed by the Environment Minister, who provides advice on the proposal to assist the Transport Minister (who is also the Infrastructure Minister) in assessing development proposals. It is through the EIS process that noise impacts are most comprehensively considered.
6.24Under the Australian Constitution, states have the primary responsibility for environmental protection. However, the Commonwealth Environment Minister has a role under the EPBC Act to assess environmental impacts of actions which are: 'situated on Commonwealth land or which may impact on Commonwealth land', are undertaken by Commonwealth entities, or may impact matters of 'national environmental significance', regardless of their location in Australia. The nine matters of national environmental significance to which the EPBC Act applies are:
world heritage properties
national heritage places
wetlands of international importance (often called 'Ramsar' wetlands after the international treaty under which such wetlands are listed)
nationally threatened species and ecological communities
migratory species
Commonwealth marine areas
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
nuclear actions (including uranium mining)
a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.
6.25Protecting these matters of national environmental significance is the key purpose of the EPBC Act. However, the Act also applies to actions on Commonwealth land, or carried out by Commonwealth agencies, which have a significant environmental impact but are not one of the nine matters of national environmental significance. According to department-issued guidelines, entities assessing potential environmental impacts of an action they plan to undertake should consider, among other things, impacts on people and communities, including any 'affect [on] the health, safety, welfare or quality of life of the members of a community, through factors such as noise, odours, fumes, smoke, or other pollutants'.
6.26While entities must consider these impacts, the department notes that there are 'no legislative criteria for the evaluation of aircraft noise in Australia'. A number of policies, standards and assessment guidelines can be considered when measuring and assessing noise impacts; these include:
international policies, including Annex 16 to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)'s Convention on International Civil Aviation andthe ICAO 'Balanced Approach' (discussed in Chapter 3);
Airservices' policy documents;
Australian standards, such as the Australian Acoustics Standard for building siting and construction (aircraft noise intrusion; AS 2021:2015);
the National Airports Safeguarding Frameworkprinciples and guidelines (NASF Guidelines, outlined in Chapter 1); and
state and territory guidelines, like the NSW Noise Policy for Industry (NSW EPA, 2017).
6.27Inquiry participants were critical of the existing environmental approvals process for Master Plans, MDPs and other changes to the use of airspace. A major concern was that detailed flight path design is generally not included in airport Master Plans and the requirements for MDPs are unclear.
6.28The ANO noted that section 71(2)(da) of the Airports Act requires a master plan to include 'flight paths (in accordance with regulations, if any, made for the purpose of this paragraph) at the airport', but there does not appear to be any regulations. Section 91(1)(ea) of the Act requires MDPs to set out likely effects that a proposed development will have on existing flight paths, but does not require detailed flight path information.
6.29According to Mr Neal, this timing issue means the EIS process has 'repeatedly' failed communities impacted by noise. For example, the decision to build WSI was made in 2014, while flight path design and impact assessment did not commence until ten years later. Similarly, Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (WSROC) observed that noise outcomes predicted in the 2006 Brisbane EIS, and the reality once the new runway opened in 2020, were 'substantially incomparable'.
6.30WSROC proposed there be a legislated requirement that new runways be reviewed within 18 months to consider 'the efficacy of the EIS upon which the facility was approved'. If this review identified substantial differences between what the EIS predicted, and the actual experiences of aircraft noise, then this 'would require an agreed plan to address'.
6.31Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Airservices, Mr Rob Sharp acknowledged the problems that can occur due to the long timeframe involved in the EIS process and said:
… the lesson for us as an organisation and in fact the whole airline sector is that we do need to look at how we manage a consultation process that covers multiple decades, effectively. … . The big challenge for Airservices is how you balance all the competing demands, and I think that issue will continue. But it is about two-way dialogue and being very open and transparent, and that's something we will continue to focus on.
6.32As well as the issue of timing, inquiry participants were concerned that the Environment Minister has not taken an active role in addressing noise and other environmental impacts of airport developments. Wilderness Australia noted that, under section 87 of the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister 'may make a new decision that requires the relevant impacts of a flight path and airspace proposal be assessed by an inquiry', but this has never been done:
The flight path options and airspace design proposals for airports are eminently suitable subjects for a public inquiry to examine and identify measures that can mitigate and minimise harm from aircraft operations.
6.33The ANO argued for 'clear requirements on what should be included in a Master Plan or Major Development Plan regarding the impact of flight paths'.
Regulating noise levels
6.34As outlined in Chapter 1, there is currently no regulation in Australia that stipulates maximum allowable levels of aircraft noise for an airport, or what levels of noise exposure are 'reasonable' for affected communities.
6.35Mr Cincotta noted that noise from many other industries is regulated, and argued it is 'not acceptable in today's sustainable society that aircraft noise is unregulated'. This 'absence of regulation' to protect communities from the impacts of aircraft noise:
…ignores the direct and indirect costs of aircraft noise on human health, community amenity, devaluation of property and noise amelioration works and allows the noise polluters, the airlines and airports, to externalise these costs to the wider community…
6.36The Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance (BFPCA) advocated a 'comprehensive and community-centric [regulatory] approach' that would 'effectively address the harms and impacts of aircraft noise pollution across Australia'. Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF) participant, Mr Robert Hayes, proposed that '[p]rinciples for maximising noise sharing and minimising flight concentration should be legislated'.
6.37RAWSA called for 'quantified and enforceable standards for aircraft noise exposure at ground level', with Mr Neal suggesting the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on aircraft noise could provide a model.
6.38CAAA recommended government creates a new, legally enforceable aircraft noise standard which 'is easily understood by the community' and 'can be measured and monitored'. The new standard should define 'trigger points for noise mitigation actions; options such as revised noise abatement procedures, changed flight paths, noise amelioration for existing buildings, movement caps and curfews'. Mr Cincotta added that the 'values in the standard' should be based on the findings of a 'comprehensive health study which makes explicit the health impacts and direct and indirect costs of aviation'.
