Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to update the House on the issue of aircraft noise in my electorate of Swan and our continuing efforts to achieve noise amelioration for affected residents. Members may recall that 11 months ago, on 31 October 2011, I rose in this place to second the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011, a private members bill put forward by the member for Pearce that was designed to address the situation arising from flight-path changes in 2008. It was made under the Western Australia Route Review Project by Airservices Australia, under the authority of the minister for transport.

These changes were made without adequate consultation, a fact subsequently established by a Senate committee and admitted by Airservices Australia, yet to this day the government refuses to do anything about this. The Airservices bill we introduced last year is still before the parliament today and is an important step in addressing the 2008 changes. It has the support of my constituents in Swan and the member for Pearce's constituents in her electorate. It is supported by the Liberal Party, the National party and the Greens party, but not by the government, which is looking increasingly isolated in its opposition to action on aircraft noise in Perth.

Crucially, the bill triggers the reopening of the planning process for Perth flight paths by asking ASA to propose a flight-path plan. Then would follow a full community-wide consultation, which in turn should trigger a proper referral under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act. This was not conducted in 2008. They are two events that did not occur in 2008. Furthermore, the bill would prevent a repeat of the 2008 Perth flight-path changes fiasco by enshrining consultation into law.

As I have mentioned, this bill was introduced on 4 July 2011 and that it has taken this long to get a vote is shameful in itself. The member for Pearce conducted wide consultations with government agencies and industry and, as a result, 15 small amendments have been made. She should be congratulated on her consultation process. Comprehensive consultation was undertaken with the Greens and the Independents and indeed the Labor Party. While the Labor Party indicated their opposition to the bill from the outset—which they have been consistent in and which is no surprise, given their track record—support has been expressed by the Greens. This means that if the bill passes this place it could go through the Senate and become law, for the benefit of Perth residents.

Cautious support has also been indicated at various stages by the Independents. Consultation was complete and the bill was ready to be voted on months ago. These delays have appeared suspicious and we know that the minister has been frantically trying to 'turn' the Independents behind the scenes. It is clear the Independents will decide the vote in the lower House and I hope, when the chance to vote eventually comes, the Independents will base their vote purely on the legislation and not on other factors. I note the bill remains on the Notice Paper, as it has for the last two sitting weeks, so we will wait and see if this will be the week the government decides to bring it forward.

While we await the vote on this bill I have been pursuing another matter with the ombudsman and that is in relation to take-off arrangements at Perth Airport. These practices were estimated by aviation reporter Geoffrey Thomas to result in planes being 300 metres lower than they need to be, creating more noise for residents. These practices are put in place for fuel efficiency, engine conservation and scheduling requirements but I feel they need to be investigated further. The problem would be particularly visible on the long runway, runway 3, which affects residents in Queens Park, Cannington, Beckenham and Ferndale. In fact, I had the pleasure of being invited to the Correlli's household in Queens Park a couple of weeks ago to observe the phenomenon myself. It was interesting to see aircraft, of the same type, at dramatically different heights as they came over—some within a minute of each other, some you could almost touch and others you could hardly see.

When I talk to residents about aircraft noise, it is clear that the thing they most cannot understand is how residents are treated differently in different parts of the country. They cannot understand how residents in Sydney and Adelaide can receive aircraft noise insulation schemes and other amelioration measures but Perth can receive nothing. They cannot understand how the minister for transport can support noise amelioration for Sydney but not for Perth.

I reiterate my call for a review of the ANEF system, which is just a forecast and not an actual measurement. Residents of Swan know that there is no difference in noise between a plane taking off in Perth and a plane taking off in Adelaide. The minister's own department appears to recognise this problem with a position paper on its website calling for a review. The government cannot continue to use this measure as an excuse for blocking an insulation scheme in Perth. I will continue to campaign for my constituents and hope for a good outcome on the bill.