Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sydney airport is vital economic infrastructure for Australia, for Sydney and, more importantly and specifically, for the Sutherland Shire, supporting thousands of local jobs. The long-term operating plan for Sydney airport, also known as LTOP, was an election commitment that the Howard government took to the 1996 election. It involves the principle of sharing aircraft noise around all areas surrounding Sydney airport, using different combinations of runway modes. Subject to safety and weather considerations, LTOP seeks to maximise the number of flights over water and non-residential areas. Within LTOP there are specific targets for the percentage of flights to be routed from and to the south—around 55 per cent—and equally from the east, the west and the north. The assumption is that flights to the south are over water—but, as those at Kurnell would know, those flights are over their places. It is also implicit in the assumption that 55 per cent of flights to the south are over water that the flight path predominantly used, other than for planes that come in directly over Kurnell, will be over water.

A key component of the plan to achieve this objective was the way in which flights are intended to track when landing from the south. Approaching from the north, they are intended to track east of the airport—out to sea, off the coast—before looping around and landing from the south along the two parallel runways. On this route they do substantively travel over water. LTOP became a legal obligation for Airservices Australia when it was made the subject of a ministerial directive referred to in a motion by the then transport Minister John Sharp in 1997. Following the last election an announcement was made by Sydney airport that construction works were required at the western end of the east-west runway to erect a jet blast barrier. These were important and necessary safety works. Following consultation and approval by the minister for transport, requiring a series of worthy safeguards for the project, the project was agreed to and allowed to proceed.

A key element of the approval was to ensure a fair sharing of aircraft noise during the construction phase due to the restricted use of the east-west runway. An environmental impact statement was also done as part of this process. The project got underway in the latter part of 2008 with the goodwill of the communities that would be affected. For shire residents, a key issue was that the government should be held to the promise that—and I quote from the Sydney airport release—‘as soon as the construction is complete, normal airport operations and noise-sharing arrangements will resume’. As the project proceeded, many residents from Kareela and the nearby suburbs of Sylvania, Jannali, Miranda, Gymea Bay and Grays Point contacted me to register their opposition to the increase in aircraft noise over their homes. I raised this issue with Airservices Australia and they told me that these flights were normal and not subject to any LTOP obligations. That was plainly not true. They were definitely subject to LTOP obligations, as required over many years.

The publication of operational statistics for Sydney airport told me a very different story to the one initially presented by Airservices Australia. It showed that there was a direct concentration of flights over the area that was affected and from which the complaints were originating. The increased noise was the result of the increased use of a standard arrival route known as Boree 4. It showed that there had been an increase in the concentration of flights on that route from 2.8 per cent of arrivals to 7.8 per cent of total arrivals in just a 12-month period. I call it ‘Labor’s highway in the sky’. Once again, this route applies to landing from the south but, rather than going to the east of the airport and out to sea, the planes are flying directly through the member for Lowe’s electorate, right down through the member for Watson’s electorate and the member for Barton’s electorate and across my electorate in the shire. They are supposed to be flying over those areas at a height of 6,000 feet before looping around and landing from the south. The problem with this approach is not only that it is against the principles of LTOP—which were put in place and which this motion seeks to have applied—but also that there has been a constant struggle to ensure the community gets access to information about what they know to be really happening on the ground.

These flights arrive during the early part of the morning, particularly in the curfew shoulder period and between six and seven. What we have been able to establish through the Sydney Airport Community Forum is that not only has this been happening, and it has been a real experience, but also, since the construction project that was blamed for the increase in noise has been completed, the noise continues. So we have been asked to ensure that the government provide the information that will confirm what people know on the ground: this flight noise is continuing because the government has not changed the flight paths back to normal, as was suggested, and the community is calling on them to do just that—to return aircraft operations at Sydney Airport to normal, as promised.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Cook, through his motion this evening, for the opportunity to discuss the issue and the history of aircraft noise arising from Sydney Airport. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I have been campaigning long and loud for fair aircraft noise sharing for more than a decade in this place and also at the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I am somewhat astounded, astonished and amazed that the opposition would raise this issue, in light of the Howard government’s appalling 11½-year record of failing to address the concerns of the people I represent to the north of the airport. I make the point that the Howard government did very little to get Airservices Australia to fully implement the long-term operating plan.

I accept that the member for Cook was not here in the period during which I raised issues with the former government, so I will go over some of the history. I have prosecuted the case for many years on behalf of my constituents, both here and at SACF, as I said. Through all that time, the Howard government threw sand in my eyes. I remember well asking the then Deputy Prime Minister and minister for transport, John Anderson, hundreds of questions about the failure of Airservices Australia to meet the 17 per cent target of aircraft movements to and from the north of Sydney Airport. Mr Anderson eventually refused to answer my questions and arrogantly dismissed me and my constituents with the line, ‘The LTOP has been substantially implemented.’