6.39The ANO noted that noise levels of individual aircraft are regulated through the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018 (Aircraft Noise Regulations), but this instrument does not regulate the 'actual aircraft noise that the community experience'. One regulatory pathway that could be considered is:
… the establishment of maximum noise levels (LAmax) over communities, with this option particularly appropriate during the sensitive night-time periods, or for communities exposed to less frequent aircraft noise. This model could focus on limiting less frequent but disturbing, high aircraft noise over communities and could utilise either changes in aircraft models, how aircraft are flown or changes to the flight paths utilised in night-time hours to achieve compliance. Many airports, including Heathrow Airport, assign penalties for those aircraft which exceed set noise thresholds.
6.40Another method that could be considered would be introducing 'an energy equivalent noise level (LAeq) cap'. The ANO suggested such a cap would assess and limit 'the time-average noise level over a 24-hour period for communities impacted by aircraft noise from major airports'. A noise cap would 'encourage noise sharing and the adoption of more modern and quieter aircraft'.
6.41The Flight Path Opponents Group argued that the 'reluctance' of governments to address this issue may reflect the 'disproportionate' influence of industry, and recommended the Aircraft Noise Regulations be expanded to 'establish Noise Caps, mandate noise monitoring and public reporting'.
6.42Another potential avenue for regulating environmental noise generated by airports is the Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997, which apply to 'the management of all on-ground environmental issues, including air, soil, water, noise and chemical pollution on-airport'.[39]
6.43These regulations establish a Commonwealth system of regulation of, and accountability for, activities at airports that generate, or have potential to generate:
(i)pollution; or
(ii)excessive noise; and
(iii)to promote improving environmental management practices for activities carried out at airport sites.
6.44However, the regulations explicitly exclude aircraft noise, as they do not apply to:
(a)pollution generated by an aircraft; or
(b)noise generated by an aircraft in flight or when landing, taking off or taxiing at an airport.
6.45The Airports Environment Protection Regulations are due to sunset on 1 April 2025. The department is reviewing the regulations and consulting industry and government stakeholders on proposed amendments as part of Stage 3 of the sunsetting review of aviation legislation.
6.46Asked if the White Paper process considered the option of regulating the total amount of noise that should be allowed over specific parts of the day, Ms Stephanie Werner, First Assistant Secretary of Domestic Aviation, explained that the White Paper Taskforce 'examined the regimes that were in place in other countries in the world', and concluded Australia would 'stick with the ANEF'.
Measuring and mapping noise
Australian Noise Exposure Forecast
6.47Airports currently provide an ANEF as part of their development applications. The ANEF is a 'geographical representation of where aircraft noise is expected to occur, overlayed on a map of the areas surrounding an airport'. It maps out contours which correspond to 'noise exposure levels' (20, 25, 30, 35 and 40+). These are calculated by 'aggregating total daily noise expectations, with nighttime movements being given a higher weighting'. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of noise exposure. The ANEF is contained within Australian Standard AS2021:2015, which provides 'guidance about the types of development and building standards that are appropriate in areas subject to aircraft noise'.
6.48Some Australian airports also include other noise metrics in their Master Plans and MDPs, including 'number above' metrics and 'maximum noise level' metrics, which are considered to provide a 'real-world' impression of the likely noise impacts of a new airport or runway. However, only the ANEF is required under legislation.
6.49The ANEF index was developed using the results of Australia's National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) study, published in 1980, which involved interviewing 3575 residents around five Australian airports (Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and Richmond) to measure community reaction to aircraft noise. Dr Andrew Hede and Mr Tony Williams outlined three key applications for the ANEF:
(1)to determine the dose-response relationship for a particular country which is required to assess the impact of aircraft noise on communities;
(2)to provide guidelines for land-use planning around airports which specify the maximum aircraft noise exposures acceptable for different developments such as residential, schools, hospitals, offices, etc;
(3)to be used in fight path design, location and noise sharing so as to mitigate the impact on communities around airports.
6.50Dr Hede and Mr Williams noted that 'a widespread misunderstanding has developed in Australia over recent decades' that ANEF is only applicable to land-use planning. However, it can and should be used in flight path design, location and noise sharing, including by monitoring aircraft noise exposure so that its detrimental impacts can 'fairly and equitably be removed, reduced, relocated and managed to achieve reciprocity and respite'. Dr Hede and Mr Williams recommended the ANEF be used in flight path design, location and noise sharing to ensure 'the best possible operational procedures to minimise the detrimental impact of aircraft noise on communities surrounding Australian airports'.
6.51Numerous inquiry participants argued that the ANEF does not provide meaningful information to communities about the impacts of aircraft noise. Mr Cincotta said:
The ANEF contours are very difficult to understand for the common person. They don't rely on real noise levels. The NASF guidelines are better, because they say the number of movements above a certain decibel level, and they describe the decibel levels: no more than 20 movements above 70 dBA; no more than 50 above 65; no more than 100 above 60. At least those decibel levels are what you hear in real life.
6.52Current Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, Mr Keiran Pehm said a combination of indices 'provides a more informed and more accurate picture'. The ANO recommended that, at minimum, master plans and MDPs should include 'expanded noise-above contour maps for 10dB(A) intervals between 40dB(A) and 80dB(A)'. This would provide greater transparency and allow community members to make more 'informed' suggestions for noise mitigation.
6.53BFPCA recommended that the Airports Act be updated to require that all future Master Plans and MDPs 'also include N65 and N60 contours'. Dr Hede and Mr Williams agreed with this recommendation, stating that the ANEF is:
… a more accurate predictor of reaction than 'number above' indices such as N70 or N60 which measure the number of flights exceeding a level of 70dBA (or 60dBA). However, 'number above' indices are easier for residents to understand how much noise they are (or will be) exposed to and these indices are now commonly reported in government documents.
6.54If Australian communities are to 'fully understand how they would be affected by any proposed new or significantly changed aircraft noise', Dr Hede and Mr Williams argued 'contour maps displaying exposure in terms of both the N70/N60 indices as well as the ANEF index' should be provided, and authorities should also:
… distribute maps plotting contours for 'impact descriptors' (viz., 10% seriously affected and 20% moderately affected). Such information must be comprehensive as well as accurate so as to ensure that further misunderstanding and confusion is avoided.
The need for updated data
6.55Mr Hayes described the ANEF as 'the essential metric for the spread and impact of aircraft noise'. However, he and the other SACF participants who participated in the inquiry pointed out that the underlying survey data is 'decades old' and 'urgently needs updating'.
