Chapter 6
Discussion and Recommendations
6.1
Aircraft noise is an unavoidable by-product of Australia's rapidly
expanding aviation industry. Throughout this inquiry the committee has become
increasingly aware that the management of aircraft noise is complicated by both
the number of aviation parties involved and the common misunderstandings
regarding the responsibilities of these parties. Notwithstanding this, the
committee is confident that there are a number of practical opportunities
available to improve noise management strategies.
6.2
The management of aircraft noise is a responsibility shared by a number
of key stakeholders in Australia's aviation sector. While this inquiry has
focussed on the effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft
noise, the committee has remained aware that ultimately an appropriate response
to the management of this complex and emotive issue lies in the preparedness of
each of the key stakeholders to approach their role in a committed, cooperative
and collaborative manner. The committee has been particularly mindful that
there are a number of key matters in relation to aircraft noise over which
Airservices Australia has no responsibility or control, including the location
of airports, the configuration of airport runways and the mix, density and
scheduling of aircraft operations.
6.3
The committee also notes that the management of aircraft noise received
significant consideration during the recent National Aviation Policy White
Paper process. The committee recognises the commitments stated in the White
Paper which indicate a preparedness to address a range of factors which
contribute to the successful management of aircraft noise. These include:
- establishing an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman;
- regulating to limit the operation of older, noisier aircraft
flying over residential areas;
- maintaining the existing curfew regime at Sydney, Adelaide, Gold Coast
and Essendon airports;
- ensuring future airport operations are not constrained by
incompatible development; and
- protecting existing and future communities from undue noise
exposure through the implementation of an effective national land use planning
regime for land near airports and flight paths.
6.4
However, the committee also notes that progress toward the
implementation of each of these commitments is in the early stages and the
committee received only limited evidence of practical initiatives undertaken to
date.
Improving community consultation
6.5
A significant focus of this inquiry has been the extent to which
Airservices Australia has effectively engaged communities affected by changes
in flight paths, whether temporary or ongoing. While the committee notes
initiatives being pursued by Airservices Australia to more effectively engage
with affected communities, the committee considers that the significant
dissatisfaction expressed by local communities around Australia is evidence
that there are opportunities to improve Airservices Australia's management of
aircraft noise and the manner in which it consults and engages with local
communities.
6.6
The committee notes that the past ineffectiveness of community
engagement has clearly contributed to a loss of community confidence in
Airservices Australia. A lack of organisational openness and transparency,
particularly with regard to the release of pertinent information and documents,
has also given rise to community scepticism and mistrust. In light of the
projected continued expansion in growth of the aviation industry, it is
particularly important that the government and Airservices Australia move
decisively to ensure this situation is addressed as a matter of some urgency to
restore public confidence.
6.7
The committee considers that if aircraft noise is managed on the premise
that the impact of aircraft noise will be shared, then Airservices Australia
and other key stakeholders have a responsibility to ensure that the community
is:
- aware of airspace policies and has access to clear information
that explains these policies;
- consulted in relation to proposed changes to these policies;
- able to access effective avenues to complain and seek
clarification;
- able to access an effective complaint resolution process;
- able to have confidence in planning processes; and
- able to seek independent review and assessment.
6.8
The committee notes that fragmentation of responsibility for the
management of aircraft noise between a large number of industry stakeholders is
a key source of frustration to individuals and communities and inhibits their
ability to understand the roles and responsibilities of key aviation
stakeholders, including Airservices Australia. The committee also notes that
the shared nature of this responsibility also enables some industry
stakeholders to define their responsibilities in narrow terms.
6.9
This situation is further exacerbated by the widely held perception that
Airservices Australia places the interests of the aviation industry above those
of local communities.
6.10
The committee is particularly concerned that Airservices Australia's
obligation to comprehensively engage with communities regarding flight path
changes should not be delegated to second parties, such as members of Airport
Community Consultation Forums. During this inquiry the committee noted a
disturbing tendency for Airservices Australia to rely on such forums to understand
and disseminate detailed and highly technical information to the community.
6.11
The committee believes that Airport Community Consultation Forums have
an important role to play in effective community engagement. However, they
should form only a part of a more varied and wide ranging approach to community
consultation and should be actively supported to undertake their role. The
committee considers that this support can be delivered through two key avenues.
First, Airservices Australia must be a permanent and active member of all
federal airport Community Aviation Consultation Forums. The committee considers
that Airservices Australia's membership will raise awareness of the
organisation's role and responsibility, build community confidence and trust
and promote the flow of aircraft noise management information to communities.
Recommendation 1
6.12 The committee recommends that Airservices Australia should be a
permanent member of all federal airport Community Aviation Consultation
Groups.
6.13
Second, the committee notes the success of the community advocate
position in providing the Sydney Airport Community Forum and the broader
community with assistance, information and advocacy of the community interest
on aviation issues. The committee considers that this approach should be
applied in all cases where significant or extensive changes to the management
of aircraft airspace or aircraft noise are proposed in the future. The
committee believes that the appointment of a community advocate or independent
community adviser in such circumstances will greatly enhance the effectiveness
of community engagement and consultation.
