Committee view 

6.1        A considerable number of submissions to the inquiry supported the overall aim of the bill in relation to greater community consultation with regard to aircraft noise. However, many of these submissions did not elaborate on how the specific provisions of the bill will contribute to achieving this aim.

6.2        Some supporters of the bill argued that it establishes a more formalised consultation process by imposing requirements upon Airservices and providing for a CCA and ANO in legislation. They argued that this formalised approach is needed to ensure that community concerns regarding aircraft noise are taken into account as current consultation and complaint mechanisms have proven inadequate and ineffectual.  

6.3        However, Airservices, DIRDC, CASA and the AAA argued the point that the bill will not address its supporters' concerns. They held the view that the bill will fail to achieve its objectives and will only duplicate pre-existing complaint and community consultation mechanisms. Further, they made the point that if enacted, the bill will potentially jeopardise air safety, increase costs and have adverse environmental and economic impacts.

Melbourne flight paths and air space

6.4        Advocates of the bill supported provisions that address issues concerning flight paths in and out of Melbourne, and enact restrictions on aircraft activities operating over residential areas, excluding operations in the public interest. Community groups also supported the proposed provision to enable affected individuals to request retrospective reviews of flight paths created or changed on or after 1 January 2012.

6.5        However, Airservices, DIRDC, CASA and the AAA specified a number of issues and limitations with the bill in this regard. As a starting point, they raised concern that the bill incorrectly attributes Airservices as the responsible agency for administering flight paths, whereas CASA, under the Airspace Act, is the agency responsible.

6.6        Airspace regulators and business operators also expressed concern with the proposal to prohibit helicopters and fixed wing aircraft from flying at less than 2,000 metres above sea level over residential areas in Melbourne. They made the point that if enforced, the 2,000 meter threshold would implement an approximate 6,500 feet requirement, which would have significant adverse consequences for airport operations in and around Melbourne.

Community consultation and transparency

6.7        The committee recognises that many communities located within close proximity to air transport infrastructure are suffering. It appreciates that these communities feel that their concerns are not being listened to and that their suggestions for co-existence and ideas for collaboration are ignored. The committee acknowledges, moreover, that many submissions to the inquiry from affected communities support the bill on the basis that it seeks to provide a formal consultation mechanism which would require Airservices to engage with local groups. 

6.8        While the committee acknowledges the concerns raised by community groups and affected individuals with regard to aircraft noise, it takes the view that the aspiration for greater and more effective consultation will not be realised by the passage of this bill. The committee is concerned that some of the proposed provisions will effectively duplicate legislated requirements and practices already in place, thereby inadvertently making an already complex process more multi-layered, opaque and difficult to understand.

6.9        However, it is clear to the committee that there are significant noise impacts that affected communities are facing which are not being considered, let alone addressed, within the existing consultation framework. It is also clear that current processes, including the CACGs, are not operating as originally intended. Noting that the government previously described the proposal for a CAA position as a 'duplicate' of the role intended for community representatives within CACGs, the committee recognises the need for a significant change to the way in which Airservices consults with, and takes into account, the views of involved communities both within and outside of the CACG process.[1]

6.10      Airservices has acknowledged on a number of occasions that improvements can, and should be made to the way in which it engages with affected communities. The 2018 ANO investigation into amended flight paths at Hobart Airport has thrown into sharp relief the inadequacy of Airservices' current consultation framework. The concerns raised by the ANO were echoed in evidence throughout the course of the inquiry. In fact, most submitters raised concerns regarding the nature, quality and effectiveness of consultations undertaken, the level of transparency and quality of information provided to the public, the handling of community complaints and action taken by Airservices in response to community concerns.

6.11      The committee is cognisant that many of the concerns raised with regard the current consultation processes were considered by the References Committee in its 2010 inquiry. However, it would appear that the same concerns with regard to the lack of adequate community consultation still remain. To this end, the committee endorses the References Committee recommendation that Airservices serve as a permanent member of all federal airport CACGs. Notwithstanding this, however, the committee also supports the ANO's April 2018 findings in relation to Hobart Airport regarding the need for Airservices to conduct its own community consultation program and for Airservices to prioritise transparency towards communities impacted by aircraft noise.[2]

6.12      The committee recognises that CACGs are only one forum through which community concerns can be raised and considered. While Airservices should engage on CACGs, it should not be the only mechanism that it utilises to conduct consultation and engage with the wider community. As noted by the ANO in relation to the Hobart Airport flight path changes, 'CACGs cannot offer reach to all residents potentially affected by Airservices' initiated changes'.[3] Moreover, Airservices own Community Consultation Protocol recognises the need for 'different forms of communication and consultation activities' in accordance with the level of change and likely impact.[4]

6.13      The committee supports the ANO's April 2018 recommendations including that Airservices access expertise in community consultation which can inform the development of a comprehensive Airservices community consultation strategy.[5] The committee takes the view that implementation of the ANO's recommendations, coupled with full compliance by Airservices of its own protocols and operating standards will go a considerable way towards achieving the key objectives contained in the bill.[6]

6.14      The committee recognises that the review of the Airservices Communication and Consultation Protocol provides the prime opportunity to address many of the concerns raised with regard to community engagement and consultation during this inquiry. The committee highlights the point made by the ANO that as part of reviewing its protocol and National Operating Standard, Airservices must now develop a 'more detailed community engagement strategy'.[7]

6.15      The committee also supports the ANO's recommendations which are designed to strengthen Airservices complaint management process and ensure that the concerns of affected residents are effectively managed. The committee recognises that the implementation of these recommendations by Airservices should provide the necessary transparency and timely information required by affected communities. Moreover, as suggested by the ANO, effective complaint handling can benefit Airservices by providing an early warning system, uncovering errors or oversights and enabling an 'early and appropriate management response'.[8]

6.16      Noting that the ANO will report on Airservices' progress against the recommendations through regular published quarterly reports, the committee will monitor Airservices progress in implementing these important recommendations.

Co-existence and collaboration

6.17      The committee heard a number of proposals to address aircraft noise issues and ways to improve the existing consultation and complaint framework from community groups. These include:

• establishing Airservices as a permanent member of CACGs;
• improving the transparency of CACGs and its engagement with communities;
• conducting periodic reviews of Fly Neighbourly Agreements;
• implementing curfews and restricting flights at training aerodromes, particularly for circular movements;
• moving training airports to regional areas and away from residential density;
• reviewing the governance arrangements with regard to the ANO to enhance its independence and effectiveness;
• raising awareness of the role of the ANO;
• reviewing urban flight paths for aircraft operating at 1500 feet, and establishing designated flight paths that largely operate over non-residential areas.

6.18      While an examination of these suggestions is outside the scope of this inquiry, they could be considered by involved stakeholders within the existing legislative framework.

6.19      The committee the committee strongly encourages Airservices to reform its consultation approach and processes to take into account community views as well as suggestions for collaboration and co-existence.

6.20      The committee will continue to monitor the effectiveness with which Airservices engages with affected communities on aircraft noise and is more transparent with regard to proposed changes.

6.21      While the committee recognises that there is significant scope for improvement in the way in which Airservices engages with affected communities, it takes the view that the bill before it will not provide the effective consultation mechanism as envisaged. Therefore, the committee does not support the passage of this bill.  

Senator Barry O'Sullivan
Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page