6.56This view was echoed by Dr Hede, who co-authored the original NAL study, and Mr Williams, who explained that international research indicates 'there has been an increase in community sensitivity over the last 40 years', and a new survey is required:
You will have seen, from Brisbane, that a population newly exposed is likely to react more vigorously. I think there is little doubt that the dose response relationship can no longer be relied upon. It does need to be updated, particularly with the work which is being done in Western Sydney, in Brisbane and perhaps in Melbourne and Hobart.
6.57Dr Hede said the United Kingdom (UK), which provides a useful comparator to Australia, has conducted three national surveys since 1980. He noted that the reaction of communities to aircraft noise 'is probably higher' today than it was 40 years ago, because:
… noise sensitivity has increased. There's evidence—not clear-cut, but it's reviewed in our submission—particularly in the UK, that, over the successive surveys over 40 years, there has been an increase in the amount of reaction to the same level of noise.
CHAIR:Why is that?
Dr Hede:They don't know.
6.58According to Dr Hede, Australia has 'failed dismally to maintain its scholarly research on aircraft noise'. He urged the Government to commission a new national survey, 'around seven Australian airports, including a regional airport and a general aviation airport', and:
… before-and-after surveys of communities exposed to new noise—namely, Western Sydney airport, which is due to open in 2026, and Melbourne airport, when their recently approved third runway opens in the 2030s. I submit that such a research program is essential if this inquiry is to be a catalyst for effective reforms on the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise...
6.59The ANO noted updated research 'could provide the basis for setting standards consistent with current community expectations regarding the regulation and amelioration of aircraft noise'.
6.60SACF participants provided a formal statement to the committee advocating for urgent action to update the data underlying the ANEF and improve the way it is applied.
Updating Australian Standard 2021:2015
6.61Ms Werner noted that, as part of the Aviation White Paper process, the Government has applied to Standards Australia to update Australian Standard 2021:2015, and Standards Australia has accepted the application. White Paper Initiative 36 states that Standards Australia will 'consider incorporating the guidance handbook on producing information on aircraft noise … into the standard'.
6.62Ms Werner was asked if the Government could fund a new survey to update the data underlying the ANEF. She replied that is 'a question for Standards Australia', who is conducting the review. A new survey has not been costed by the department because it has yet to receive 'any advice from Standards Australia as to what they will require from us in order to undertake that review'.
Future directions for aviation regulation
6.63In the Aviation White Paper, the Government outlined its intention to conduct a 'comprehensive review' of the legislative and regulatory arrangements applying to Federally-leased airports. According to the department, the review 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'.
6.64Federally-leased airports currently have the right to operate as businesses for 99 years, subject to a range of conditions. The leases are for an initial period of 49 years, with a right to extend for a further 50 years. The current 49-year leases will begin to be due for renewal in 2046. The review will consider:
… whether the legislation can be improved to better achieve the Australian Government's aims of protecting the interests of airport users and the community, while encouraging investment by industry to meet Australia's long-term demand for aviation services.
6.65The Government is also intending to amend the Airports Regulations 2024 to require master plans and MDPs to 'set out how development of the airport will be consistent with the NASF'. Ms Werner explained:
That will pick up guideline A from the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, which requests the depiction of noise outside what we would traditionally describe as severely impacted. … The National Airports Safeguarding Framework, if applied, would cause people to consider beyond the 20 ANEF area—so give consideration to the impact of communities beyond 20 ANEF through the major development planning process once those regulations have been changed.
6.66Mr Cincotta said several initiatives in the Aviation White Paper 'have benefits for aircraft noise in affected communities'. However, there are 'disappointing gaps', including no plan aircraft noise standards which can be understood by the community, measured and monitored to mitigate impacts on community health and amenity, even though we have standards and regulation for most other categories of noise and other pollutants such as odour, through the EPA, that harm citizens; no policy intent or trigger points for mitigation action involving flight caps or night-time curfews; and a lack of any balance in pushing and expanding the balance and operation of aircraft in Australia with regard to advanced aircraft ability such as drones.
Committee view
6.67The process of renewing the leases for most of Australia's major airports will begin in 2046 and occur in quick succession. The planned review of the Airports Act provides an opportunity to review the regulatory regime to ensure it is fit-for-purpose and can provide certainty to airport operators as they look to extend their leases. A comprehensive review should seek to modernise the regime and provide certainty for both airport operators and communities affected by noise.
6.68A key priority should be modernising the process and requirements for Master Plans and MDPs. The Government should raise the threshold for MDPs so that airports can focus their resources on developments that will have the biggest impacts. The committee notes that, regardless of size and cost, projects with significant environmental impacts (including noise) must be supported by an MDP. Increasing the threshold would allow airports to divert resources currently dedicated to preparing MDPs for smaller projects, with lower environmental impacts, towards the preparation of more comprehensive MDPs.
6.69Master Plans and MDPs need to provide better, more accessible information on expected noise outcomes, and demonstrate the airport's consideration of the potential impacts of its development on nearby communities. The ANEF remains an essential metric for measuring the spread and impact of aircraft noise. However, it should be supplemented with metrics that are more easily understood, including N-above contours. The committee also supports calls for Master Plans and MDPs to include official maps depicting 'impact descriptor curves' which show where noise will cause 10 per cent of residents to be 'seriously affected' and 20 per cent to be 'moderately affected'.
6.70As part of its review, the department should work with Standards Australia to ensure that the data underlying the ANEF is updated. While the research underlying this mechanism is robust, it is now 40 years old. Flight volumes and community reactions to noise have changed. The Government should consider commissioning a new acoustic reaction study to inform the updated standard, and consider commissioning updated research every 10–20 years. An updated ANEF will assist local councils and other authorities in land use planning around airports, as well as informing flight path design and noise mitigation strategies.
6.71The committee supports the Government's intention, outlined in the Aviation White Paper, to update the Airports Regulations 2024 to include the requirement for Federally-leased airports to demonstrate how Master Plans and MDPs are consistent with National Airports Safeguarding Framework.
