2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021

Estimates of government expenditure are referred to Senate committees as part of the annual budget cycle. This opportunity to examine the operations of government plays a key role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. One of the most significant features of the procedure for examining estimates is the opportunity that senators have to question officers of the public service directly. BFPCA has engaged the Australian Parliament’s Senate Estimates process to hold the government to account for Brisbane Airport’s excessive noise pollution experienced by Brisbane residents.

BFPCA is grateful to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport for asking the following questions. BFPCA also thank the offices of various Senators named below for their support in tabling these questions.

On this page we publish video recordings and document answers provided to Questions on Notice (QoN). These written answers can also be retrieved from the Senate’s website.

On this page:

• Supplementary Budget Estimates 2023 / 2024 (23 Oct 2023)
• Budget Estimates 2023 / 2024 (22 – 23 May 2023)
• Supplementary Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023 (13 Feb 2023)

Supplementary Budget Estimates 2023 / 2024

📺 Video recording: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Aviation Branch); hearing date: 23 Oct 2023

📺 Video recording: Airservices; hearing date: 23 Oct 2023

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices

55. SODPROPS Data

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Can Airservices Australia supply the committee with all SODPROPS data, including both daytime and night-time operations?
Mr Harfield: Yes.
Senator McKENZIE: For Brisbane Airport?
Mr Harfield: Yes.
Senator McKENZIE: Since the opening of the new runway on 12 July 2020, and the data should include dates, the number of SODPROPS flights and hours of operation—yes?
Mr Harfield: Yes.
Senator McKENZIE: In a timely fashion—that would be fantastic.

Answer: Please refer to Committee Question Number 181 (SQ23-003910) from the 2023-24 Budget Estimates hearing for SODPROPS data for the period 12 July 2020 to 31 May 2023. Brisbane SODPROPS data for the period 1 June 2023 to 30 September 2023 is provided in Attachment A.

56. Use of full runway at Brisbane Airport

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Has Airservices Australia recommended pilots use the full length of the
runway at Brisbane?
Mr Curran: That’s correct. That is the trial that we have in place for runway 19R.
Senator McKENZIE: Does the use of the full runway for take-off impact on the amount of thrust needed to achieve height markers in the flight paths?
Mr Curran: I’d have to provide that answer on notice. There are some quite significant technical complexities with that.

Answer: The trial was established to determine if full-length runway operations would provide a noise benefit for the community. The aim was to determine if restricting intersection departures from taxiway T2 and taxiway T3 would achieve a noise improvement, by having aircraft take-off earlier along the runway (121 metres earlier compared to a taxiway T2 departure and 638 metres earlier compared to a taxiway T3 departure).

Aircraft flight management computers are designed to calculate and optimise the take-off to provide a safe and efficient take-off trajectory. These systems automatically calculate the take-off point and departure climb giving consideration to the starting point on the runway, that is, full-length or intersection departure. The flight management systems will make a determination on the amount of thrust required to meet height markers on Standard Instrument Departures, subject to airline and aircraft operating procedures. A range of other factors such as temporary obstacles and weather conditions may also be factored into calculations conducted by flight management system.

The restriction on intersection departure trial did not result in any perceptible noise improvement for communities based on accepted acoustic standards which require more than a three decibel change for it to be perceptible to the human ear.

The community was provided with quarterly updates on the trial findings and notified on 11 October 2023 that the trial findings over the 12 months did not support the continuation of the trial.

57. Noise Action Plan for Brisbane

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Can you please provide an update on the noise action plan for Brisbane?
Mr Harfield: Yes, we can.

Answer: Quarterly updates are published on Engage Airservices
(https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/nap4b).

2789. Brisbane Airport wind data

Senator Janet Rice asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 November 2023

With reference to Brisbane Airport wind data: Residents affected by flight noise at Brisbane Airport are often frustrated by the lack of use of the Simultaneous Opposite Direction Parallel Runway Operations (SODPROPS) operating mode, in particular when there is a discrepancy between Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) wind speed and BOM data. Could you explain why there might be discrepancies between these two data points.

Answer: Senator the Hon Murray Watt – The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question: Airservices Australia has access to four anemometers, one at the end of each runway threshold. The Bureau of Meteorology data is taken from the anemometer at the centre of the airport. The wind data on the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) is usually the maximum value recorded on one of the anemometers unless there is a significant difference and then that would also be published.