The arrogance of the former, Howard government on this issue does not end there. The Howard government’s indifference to my constituents was plain for all to see when it sold its soul on this issue by selling the airport to the Southern Cross consortium, which included Macquarie Bank. The government sold the airport without community consultation and without requiring the 17 per cent movement target to the north to be met. Moreover, the Howard government claimed Sydney would not need a second airport for at least 20 years and approved the master plan for Kingsford Smith airport which has allowed substantial expansion of activity at the airport.

However, I can assure my constituents that the current minister for transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, has already established a joint planning task force with the New South Wales government to search for an appropriate site for a second airport and that it received $8.5 million in this year’s federal budget. I am also pleased to report, as the member for Cook knows, that Minister Albanese attended the Sydney Airport Community Forum last Friday and pointed out that the most recent figures from Airservices Australia show that aircraft movements to the north of the airport are the lowest they have been since the LTOP was introduced. In addition, I am pleased to report that the minister has reaffirmed our commitment to maintaining the curfew and cap on aircraft movements, ensuring respite for noise-affected residents. Furthermore, the minister has announced that older and noisier jet aircraft will be banned from Sydney Airport from 1 September, including the noisy Boeing 727 freight plane that currently flies over thousands of Sydney homes late on weeknights. The minister has also announced the establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsman to give residents more than an automated voice recording to lodge a complaint, and to improve the dissemination of information. My local community campaigned on this very issue, and I thank the minister for listening to their call.

It is also very important to note, particularly for the member for Cook, that the Sydney Airport Community Forum will be retained, because our government recognises the importance of community consultation. These measures highlight the fact that the minister and the government are serious about the concerns of aircraft noise affected residents and are acting to minimise the impact on our community. Minister Albanese, unlike former Howard transport ministers, is making a real difference.

I am very pleased with the actions of our government to minimise aircraft noise at Sydney Airport, particularly in light of the unforeseen closure of the east-west runway announced only days after the last federal election. It is timely to record at this point and to the House that before the last federal election the Howard government concealed its negotiations with Sydney Airport to close the east-west runway for the safety upgrade that the member for Cook talked about. He did not mention that first part. Due to the closure of the east-west runway, flight paths as prescribed in the LTOP were necessarily restricted. However, since the recent completion of the RESA project and the reopening of the east-west runway I have had feedback from constituents, and this improvement has been noticed and appreciated, as supported by Airservices statistics. I will, however, be campaigning to monitor closely the continued movements of flight paths over my electorate. (Time expired)

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise in support of the member for Cook’s motion today. Residents of Wentworth took on substantially increased aircraft noise in 1996, when the Sydney Airport Long Term Operational Plan, or LTOP, was established. As a consequence of the LTOP, Wentworth residents received two new departure flight paths and about 30 per cent of all take-offs.

In mid-2008, at the Sydney Airport Community Forum, my office was advised by Airservices Australia that in order to undertake runway upgrades—known at the Runway End Safety Area—Airservices Australia would implement from late 2008 a new runway configuration. Known as mode 15, this configuration directed increased departures over suburbs in Wentworth. However, we were assured that mode 15 would only be used for the specific period of the Runway End Safety Area works, and would then be discontinued.

It was with alarm that residents in my electorate read recently in both the Sydney Morning Herald and the Wentworth Courier that mode 15 could potentially be reintroduced. Last Friday, the minister for transport, Mr Albanese, announced at the Sydney Airport Community Forum that the mode 15 option remains on the table. This is not what we were told in mid-2008. It is very disappointing, considering our community’s preparedness to accept increased levels of noise during the airport upgrades. Mode 15 does not meet the objectives of the 1996 LTOP and the principle of fair and equitable noise sharing. I have written to the minister requesting that he clarify, as a matter of urgency, this position on the continued use of mode 15.

There were further concerns at the same Sydney Airport Community Forum last Friday. Members were given a brief presentation by Airservices Australia on new technology soon to be introduced to Sydney Airport. This system, called required navigation performance, has the potential to channel aircraft down corridors as narrow as 30 metres wide and to concentrate noise over a fewer number of flight paths than currently exist. A study is to begin into the environmental and noise implications of this technology; but, alarmingly, the recommendations will be the culmination of the findings across 28 airports in Australia and will not exclusively address the unique situation of Sydney Airport. No other airport in Australia confronts the same problems of aircraft noise as Sydney, with such a high density of residential development in such close proximity and the sheer numbers of commercial aircraft movements. At the meeting, the minister called for a cooperative approach to aircraft noise problems at Sydney Airport. If that is the case, this is not the approach he needs to employ. He needs to start listening to potentially affected residents and to those who represent them.