6.72The time that elapses between consultation and approval of airport Master Plans and MDPs, and the eventual design of detailed flight paths, has caused significant issues, especially in Brisbane. The committee believes, as part of the regulatory review, the Government should consider options for addressing this 'lag'. For instance, the department and Airservices could explore the feasibility of including more detailed flight path design in Master Plans and MDPs.
6.73For major projects with the highest noise and environmental impacts (such as new runways), it is reasonable to expect airports to conduct a review of predicted noise outcomes within five years of operation. This would provide an opportunity for noise-affected residents to communicate their concerns, and for the airport, Airservices and the Government to consider further noise mitigation strategies.
6.74The committee recommends that, as part of its review of the Airports Act 1996 and associated regulations, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts seeks to modernise the process and requirements for Airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (MDPs), including by:
increasing the threshold for MDPs to an amount that appropriately reflects increases in construction costs since the existing threshold was set;
requiring all future Master Plans (and MDPs, where relevant) to include easily-understood noise mapping, such as N65 and N60 contours, while maintaining the requirement for an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast;
requiring Master Plans and MDPs to demonstrate consistency with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework;
including clearer guidelines for assessing noise impacts as part of the environmental assessment process;
including a requirement for airports to outline noise mitigation strategies in their Master Plans and MDPs; and
introducing a requirement that, for major projects with the highest noise and environmental impacts (such as new runways), airports must conduct a comprehensive review of the accuracy of predicted noise outcomes within five years of operation and report their findings publicly and to government.
6.75The committee appreciates that communities would like to see maximum aircraft noise exposure levels legislated. The committee does not support this suggestion. Legislating prescriptive limits would not take into account the differential experience of noise within communities or whether noise amelioration programs have been undertaken. However, the Government needs to review how aircraft noise is measured at ground level and how this data can be better utilised to predict noise impacts and focus noise mitigation efforts.
Administrative arrangements
6.76Inquiry participants were critical of the existing administrative arrangements for airport developments, flight path design and noise mitigation. Most of these concerns centred around Airservices. However, some submitters highlighted problems with ministerial and departmental arrangements, and some were critical of the Commonwealth Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) lack of focus on noise.
6.77Mr Alan Dukes, from SACF, submitted that there is currently no 'mechanism or statutory authority' that community members can request to investigate noise issues or 'drive actual change'. He told the committee that 'everything' goes through Airservices:
Airservices Australia literally controls the skies, the noise reporting, the designing of procedures, provision of public information and engagement and consultation with communities on aircraft noise and operations. But who controls Airservices?
6.78BFPCA argued the department and its minister have 'abdicat[ed] from their legislated responsibilities to provide adequate regulatory oversight over Airservices Australia'. BFPCA explained that it has lodged a 'principal complaint submission' to the Commonwealth Ombudsman outlining these concerns. The investigation is ongoing.
6.79Mr Muir noted that the Infrastructure Minister and her department are both the 'proponent' and the consenting authority (approver) in relation to WSI and its flight paths. WSROC was also concerned about this potential conflict of interest, adding that 'the same people, organisations, that did the EIS and all the planning for Brisbane are the same ones that did it for Western Sydney'.
6.80East Melbourne Group suggested, as CASA 'only manages aircraft safety and efficiency', this creates a 'policy void not filled by Airservices'. The ANO confirmed that, while 'CASA has final approval of flight paths into airports', aircraft noise 'is not a relevant consideration for CASA'.
Airservices Australia
6.81Submitters and witnesses were highly critical of Airservices' focus and priorities, flight path design, community consultation, staffing levels, management, performance, and adherence to Ministerial Directions and regulatory instruments.
Focus and performance
6.82SACF participant, Mr John Clarke, characterised the various functions of Airservices as being in 'conflict':
Airservices design the flight paths and the procedures, control the air traffic, provide the monitoring systems and control the information. They deal with complaints and gatekeep any proposals for change. Airservices earn their revenue from the landing and taking off planes, so this is all one massive conflict of interest, and no one is holding them accountable for it.
6.83BFPCA described Airservices as 'a corporate service provider to the aviation industry', saying it prioritises 'commercial gains and profits' over 'community wellbeing'. BFPCA claimed that Airservices is in breach of the Airservices Act as it is failing to protect communities 'from the effects of … the operation and use of aircraft', as stipulated in section 9.
6.84Mr Pehm confirmed that Airservices' prioritises the needs of industry but argued that is what its enabling Act dictates. According to Mr Pehm, until recently, community impacts and consultation have not been 'taken seriously' within Airservices.
6.85SACF participants provided evidence indicating that Airservices is failing to apply key parts of the Long-Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (LTOP) and, as such, are acting in contravention of the Ministerial Direction F2009B00158. The LTOP stipulates that runway selection should be 'dynamically managed throughout the day', with 'noise sharing modes 5, 7 and 14A … used for 46% of the time and parallel operations for 39.5% of the time'. According to Mr Clarke, in 2023 Airservices' own data indicates that 'parallel operations' were used for 91.6 per cent of the time, and modes 5, 7 and 14A were only used for 0.5 per cent of the time. Mr Clarke argued Airservices 'no longer believe that they must act within the legislative remit of the Ministerial Direction, only be "guided" by it'.
6.86BFPCA recommended amendments to the Air Services Act to 'free' Airservices from 'regulatory capture by the aviation industry' and increase its focus on protecting 'the human and natural environment'. Ultimately, BFPCA recommend a separation of Airservices' 'conflicting interests' by splitting its commercial arm from its 'legislated obligation to protect communities'.
6.87Airport operators were also critical of Airservices, with Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) CEO, Mr Gert-Jan de Graaff, indicating BAC gets 'a bad rap' on account of decisions made by Airservices. Mr de Graaff said BAC is 'disappointed that, so far, the runway system, the airspace, is not operating as it was designed'. For instance, Airservices has failed to implement 'independent operations' of Brisbane Airport's runways, which would provide 'much better noise outcomes for the community'.
6.88Virgin Australia echoed BAC's concerns that Airservices is preventing the airport and airlines 'operating the runways independently of each other'. According to BAC, this approach has not been implemented because Airservices has not completed the required 'procedural changes', and due to 'staffing constraints' in the Brisbane Terminal Control Unit. Mr de Graaff confirmed that he has discussed his concerns around the 'slow' performance of Airservices with the Minister.