2790. Police welfare checks

Senator the Hon Janet Rice asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 November 2023

Following up from Question on Notice 93 from Supplementary Budget Estimates 2022 – 2023 (SQ23-003272), Airservices confirmed that “since the opening of Brisbane’s new runway, eight complainants have been referred to Airservices Security with three referred to police for a welfare visit

1. Could you provide updated figures.
2. Given the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance survey, which found that 69% of respondents suffered mental distress from aircraft noise, has ASA been in discussions with the Department or any other agencies to support people suffering mental health impacts from flight noise, and what action if any has been taken to support people.

Answer: Senator the Hon Murray Watt – The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question: Since the opening of Brisbane’s new runway, ten complainants have been referred to Airservices Security, and four have been referred to police for welfare visits.

Since August 2023, Airservices’ Employee Assistance Program (EAP) has been available to Brisbane community members feeling negatively affected by aircraft noise, to provide confidential counselling support at no cost to the community member. Details have been published on the Engage Airservices website and in brochures handed out during engagement sessions.

Airservices also contracted a LifeLine counsellor to provide support at Phase 2 and 3 engagement sessions in communities where high degrees of distress were identified in previous engagement sessions.

2791. Airservices’ “Key Messages” document

Senator the Hon Janet Rice asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 November 2023

Questions number SQ22-000832 and SQ23-003349 refer to a ‘key messages document’ produced by Airservices Australia.

1. Who was the ‘key messages document’ produced for, and please name all stakeholders that it has been distributed to.
2. Is it correct that the document proposes talking points promoting the profitability of airlines and airports which are all for-profit corporations.
3. Why is Airservices Australia, a government regulator, promoting the interests of for-profit corporations, and can you reference which element of your statutory duties this is in line with.

Answer: Senator the Hon Murray Watt – The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

1. The document was provided to stakeholders participating in the Brisbane Airport Aircraft Noise and Performance Working Group. The Working Group comprised Airservices Australia, Brisbane Airport Corporation, Virgin Australia, Qantas Group, Air New Zealand.
2. No.
3. The document referred to did not promote the interest of for-profit corporations and it should be noted that Airservices is not a regulator. Australia’s aviation safety regulator is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Airservices is Australia’s civil air navigation service provider established by the Air Services Act 1995 (the Act) to provide air traffic and aviation rescue fire fighting services to the aviation industry. Section 8 (b) of the Act also requires Airservices to promote and foster civil aviation.

2792. Brisbane Airport wind data

Senator the Hon Janet Rice asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 November 2023

1. With reference to wind data. Please provide a detailed table comparing the actual ATIS wind data (instantaneous, mean and max wind speeds) displayed to ATC staff in Brisbane Tower (via INTAS WARP recordings) with the broadcast CATIS wind data, and with wind speeds recorded by the BOM, during nominal time periods of SODPROPS as per the Noise Abatement Procedures, for the period of 12 July 2020 to now.
2. Please indicate in this table when SODPROPS mode was not available and the reason.
3. Compare the deviation between wind speeds as recorded by CATIS with speeds recorded in the BOM data in the same table format as presented in the 2007 MDP/EIS page D4-68, Table 4.3.

Answer: Senator the Hon Murray Watt – The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question: Instantaneous wind speed displayed to the controller is updated every second, averaging over the last 3 seconds. The wind speed data requested involves many millions of data points, and providing the data would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.

The safe operation of SODPROPS depends on a range of factors including weather (cloud base, wind conditions, visibility, rain), conflicting airspace operations and the volume of aircraft traffic that can be safely managed in this mode. Aircraft operating in SODPROPS are effectively travelling toward each other on arrival and departure. Wind speed is just one of the four weather factors air traffic controllers consider along with the operational considerations to determine the availability of SODPROPS.

2793. Piston engine aircraft using leaded fuel at Brisbane and Archerfield airports

Senator the Hon Janet Rice asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 20 November 2023

With reference to aircraft using leaded fuel: How many piston engine aircraft using leaded fuel have used Brisbane and Archerfield airport in the last 12 months? Please issue a table with a weekly breakdown of numbers, movements, plane type, age, operator, and destination for the last 12 months.

Answer: Senator the Hon Murray Watt – The Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question: The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts does not collect data needed to respond to this question.

