1.1
The Australian Greens disagree with the Committee's view and
recommendation in its report on the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018.
Community consultation, representation and advocacy
1.2
Aircraft noise continues to be a major problem for many communities, and
their experience of noise is compounded by their experience of feeling unheard,
poorly consulted and ignored by airport management, aviation companies and the
aviation regulators.
1.3
We note the committee view that '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 consultation framework'.
However we reject that the 'aspiration for greater and more effective
consultation will not be realised by the passage of this bill'.
1.4
Evidence from community groups makes clear that consultation via
Community Aviation Consultation Groups (CACG's), Fly Neighbourly Agreements and
the existing consultation requirement for Master Airport Plans and Major
Development Plans is not working.[1]
1.5
As noted in the report, a number of witnesses pointed to how a more
formalised consultation role for Airservices Australia, including the
requirement to create Community Aviation Advocates, an autonomous Air Noise
Ombudsman, a definition of 'environment' that explicitly includes community and
an expansion of the Airservices Australia board, would provide more robust
consultation, representation and advocacy than the status quo.
1.6
We note the concerns of Airservices Australia, CASA and the Department
of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities about potentially confusing
duplication in community consultation. These concerns are able to be overcome
by conducting cross-agency reviews after the new formal consultation
requirement for Airservices Australia has been implemented.
1.7
Additionally, multiple submissions identified that the existing
consultation process is already confusing[2],
and therefore the Greens see this as no barrier to attempting to formalise the
consultation process, which would in time minimise confusion.
Recommendation 1
1.8
That if the Bill passes the parliament, a comprehensive review of the
adequacy of air noise related consultation, advocacy and the operation of the
Air Noise Ombudsman begin 12 months after the date of Royal Assent.
Melbourne Airspace and Flight paths
1.9
We note the concerns from Airservices Australia, DIRDC and CASA that the
changes intended by subsections 10B and 10C would be better achieved by
amending the Airspace Act rather than the Air Service Act, and that this
modification would be more appropriately dealt with in delegated regulation.
1.10
We acknowledge that these changes will require some adaptation by
existing aviation operators, however given the intent of this change is to
mitigate the air noise impact of aviation services and operations around
central Melbourne, change is both necessary and inevitable.
1.11
However air noise in the City of Melbourne is a critical issue and
something must be done as soon as possible. The proposal to create a 2000m
controlled air space has significant precedent, with other major global cities
(such as Paris) having similar aviation restrictions above their urban cores.
Summary
1.12
While the Greens agree with the findings of the committee that the
existing consultation process for air noise is not operating as intended, we
believe that piecemeal reform is insufficient to deal with these problems.
1.13
The Greens believe that this Bill is the right pathway forward for ensuring
a proper autonomous consultative process across all aviation and air noise
impacted communities and resolving specific issues in highly air noise impacted
areas, and encourage the other committee members to revisit their opposition.
Recommendation 2
1.14
That the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 be passed.
Senator Janet Rice
Greens Spokesperson for Infrastructure and Transport
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page