6.89BAC suggested that, instead of relying solely on Airservices, government should legislate a 'joint responsibility model' between Airservices and airports for managing flight path design and noise complaints.
6.90Airlines expressed frustration with operational restrictions imposed by Airservices, saying that technology exists in aircraft right now which 'would allow [them] to fly procedures that could reduce the noise', including required navigation performance (RNP) and continuous descent approaches (outlined in Chapter 3 of this report). Qantas said its pilots are trained and ready to use these, and they are already 'deployed' in Brisbane, but their utilisation is constrained by Airservices:
The equipment that we've paid for in the aeroplane is there. The pilots are trained. We'd like to use it more. So, to that end, we're not seeing the airspace to the level of efficiency and the level of balance between noise and environment to the extent that we'd like to see it right now.
6.91Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP) argued that Airservices does not adequately priortise safety in its flight path designs, saying pilots have called for the introduction of Standard Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Instrument Arrivals (STARs) at Launceston Airport for 'several years'. According to AFAP, this had led to 'some safety incidents and increased safety difficulties and inefficiencies'. Another concern is the 'steep' landing approach when arriving at Melbourne Airport from the south, which AFAP described as a 'design flaw'. AFAP argued that these safety issues have not been addressed by Airservices due to an 'aversion' to conducting the necessary community consultation.
6.92The Flight Path Opponents Group advocated replacing the Airservices Act with new legislation that 'fundamentally transforms [Airservices'] mandate, compelling it to prioritise genuine community engagement and equitable consideration alongside airline and airport operations'. Specifically, the group proposed legislating for:
'proactive and meaningful' community engagement;
more 'timely' finalisation of flight paths;
adhere to global standards for noise and altitude;
preferential use of water-based flight paths;
a requirement to minimise population impact;
eliminating the use of the 'previously overflown areas' justification;
more timely action on Post Implementation Review (PIR) outcomes;
better compliance with environmental and community engagement standards; and
'enhanced' transparency and accountability.
6.93When questioned about its roles and responsibilities at Senate Estimates, Airservices pointed out that the Government approves Master Plans and MDPs, which give airports 'permission to grow in that particular way':
Airservices doesn't have any mechanisms to restrict the growth of airports. We provide services to the aviation industry. So the way that we give effect to the paragraph you've called out in our act is through the tools we do have, which are flight path design and the operation of those flight paths, and we seek to minimise the impacts on communities by designing flight paths that overfly as few people as practicable. Where we do have to overfly communities, we look to provide noise sharing and noise respite opportunities.
6.94Aviation White Paper Initiative 35 outlined the Government's intention to appoint an Airservices Australia 'executive for noise and environment to lead the agency's work on noise minimisation, including engagement with affected communities, and ensure this work is integrated with the operational decisions of air traffic controllers'.
Staffing and management
6.95Evidence to the inquiry indicated that staff shortages were impacting Airservices' ability to operate airspace in ways that mitigate noise.
6.96BFPCA said 'leaked reports' indicate Sydney Airport is 'frequently operating without a manager in charge' for 'periods of up to eight hours'. Pointing to Airservices' own reports, BFPCA said there were 'at least 70 instances of staff shortages from late July to late November 2022'.
6.97Mr Clarke said Airservices no longer employs someone to oversee compliance with the LTOP, despite the ministerial directive stipulating that it must dedicate resources to this function. This view was supported by Alan Dukes, a recently retired air traffic controller and SACF participant, who claimed Airservices has not implemented a 'runway selection procedure that clearly sets out to operational staff the decision making process for the use of noise sharing modes'.
6.98Qantas said inconsistent staffing 'is impacting Qantas Group on-time performance and the experience of our customers'. Traffic Information Broadcast by Aircraft (TIBA) procedures are enacted to help pilots maintain situational awareness when air traffic control services temporarily unavailable. Over the 2023–2024 Christmas and New Year period, Qantas experienced nine TIBA events, impacting 139 flights and over 20000 passengers. Qantas explained that, when pilots are 'forced to fly around uncontrolled airspace, this significantly increases fuel burn and emissions'.
6.99According to Qantas, the recent history of 'TIBA events, rate reductions and reduced tower hours' demonstrates that Airservices is 'currently not able to provide consistent air traffic control services to aviation users in Australia'. Virgin Australia echoed these concerns, saying airlines would like to see staffing arrangements at Airservices return to pre-COVID levels.
6.100Concerns about Airservices' staffing levels date back to a redundancy program instituted during the pandemic, where 184 air traffic controllers, and 303 other personnel, were incentivised to retire between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022. Airservices stated that the Retirement Incentive Scheme (RIS):
… allowed Airservices to focus our operational recruitment pipeline on the anticipated loss of skill due to retirement, and to employ, train and develop new recruits in time for the projected return of air traffic, whilst recovering the overall operating costs from accrued employee benefit liabilities at a time of significantly reduced revenue due to the pandemic.
6.101In February 2023, Airservices confirmed that, following the retirement of a total of 243 air traffic controllers and aviation rescue fire fighters, 132 positions had been refilled 'through the Air Traffic Controller and Aviation Rescue Fire Fighter training pipelines'.
6.102While Airservices initially indicated the scheme had not affected its service provision in relation to air traffic control, in June 2023, it admitted that, 'with the return of air traffic, the RIS had some contribution to some service variations at some locations'. Airservices explained:
Air traffic was predicted to return to near pre-pandemic levels around 2024/25 at which time a large cohort of our operational employees (based on historical retirement ages) were likely to have retired. The RIS sought to bring forward those retirements while traffic levels were at historic lows to allow us to continue and maintain the recruitment and training pipeline to cover these anticipated requirements.
COVID-19 also caused a number of challenges in delivering our training and endorsement program due to the movement restrictions imposed across the country. While remote learning was able to be initiated in some circumstances, our ability to train, endorse and deploy ATCs as per our workforce plan was constrained.
… This is being addressed through Airservices Resource Resilience Plan.