Recommendation 2
6.14 The committee recommends that a Community Aviation Advocate position
should be funded and established where significant or extensive changes to the
management of aircraft noise or airspace are proposed to assist and represent
local communities.
6.15
The terms of reference for this inquiry direct the committee to consider
whether Airservices Australia requires a binding Community Consultation Charter
to assist it in consulting fully and openly with communities affected by
aircraft noise.
6.16
The committee notes that since the implementation of the WARRP,
Airservices Australia has reviewed their community engagement processes and
developed a new Communication and Consultation Protocol which was released in
May 2010.
6.17
Airservices Australia told the committee that the Protocol was the
product of consistent feedback received through airport forums and public
representations seeking clarity and transparency for Airservices Australia's
community consultation and communication processes.[1]
6.18
The committee considers that the development of the protocol is a
positive step. However the committee is concerned that the development of the
protocol appears not to have been the subject of effective consultation on the
form such a protocol should take. The committee notes evidence received which
suggests that at least one Airport Community Forum was not consulted during the
development of the protocol and was simply provided with a completed, printed
and published document.
Recommendation 3
6.19 The committee recommends that the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman undertakes a
review of the Airservices Australia's Communication and Consultation Protocol
to determine the extent to which the protocol:
- was developed in consultation with Australian communities and
will be subject to regular ongoing review;
- clearly articulates the roles and responsibilities of all
stakeholders and the minimum standards of consultation which communities can
anticipate, and
- commits Airservices Australia to providing readily available,
easily understood and pertinent information (such as environmental noise
assessments) to community consultation forums.
6.20 The committee recommends that the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman report
the findings of this review, together with appropriate recommendations, to the
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government and to the Australian Parliament and this committee.
An effective complaints mechanism
6.21
The committee notes concerns regarding the current mechanisms for
lodging complaints. At the same time, the committee also notes the steps taken
by Airservices Australia to enhance the service provided by the Noise Enquiry
Unit.
6.22
The committee considers that the complaints mechanism should be the
subject of a comprehensive and independent review with a view to the
development of a clear set of procedures regarding the lodgement and resolution
of complaints and for the collection and analysis of data. The committee notes
that there is currently a high degree of scepticism and mistrust surrounding
Airservices Australia's handling of complaints about aircraft noise. There is
also a strong perception that no action is taken as a result of the individual
complaints lodged or as a result of analysis of complaints data. The committee
considers that public statements regarding the number of complaints lodged by
individual complainants do little to address concerns that community complaints
are not taken seriously.
6.23
The committee considers that such a review could be undertaken by the
Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.
Recommendation 4
6.24 The committee recommends that an independent review be undertaken of
Airservices Australia's procedures for the lodgement of complaints about aircraft
noise and the extent to which complaints data is analysed and disseminated to
relevant stakeholders with a view to more effectively managing aircraft noise
issues.
Strengthening oversight and governance arrangements
6.25
There is a common perception within the community that Airservices
Australia's relationship with the aviation industry poses a conflict of
interest. This strongly held perception underscores the need for greater
transparency, openness and accountability in the management of aircraft noise. The
committee considers that the government and Airservices Australia must take
urgent steps to address this perception and restore community confidence in
Airservices Australia.
6.26
The committee considers the establishment of an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman
is a positive initiative in this context. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman will
provide a much needed opportunity for individuals and communities to have their
claims and complaints considered and responded to by an independent third
party.
6.27
However, the committee shares concerns raised during this inquiry
regarding the positioning of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman within the
organisation it is tasked to review. The committee notes the assurances of
Airservices Australia that it has appropriate governance arrangements in place to
ensure the independence and impartiality of the ombudsman. Notwithstanding
these arrangements, the committee is concerned that community confidence in
Airservices Australia has eroded to the point where the co-location of the
ombudsman would simply serve to undermine the potential of that office.
Recommendation 5
6.28 The committee recommends that the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman must be established
independently of Airservices Australia and report publicly and directly to the
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government and to the Australian Parliament.
Recommendation 6
6.29 The committee recommends that the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman should
provide an annual report of its operations and this should include a
description of the actions Airservices Australia has undertaken to implement
recommendations and, where appropriate, a description of those instances where
appropriate action has not been taken.
A more robust process for forecasting noise exposure
6.30
The committee notes the concerns regarding the current ANEF processes,
particularly the perception that the ANEF forecasts are open to manipulation by
airport owner-operators. The committee considers that there is value in
retaining the ANEF system as a land planning tool. However, the committee also
considers that there is merit in placing the ANEF process on a more robust and
defensible footing to provide greater confidence to the wider community that
the forecasts are reasonable and conservative.
6.31
The committee notes that the current arrangements for review of the technical
accuracy of ANEFs do not extend to consideration of whether the future traffic
projections are appropriate or reasonable and does not review the assumptions
which underpin the airport owner-operator's growth projections.