This brings me to my last point: the position of Aviation Community Advocate. If the government wanted to ensure that the interests of residents affected by aircraft noise in Sydney were given due consideration, then the single most useful thing it could do would be to reinstate the position of Aviation Community Advocate. The myriad issues arising from the operation of an airport are complex and are getting even more complex. It is unreasonable to expect any single member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum to be able to locate, monitor and research the reams of information that the operation of an airport of the magnitude of Sydney generates and to then evaluate in a timely manner the impact on local communities and to engage directly with the local communities. That is truly a full-time job, and correctly it is the role of the Aviation Community Advocate, a role the current minister sees little benefit in maintaining. He argues that no other airport has an aviation community advocate and that there are no funds available. Well, there is $1.6 million remaining from the airport noise levy program, funds which should continue to be used for the mitigation of airport noise. The role of the Aviation Community Advocate is in substantial measure devoted to reducing the impact of aircraft noise on residents, and these remaining funds should be released to reinstate immediately this vital position.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to get up and speak once again about airports and airport issues in Australia, especially because I have an airport in the middle of my electorate of Hindmarsh. In the case of Adelaide Airport and the residents of Hindmarsh, no matter where the flight paths change, how they change or what diversions are made, every single plane that lands at Adelaide Airport is at such a point that there is no diversion from the flight path because Adelaide Airport is situated in the middle of the electorate. Therefore, by the time they reach my electorate, they are actually landing. I have said in this place many times that the residents of Hindmarsh—in suburbs like Mile End, Richmond, Cowandilla, Glenelg North, West Beach and Henley Beach—can stand on their roofs and tickle the tummies of the airplanes as they go over their houses.

It is interesting to hear the members opposite and to hear the member for Cook, who obviously was not here in the last parliament, speak on this issue. On many occasions I raised the issue through questions on notice to the previous government and through letters to the then minister about an airport ombudsman. In fact, I moved two private member’s bills during the last parliament and on each occasion they were not raised within the federal parliament. They fell on the deaf ears of the former government. So I was very pleased when last year the aviation white paper was released under the Labor Rudd government and it included the establishment of an aircraft noise ombudsman. As I said, in opposition I moved a private member’s motion twice and twice it fell on deaf ears.

The white paper states the aircraft noise ombudsman is to be established in Airservices Australia to:

• independently review noise complaints handling procedures and make recommendations for improvements where necessary; and
• improve Airservices’ consultation arrangements and the presentation and distribution of aircraft noise-related information to the general public;

This is real action that has been taken by this government not only for the residents in my electorate but also for residents all over Australia. This is real action that will ensure residents have an independent voice. They will have an independent say through an independent body that is not related or governed by the government or by Airservices Australia. It will look at issues independently and come out with particular findings.

I was also very pleased that in the white paper the curfews that are currently operating around Australia are enshrined and that we have ensured that they will remain to ensure there is some stability in terms of noise around the country where residents live under the flight path and that there will be no change, especially to the Adelaide Airport curfew. We recently heard of the diversion of a Qantas plane that was flying from Canberra to Adelaide. It had to be diverted back to Canberra because approximately 10 to 15 minutes out of Adelaide the pilots asked for dispensation. The following day we had a whole range of people speaking out, including Michael Pengilly from the Liberal Party, who went on radio and said he wanted to get rid of the curfew. The Leader of the Opposition into South Australia, Isobel Redmond, said that we should look at the curfew and perhaps change the laws that exist. Here are people who have no understanding of what it is like to live under a flight path. They have absolutely no understanding of what it is like to hear jets go over your roof on a constant basis. I have lived under the flight path all of my life; I was born under the flight path. For many years we would run out to the front yard to see the planes that would fly over into Adelaide two or three times a week. Now they fly over two to three times every hour.

So I have to say that there have been some achievements under the Rudd Labor government. There was also the issue of banning noisy aircraft in and around Australia, and an announcement was made recently that from 1 July 2010 no new services using old, noisy freight jets will be allowed at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns, Gold Coast, Essendon, Newcastle (Williamtown), Avalon and Canberra airports, and from 1 September 2010 all existing services will cease at the Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth airports. This course of action was first foreshadowed in the aviation green paper in December 2008 under the Rudd Labor government and then restated as government policy in the aviation white paper. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.