6.103On 12 February 2024—the day of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Additional Senate Estimates hearing for 2023–24—air traffic control in Sydney was understaffed and Airservices instituted a ground-delay program. Media reports indicated an average Qantas delay of 72 minutes, an average Virgin delay of 95 minutes, and cancellations, affecting travellers around the country. Then CEO of Airservices, Mr Jason Harfield was asked if he was 'responsible for the cancellations and delays out of Sydney today'; he said, 'Yes'.
6.104Mr Harfield confirmed that the delays were a direct result of two unplanned absences in the Sydney Airport control tower, saying:
This is one of the issues that we are working through. We have an unplanned absence during the day and as a result of that, particularly when it happens in Sydney, it does have a cascading effect around the country because most aircrafts, for most of the airlines, will rotate through Sydney multiple times a day. As a result of that delay it does cascade around the country.
6.105Airservices had briefed the minister on the delays and reported that its staffing situation was improving month on month. However, during January 2024, one-in-every-eight aircraft delayed was a direct result of Airservices' staffing constraints. Before the pandemic, and the RIS, the number of delays attributable to Airservices was one-in-10 or one-in-12. Airservices stated that it was working hard to bring on more air traffic controllers.
6.106During the inquiry, Airservices was asked to provide an update on its staffing levels and to comment on claims that staff shortages were impacting on efforts to mitigate noise. Mr Sharp said Airservices has made 'progress' in that area, with '56 additional staff coming in recently and another 30-odd coming through'. However, Airservices has not yet reached the 'optimal headcount level' which would allow it to deliver '100 per cent of the service standards'. Specifically, current staffing levels do not allow for 'variations to airspace management'. Mr Sharp indicated that this issue should be resolved by the end of December 2024.
6.107Airservices representatives did not, however, agree that staffing levels were impacting on noise mitigation. Mr Craig Chalker, Acting Chief Airspace and Network Officer, implied that staffing shortages might impact the implementation of procedure developments or changes, but they do not impact the day-to-day noise outcomes.
6.108In response to a question about staffing levels in the Brisbane terminal control unit, Airservices stated that, as at 1 June 2024, 47.6 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff were 'allocated to the Brisbane Approach roster', including two who were undertaking initial training.
6.109BFPCA submitted that Airservices has not adequately invested in advanced flight path design technologies or professional development for staff, adding to the problems caused by the RIS.
6.110Civil Air submitted that 'to achieve any substantial change, [air traffic control] staffing for both operational resilience and for change management/training requires significant investment'. It called for all stakeholders, including government, to 'collaboratively develop policy and guidance, grow our environmental stewardship, show strong leadership and ensure we deliver the best noise outcomes possible for our communities'.
6.111BFPCA recommended Airservices be reviewed, that the CEO and executive managers 'be removed from office … and investigated', and that the Board be 'dismissed with immediate effect'. The Flight Path Opponents Group also advocated for an 'overhaul' of the leadership and culture at Airservices.
6.112Following significant pressure, a decision was made not to reappoint Mr Harfield as CEO of Airservices. On 18 July 2024, the Government announced that the Chair of the Airservices Board, Mr John Weber, had been reappointed for 12 months, and the Board had appointed Mr Rob Sharp 'as the Interim Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia for a period of up to 12 months … while a global search is undertaken to fill the role on a substantive basis'.
6.113Mr Sharp told the committee that his focus has been on improving community consultation, noting that Airservices has not always got it right. Mr Sharp said Airservices' processes are improving.
Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
6.114Inquiry participants across community, aviation and industry sectors argued the need for an independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman with more resources, and a greater capacity to influence noise outcomes on behalf of communities.
6.115Mr Pehm told the committee the ANO consists of himself and three full time staff. Under current arrangements, the ANO's 'ultimate sanction' is to report its concerns to the Airservices' board and make recommendations; it does not have any power to demand changes or impose consequences.
6.116Mr Brent held the role of ANO from 2010 to 2017. Mr Brent described his time in the role:
… when I arrived in the role they were—dismissive is too strong a word. But certainly those issues were given significantly less prominence in the thinking of the organisation than they should have. During my time as Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, I think we achieved significant change and a significant improvement. We did fundamentally change the way the complaints service worked. But I would have to say that I think it's not a one-off case where you fix it and it's done. It's a constant exercise in working against a culture that inherently, and perhaps understandably, is biased towards safety and efficiency but that needs to always remember the fundamental importance of the impact on communities from aircraft noise and aircraft operations.
6.117The lack of independence of the current ANO was further highlighted during the inquiry. Airservices' Board Minutes—provided in response to written questions on notice from Senator McKim—revealed that the Board determines the terms of reference for ANO investigations and has previously rejected reports produced by the ANO. In 2018, the Board declined to accept the ANO's draft report for an investigation into complaints about the introduction of new flight paths in Hobart, saying:
The ANO had not sought any input from the Board in relation to the scope or terms of reference prior to commencing the subject review;
The report was incomplete in that it did not address the operational and safety reasons that that led to the introduction of the new flight paths, nor did it address the positive noise impacts experienced by many residents as a result of the introduction of the new flight paths; and
The report was too long and was repetitive.
6.118The Board also objected to the ANO's inclusion in this investigation report of 'a systemic review of Airservices complaints handling processes' and determined that the Ombudsman would be asked to 'produce a shorter, Hobart-specific report to which management would be asked to respond'. The ANO was later asked not to provide the second systemic report at that time, but instead to undertake 'a review that applies the lessons learned from the Hobart flight path changes and provides a template for Airservices complaints handling and community engagement processes', to inform future consultations.
6.119BFPCA recommend that the 'independence and authorities' of the ANO be 'strengthened and integrated with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman'. The Flight Path Opponents Group recommended removing the ANO and the NCIS from Airservices and consolidating them into 'a single, robust, independent agency dedicated to overseeing noise regulations'. Drawing on international examples, the group said such an agency would be empowered to 'investigate complaints, enforce noise standards, and hold aviation service providers accountable'.
6.120Representatives from Melbourne Airport argued that the ANO should be able to speak with other groups—not just Airservices. Because airports, airlines and other industry stakeholders 'have a role to play' in noise mitigation and community consultation, the ANO should 'spend more time with us as well'.
