Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today I am introducing the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018 to give greater protections for communities affected by aircraft noise.

Right now, communities aren't adequately consulted and don't have an adequate voice on aircraft movements and flight paths that directly affect them. The institutions that should be protecting residents are failing. We need to change this.

This bill would give Melbourne, for example, similar rules to that of Paris when it comes to small aircraft flying over the city and over residential areas, and, of course, it would not affect any flights taken in connection with hospitals, emergency services, defence or other aircraft.

Melbourne is famous for its livability—but, as our city grows and changes, the livability and amenity are under pressure. Aircraft noise is a key example of these pressures. Unnecessary and problematic aircraft noise from private operators is harming the livability of residential communities—but, under our current laws on aircraft noise, those residential communities have no say in it, and nowhere to turn to to raise their voice. In writing the laws that protect residents, we need to decide: will these laws be written in the public interest, or for vested interests?

Now, this is the second time I have introduced a bill to tackle aircraft noise in cities such as mine, in Melbourne.

In 2016, I introduced a similar bill, the Air Services Amendment Bill 2016. I think it's worth revisiting here the situation faced by my constituents that led to its introduction.

The bill I first introduced came on the back of several years of my constituents working within the existing laws to seek a solution to the issues of aircraft noise in Melbourne. Over that time, I have spoken in this place about the experience of my constituents, and tabled a petition in parliament signed by hundreds of residents. I and my office have joined residents in meetings with representatives of various federal agencies, airports and aircraft operators. My constituents have sent hundreds of letters to aircraft operators, agencies and other stakeholders. My colleague the Greens senator for Victoria Janet Rice has further raised the issue in the Senate and in other fora. What's more, Senator Rice and others have been doing similar work with communities affected by aircraft noise right around the country.

What became clear throughout this protracted process was that the laws on aircraft noise are written for businesses and operators and not for the communities that live with aircraft noise every day. These laws need to change.

I was first in contact with residents of the suburb of East Melbourne, in my electorate, regarding aircraft noise in 2013. At that time, residents told me that they had noticed a significant increase in small aircraft, such as helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, flying at low altitude over the suburb. The observations of residents were borne out by the official flight path data, which showed that small aircraft commonly circle in the airspace above these suburbs. In one weekend, for example, over 200 flights took place over the suburb, at low levels by noisy aircraft. I understand that the number of small aircraft flights over residential areas has been increasing over time—many may be looking at the MCG or the city, not essential flights by any means, and certainly not flights designed to avoid disruption to residents.

For those who don't know the area of Melbourne and East Melbourne, it adjoins the CBD and it adjoins the MCG, and increasingly many operators have decided to fly fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters at low levels over these suburbs. Subsequently, it appears that the flight paths of larger aircraft may also have been altered, resulting in an increase in noise from these flights over the suburbs. I have also been contacted by residents in other neighbourhoods, including Fitzroy, Richmond and Kensington, who have also noticed an increase in air traffic. Meanwhile, residents in Docklands experience high-frequency, extremely loud flights near to residential buildings—often from helicopter traffic.

You only need to look at a map or a visual representation to see that this is the case. Small aircraft are taking off, sometimes near the city, then flying in loops around the MCG or over the suburbs over East Melbourne at very low levels on a regular basis. When you have flight after flight and add it all up, you understand that this isn't something that some might dismiss, 'Well, every now and then an aircraft flies over you, and you get used to it.' No. This is unnecessary traffic that is having an impact on the lives of people who live in these areas. It is a function of Melbourne becoming a growing city and more and more people coming to want to live in the city, but also of having many people who live in that area as well. No-one has yet struck the right balance between the two, and that's what this bill intends to do. Of course, they have done this in other cities, like Paris. They understood that if you want to have a city that is liveable and that has people enjoying a good quality of life, you have to regulate, and that's what we're intending to do here.

It became increasingly clear to us as we tried to fix this problem and get to the bottom of how to deal with it that the buck stopped with nobody in this country.

My constituents were sent from door to door, and told repeatedly that no response was possible to their legitimate concerns.

Amongst the array of government and private sector agencies that engage with aircraft issues, there is not a single regulator that is responsible for minimising the impact of aircraft noise on the human and natural environment, community amenity and residential areas.

Much airspace above residential areas is considered 'uncontrolled', meaning that no air traffic control takes place—and in practice my constituents have found that while institutions may exist to prevent accidents or safety risks, there is simply nobody protecting the amenity of residents from unnecessary air traffic noise. Airservices Australia wouldn't even provide residents with noise monitoring or recording to clarify the scale of the problem.

When the law makes no federal agency responsible for protecting the community, the power is very much with the operators and the businesses rather than with the residents when seeking voluntary agreements.

Meanwhile, consultation mechanisms have been flawed. Too often residents are simply unaware of changes to flight paths above their homes until they find out because of the significant increase in noise they hear daily once the changes have already happened. How can there be no genuine consultation on aircraft noise when residents are not even informed until it is too late?

We brought this matter before the parliament many years ago. We introduced a bill back in 2016. We shouldn't have to come back time and time again to get this problem fixed. The government should fix it and should fix it now.

I would like, in particular, to note some of the important developments that have taken place in our attempt to get this problem fixed.

My Greens colleague Senator Janet Rice has introduced in the other place the Air Services Amendment Bill 2018, a bill that is similar to the bill I am introducing today the House of Representatives.

It is my hope that senators reviewing that bill will be supportive of these changes to the law.

I would like to Senator Rice for her important work on this issue and for representing communities affected by aircraft noise around the country.

I also want to take this chance to acknowledge the important advocacy of the state member for Melbourne, Ellen Sandell, and the City of Melbourne, in particular Councillors Cathy Oke and Rohan Leppert, in pushing for local solutions to ameliorate the impacts of aircraft noise. Their work has led to completion of a voluntary agreement known as a fly neighbourly agreement with aircraft operators. This is important, but it hasn't fixed the problem, because it's clear that changes are needed at the federal level to give communities and local representatives the tools that they need to fix the issue.

Legislation is required to change and clarify the responsibilities of federal agencies so that, when it comes to aircraft noise, communities have a voice. It's clear that communities around the country that are affected by aircraft noise are not being represented and are not being protected.

This bill will amend the Air Services Act 1995 to do a number of things. It will include in the function of Airservices Australia the protection of community amenity in residential areas from the effects of the operation and use of aircraft. It will also require Airservices Australia to consult and cooperate with communities when modifying or creating flight paths. It will require Airservices Australia to provide a mechanism for complaints during the consultation process and also require that they publish details of consultation. And it provides for the establishment of a proper independent aircraft noise ombudsman with teeth to receive, examine, resolve and report on complaints and issues that is arise from flight paths and aircraft-noise-related matters. It also has some consequential amendments to other acts.

Finally, in response to the specific and acute circumstances of high-intensity flights of small aircraft in uncontrolled airspace over Melbourne, it would prohibit flights of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft below 2,000 metres above sea level within five kilometres of the CBD, with clear exemptions in the public interest for emergency services, defence, aircraft flying to hospitals and other like aircraft.

If Paris can do it to make sure that it remains a world city but a livable one then we can do it here in Australia too for Melbourne.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne. Is this motion seconded?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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