6.32
The committee is pleased to see the government's acknowledgement of the
need to improve the ANEF system and in particular notes the government's
commitment to work closely with all jurisdictions to ensure that optimum
outcomes are achieved in the community's best interest, with particular focus
on land use planning. The committee is particularly interested in the
government's commitment to improve the technical processes and independence
associated with the assessment and scrutiny of ANEFs. However, as the committee
noted, no evidence was presented during this inquiry with regard to the
practical form these improvements will take.
6.33
The committee considers that all parties to the ANEF process would be
well served if the process were coordinated by a body which is independent of
airport owner-operators. The committee recognises that a significant proportion
of the data which underpins the ANEF is commercially sensitive and is provided
on a confidential basis by air operators. For this reason it may be appropriate
to locate responsibility for the independent coordination of the ANEF process
within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and
Local Government which already has some responsibility for the Master Plan
process.
Recommendation 7
6.34 The committee recommends that the government revise the current process
through which ANEFs are developed to establish an independent body charged with
the coordination of the process and the review of the accuracy and reasonableness
of the data upon which the forecasts are made.
Recommendation 8
6.35 The committee recommends Airservices Australia review noise levels over
affected areas with a view to offering a noise amelioration scheme compensating
residents affected by aircraft noise consistent with that of other Australian
capital city airports.
Effectively assessing the impact of aircraft noise
6.36
With regard to Airservices Australia's Environmental Principles and
Procedures for Minimising the Impact of Aircraft Noise and whether there
are appropriate triggers for review under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the committee does not share the same
confidence as Airservices Australia in their Environment Principles' ability to
independently determine the grounds for 'significant impact' and has heard no
evidence that it has sought advice on its responsibilities under the EPBC
Act 1999.
6.37
In view of the long period of time that has elapsed since the
publication was last reviewed (2002), and given Airservices Australia's
obligations under section 160 of the EPBC Act 1999, the Environment
Principles and Procedures need to more explicitly incorporate reference to the EPBC
Act 1999. In addition, the processes and methodology outlined should be
developed in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts and be consistent with best practice in assessing
the impact of new or increased aircraft noise.
Recommendation 9
6.38 The committee recommends that despite the completion of the Western Australian
Route Review Project, sufficient grounds exist for the Minister for Environment
Protection, Heritage and the Arts to review the changes to flight paths under
paragraph 160(2)(b) of the EPBC Act 1999 in response to stakeholder
concerns.
Recommendation 10
6.39 The committee recommends that Airservices Australia be required to have
regard to paragraph 160(2)(b) of the EPBC Act 1999 and seek advice from
the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts in advance of
major changes to air routes around airports under its jurisdiction.
More effective management of aircraft noise at General Aviation Airports
Procedure (GAAP) airports
6.40
The committee notes the particular aircraft noise issues associated with
GAAP airports. These airports are among the busiest in Australia and support a
diverse range of activities. Many of these airports are located in densely
populated areas. The committee also notes that the ability of airport operators
and Airservices Australia to manage aircraft noise at GAAP airports is limited
and that there is also often a limitation on the extent to which noise sharing
arrangements can be implemented.
6.41
Pilot circuit training at GAAP airports is a source of considerable
concern to residents, both in terms of aircraft noise and community safety. The
committee welcomes the steps taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to
date toward better management of the risks associated with GAAP aerodrome
procedures.
6.42
The committee notes that the general aviation fleet still features a
significant proportion of older aircraft, with the average age of aircraft over
26 years. The committee also welcomes the government's commitment in the White
Paper to phase out older noisier aircraft. More broadly, the committee notes
that advancement in technology and the increasingly complex and busy airspace
necessitates an ongoing commitment to review and adjustment of aircraft noise
management strategies.
Small, privately owned airports
6.43
The committee notes the concerns raised during the inquiry regarding the
inadequacy of surveillance of smaller privately owned airfields. For the most
part, these concerns relate to claims of poor communication around dispute
resolution between airfield owners and the community of residents. The
committee notes that private airfield operations appear to fall outside the
statutory control of the relevant authorities.
Conclusion
6.44
A recurring theme throughout this inquiry has been the frustration felt
by a range of stakeholders that there are no practical avenues for resolution
of concerns regarding aircraft noise. The committee has considered the
mechanism for lodging complaints administered by Airservices Australia and notes
that this is primarily a mechanism for the provision of information and the
collection of data. While Airservices Australia draws on this data in carrying
out its wider obligations, it does not appear to be able nor is it required to
seek to resolve the issues that are the cause of the complaints. Similarly, the
consultation mechanisms currently in place appear to be directed more toward
the dissemination of information rather than toward establishing a dialogue for
reviewing policy and procedures.
6.45
The committee is concerned that under current legislation there does
not appear to be any recourse for stakeholders to seek proper resolution of their
complaints regarding aircraft noise, or indeed more broadly in relation to the
activities of airport lessees and air operators. The committee appreciates that
aircraft noise is a highly emotive area and gives rise to questions and issues
that are difficult to manage and sometimes intractable. However, the committee is
concerned that this management task is not assisted by legislation that appears
to be silent on a dispute resolution procedure where consultation and community
engagement have failed. The committee is of the view that this situation
requires close consideration by the government with a view to clarification of
the appropriate avenues for dispute resolution.
Senator Fiona Nash
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page