6.121WSROC submitted that 'the most important issue for Western Sydney' is that there be an independent authority that could consider issues arising in relation to WSI, 'enforce directions to any party', or 'make recommendations to the federal government/regulatory authorities'. This currently does not exist.
6.122Alan Dukes said the 2026 opening of WSI provides an 'opportunity' to act now to 'institute an independent authority to assist in protecting all communities'.
6.123Dr Terhorst suggested a new, independent ANO should be well-resourced, and funded to conduct research, including into how noise is being reduced and mitigated in other jurisdictions.
6.124Qantas argued that government should consider shifting responsibility for aircraft noise and the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman away from Airservices to allow it focus on 'the delivery of safe and efficient air traffic control':
Airservices is required to invest significant resources in the management of aircraft noise. Flight path changes typically only transfer aircraft noise from one area to another, putting Airservices in a protracted cycle of flight path change proposal and counter proposal. This creates an ongoing consultation and review burden for Airservices, which redirects resources away from the provision of air traffic control. Further, the Qantas Group sees value in the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman having a direct reporting line to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts to ensure that airport and runway design, land use and flight path design can be appropriately represented.
6.125Aviation White Paper Initiative 32 outlines the Government's intention to create an independent Aircraft Noise Ombuds Scheme as part of the Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme:
The Australian Government will establish the Aircraft Noise Ombuds Scheme independently of Airservices Australia, as part of the Aviation Industry Ombuds Scheme. 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.
6.126While the new ANO will be able to make recommendations directly to government, there is no stated intention to remove the NCIS or information functions from Airservices, or to give the new ANO any enforcement powers.
6.127The Aviation White Paper also outlined the Government's intention to improve the quality of information provided bv Airservices. Initiative 33 seeks to 'improve transparency about aircraft noise impacts' by directing Airservices to 'examine its Noise and Flight Path Monitoring System (NFPMS) and include additional information in the NFPMS on aircraft movements and noise impacts'. It also stipulates that Airservices will publish quarterly reports on noncompliance with noise abatement procedures.
6.128Airports and airlines supported measures to ensure Airservices provides accessible and 'transparent information', including on flight path changes, flight numbers and complaints. BAC suggested Airservices should be better resourced to enable it to provide a 'more sophisticated approach to complaints management' and the provision of information. This could include utilising radar systems to allow complainants to provide 'specific feedback on aircraft' and a 'centralised source of truth for data that identifies specific aircraft and locates a residence as a complaint location (rather than entire suburbs)'.
Committee view
6.129The committee understands the point of view expressed by many inquiry participants that there is an inherent conflict of interest in Airservices' remit. As a fee-for-service operator, Airservices' decisions are influenced by the needs of its clients. However, as a statutory authority, it is also constrained by its establishing legislation, the Air Services Act 1995.
6.130The Air Services Act requires Airservices to design and manage airspace and aircraft movements in a way that maximises safety, first and foremost—no one disputes this crucial imperative. However, section 9 of the Act also requires Airservices to exercise its powers and perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from:
(c)the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and
(d)the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft.
6.131Noise-affected communities are concerned that Airservices does not prioritise this directive, instead prioritising the needs of airlines and airports—specifically their desire for efficiency and maximum throughput—over limiting and mitigating the impacts of aircraft on the environment, including noise impacts. Inquiry participants held concerns that the phrase 'as far as is practicable' has been interpreted by Airservices to mean this environmental imperative is 'optional'.
6.132The creation of a dedicated executive position in Airservices responsible for environmental concerns, including aircraft noise, is a step in the right direction. However, even if this position is supported with adequate funding and resourcing, the committee is not convinced that this change will lead to a substantive shift in focus at Airservices.
6.133In making a decision to approve an airport development or flight path change that will negatively impact communities, the Government must weigh the benefits against the harms. Where a decision is made that substantially increases noise for communities, the Government must clearly communicate its reasons, and work with communities to minimise the harm. This includes through implementing fair compensation schemes, noise sharing and noise mitigation in partnership with airports, airlines and Airservices.
6.134The Minister must prioritise engaging with the community on aircraft noise. As well as meeting with airports, airlines and tourism bodies, the Minister must meet with community representatives and aviation consultation groups to hear their concerns and work to find solutions wherever possible.
6.135In the Aviation White Paper, the Government outlined its intention to:
establish a new, independent ANO; and
establish a new executive position in Airservices responsible for noise and other environmental concerns (Initiative 35).
6.136The committee supports the creation of a new, independent ANO and notes the impact of this and previous inquiries on this decision. The new ANO should be well-resourced, empowered to seek input from industry and work with airlines and airports to propose noise mitigation strategies, and able to report, and make recommendations, directly to government.
Airservices' staffing and service provision
6.137The committee notes the Aviation White Paper did not address staffing constraints at Airservices.
6.138Airservices' decision to implement its Retirement Incentive Scheme during the pandemic has had wide and long-lasting implications. The committee acknowledges that the pandemic represented an unprecedented shock to the aviation sector. However, Airservices' decision to include air traffic controllers in this program, coupled with its slow progress in re-filling these roles, has led to unacceptable service level failures.
6.139The committee does not accept Airservices' claims that staff shortages have not impacted noise outcomes. Evidence from airlines and airports indicates that constraints in staffing are preventing the use of noise-mitigating flight procedures, runway operations, and noise sharing modes across many airports, along with the design and trial of new mitigation strategies.
6.140Compelling evidence indicated that noise sharing modes outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport are not being implemented, and that Airservices no longer staffs and supports a position to oversee the LTOP. In relation to Brisbane Airport, industry evidence indicated that Airservices is preventing the independent operation of Brisbane Airport's runways, which could provide better noise outcomes for the community.
6.141Airservices' failure to implement and support noise mitigation strategies—along with slow progress on implementing the outcomes of flight path Post Implementation Reviews—is exacerbating community and industry frustrations. Instead of continually denying these constraints, Airservices must engage with government and industry in a transparent and genuine way to ensure it can direct focus and resources to these critical areas.
6.142Government should consider whether Airservices is appropriately and adequately funded to meet its obligations and consider if any adjustments to its funding arrangements are required. Changes to the executive structure of Airservices outlined in Initiative 35 of the Aviation White Paper should also include support for the organisation to adequately fund and support this position.
6.143The committee recommends the that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government of Australia issues a revised Statement of Expectations for Airservices Australia within six months which outlines the Government's expectation that Airservices will:
abide by statutory noise sharing arrangements, including those outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport;
adequately staff and support air traffic control, including to ensure noise mitigation procedures can be operationalised;
adequately staff and support the organisation's engagement and operational areas to ensure the timely consideration of its Post Implementation Reviews, other consultations, and the timely implementation of noise mitigation strategies; and
prioritise the urgent recruitment, retention and training of air traffic controllers to return its air traffic control service to pre-pandemic levels within 12 months.
Opportunities for further reform
6.144The creation of a new ANO provides an opportunity for further reform that should be considered. The committee suggests looking closely at international models with a view to considering administrative reforms to improve how aircraft noise complaints and information are managed. This could include removing the complaints function from Airservices, as discussed in Chapter 5, and/or empowering the ANO (or an alternative entity) to manage the provision of public information on aircraft noise.
6.145The committees heard that noise-affected inquiry participants want a 'single source of truth' on aircraft noise; a simple, easy to understand mechanism by which they can determine the number and types of flights likely to impact them (or currently impacting them), at what hours and how low they will be flying, how loud they will be, what noise mitigation strategies have been agreed, and whether these are being implemented. While Airservices appropriately collects and maintains this data, another entity may be better placed to present it to communities in an accessible format.
6.146An example from New South Wales (NSW) is the NSW Government Air Quality website, which provides an accessible, user-friendly 'one stop shop' for up-to-date information on air quality and particulate emissions. The site provides searchable information including: 'Air quality in my area'; 'Sydney forecasts'; 'Health advice'; 'Types of air pollution'; and 'Air quality data services'. Air quality readings and 'Air Quality Categories' are updated hourly and a daily air quality forecast is provided for the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region at 4pm each day. The site was designed in conjunction with community and key stakeholders and is intended to provide 'simple, efficient and relevant [information] for the general public, be mobile-responsive and have a modern information display and reporting environment'.
6.147A similar approach could be undertaken to review existing information sources on aircraft noise with the aim of providing a 'single source of truth' for the community.
6.148The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts works with Airservices Australia, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and aviation industry stakeholders to create a modern, user-friendly website that provides a 'single source of truth' for the community. This process should include comprehensive community consultation.
Land use and planning oversight
6.149Airservices argued that state and local governments are responsible for the planning and the zoning around an airport and 'the implications or the impacts of noise around an airport', saying it takes developments into consideration when designing flight paths.
6.150According to Airservices, 'high density urban infill poses airspace protection challenges in designing flight paths', highlighting the 'critical role' of state governments, local councils, airports and the department in ensuring appropriate building standards 'to minimise the impact of aircraft noise in close proximity to airports'. The National Airport Safeguarding Framework (NASF) Guidelines help to 'balance the demands for new dwellings against increases in demand for aviation capacity'.
6.151While inquiry participants were generally supportive of the NASF Guidelines, Mr Cincotta noted that they are not enforceable and no entity monitors compliance:
Even if an airport exceeds those limits, you can't go to an airport through a [CACG] or any operational meeting and enforce anything. People can complain but, because there's no regulation, CASA and Airservices don't have anything to enforce against. There's no pressure on airports or operations to even come up with any noise mitigation strategies, because there is nothing forcing them to. They're not bound by those standards, because they're guidelines.
6.152The Flight Path Opponents Group recommended that the Commonwealth works with state and territory governments to 'integrate aircraft noise considerations into local and regional planning processes to protect communities better'. Specifically, the group suggested zoning laws be updated to 'make provision for flight corridors', and that Airservices be required to incorporate changes to land zoning 'as an integral part of its flight path design process'.
6.153Sydney Airport noted that governments are now considering adopting NASF Guideline A (Measures for Managing Impacts of Aircraft Noise) into state planning laws by 2027, '15 years after it was first adopted'. The airport suggested there is 'no reason why the guideline cannot be adopted immediately', to 'help to ensure inappropriate developments are not approved in areas already significantly affected by aircraft noise'. BAC added that governments should consider creating state-led 'noise management forums (at the planning level) to discuss the balance between economic growth and community impact'.
6.154Initiative 36 from the Aviation White Paper outlines the Government's intention to 'improve land use planning outcomes near airports to seek to avoid further development that is inappropriate for the noise level and protect airport operations from potential safety risks'. This includes working with the NASF Advisory Group to update NASF Guideline A by 2027 'to describe best-practice approaches for including aircraft noise exposure notifications on property titles for new developments', and supporting implementation of a recommendation from the 2021 review of the NASF 'to improve education on the NASF for local planning officials'.
Committee view
6.155The committee supports efforts to update the NASF Guidelines and incorporate them into state and territory laws. In addition, the committee encourages the Government to work through the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group to establish a mechanism that would require relevant planning authorities to proactively notify airport corporations of significant proposed new developments.
6.156The committee recommends that the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group considers adopting a mechanism to require planning authorities to proactively notify airport corporations of significant proposed new developments close to airports.
Concluding comments
6.157As a large, geographically dispersed island nation, Australia is reliant on aviation for the movement of people and freight. Air transport fosters tourism and economic growth, creates employment, facilitates human connection, and keeps the nation moving.
6.158Aircraft noise is an evitable byproduct of aviation, but its impacts must be managed and reduced wherever possible.
6.159The committee recognises the detrimental impacts of aircraft noise on many people who are affected by airport operations. These impacts have not been adequately addressed in the development of the legislative and administrative regime governing Australia's major airports.
6.160The Aviation White Paper reform process provides an opportunity to reconsider administrative arrangements, review legislation, update regulations, and make improvements to provide greater clarity and certainty to industry, while addressing key concerns of the communities most affected by aircraft noise.
6.161The focus, policies and performance of Airservices Australia have exacerbated community and industry frustrations and continue to hamper the implementation of solutions; this should be urgently addressed.
6.162The committee's recommendations are designed to contribute to the work of designing a better system for managing aircraft noise impacts, while recognising the essential role that aviation plays in Australia.
Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan Chair |