Budget Estimates 2023 / 2024

📺 Video recordings: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Aviation Branch); hearing date: 22 May 2023

📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 23 May 2023

Answers to Questions on Notice: Department of Infrastructure (Aviation Branch)

78. Brisbane Airport second runway – deficiencies in the use of the ANEF

Senator Matthew Canavan asked:

Senator CANAVAN: I think that’s the document I’m quoting from—I’m not across it all myself. When Brisbane did its master plan for the second runway, did it just simply use the ANEF?
Mr McClure: The major development plan for the runway in Brisbane was done back in 2006. It was approved in 2007, so it was a fair way back in history. I think the last time Brisbane Airport did a master plan was about 2019, and that still would have used the ANEF. But, certainly, when they did the major development plan for their new runway it predated the language in that guideline.
Senator CANAVAN: But there was then a significant delay in the execution of that master plan. I remember all the controversy. I’m not sure when construction started on the second runway. Because you’d published this in 2016, I’m interested to know when you briefed your minister—either back then or now, since the election—about deficiencies in the use of the ANEF?
Mr McClure: The National Airports Safeguarding Framework is something that was developed by state and territory and Commonwealth governments and went through what we now call ITMM and what used to be called TIC and other things. It went through that mechanism. So it was agreed between state and territory infrastructure ministers. Obviously, the Commonwealth—
Senator CANAVAN: When was that?
Mr McClure: The actual framework was first developed in about 2013. That guideline was probably updated subsequent to that. I don’t have the last Guideline A last update right in front me. But, certainly, as the framework was developed it’s a product of the state and territory infrastructure and planning ministers council, rather that a Commonwealth document as such.
Senator CANAVAN: Have you briefed Minister King about these issues with flaws in the use of ANEF contours?
Mr McClure: I’m not sure that we’ve done a specific briefing around that, though the minister would have exposure to the NASF guidelines. But also, as I say, there is development of new runways and a new airport where we’re engaging more on the issues of noise impacts on communities, so we certainly are going beyond what’s in an ANEF when we’re looking at the advice we’ll be providing to ministers on the likely noise impacts as flight paths are designed and so forth.
Senator CANAVAN: Could you take on notice whether you have briefed the minister on that particular issue?
Mr McClure: Certainly.

Answer: The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has not briefed the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government specifically on the application of the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF).

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices

178. Airservices Australia – Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) recommendations

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Recommendation 2 was that Airservices Australia review the effect of its managerial separation of flight path design, environmental assessment and community engagement and implement a management structure that includes these functions under the same manager or demonstrates how effective community engagement is incorporated into the flight path change process under the current structure. Keep doing it how you’re doing it and justify it or make some significant changes. Can you give us confidence about that?
Mr Curran: Yes. The ANO has closed that recommendation. I’m happy to provide on notice a
detail of exactly what Airservices Australia has undertaken to do that. In general terms—
Senator McKENZIE: I want to be really super specific. Are you still doing it like you were?
Mr Curran: No. We’ve made a number of significant changes, including the way in which we engage communities. We’ve done work on our flight path design principles. We’ve since developed a community engagement standard, which we’re consulting communities nationally on at present. I can confirm that the ANO has closed that recommendation. We can provide the further and better information on the specifics of that.
Senator McKENZIE: For the sake of those following along on at home, on what grounds can the ANO close the recommendations?
Mr Curran: On the basis that we have provided—
Senator McKENZIE: They are satisfied they are completed?
Mr Curran: Correct. Documentation that explains how we have responded in detail to that
recommendation. The ANO has—
Senator McKENZIE: We do Senate committee reports. We present them to the Senate. The government responds to these Senate reports. It doesn’t mean they are going to do everything the Senate committee particularly recommends at any given time. When the ANO close this, is it a bit like noting your response, or do they accept that your response is an adequate response?
Mr Harfield: The ANAO will not close it until they are satisfied that it has met the intent.
Senator McKENZIE: Perfect. I look forward to that answer on notice.

Answer: Airservices has made significant changes to its processes which were detailed in its response to the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman (ANO) recommendation 2 of its Investigation into complaints about the flight paths associated with the Brisbane Airport new parallel runway (October 2021) on 29 April 2022. The changes include enhanced procedures and mechanisms put in place to ensure ‘community-by-design’ consideration in flight path change planning.

Airservices’ response to the ANO is provided at Attachment A.

The ANO Quarterly Report July-September 2022 stated that “the ANO considers that the
intent of this recommendation has been met, and as a result can be closed.”

Attachment: Brisbane Multiple Complaints Investigation Recommendation 2

179. Airservices – drop-in sessions

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: That is as I took it. You had spent $11 million on consultants and you had allocated $15 million to implement the recommendations arising from the post implementation review in Brisbane. That was the evidence given then. On 12 April this year, Airservices Australia released a schedule of 13 drop-in sessions for communities to raise concerns with the noise sharing proposal as part of the noise action plan for Brisbane. Is that correct?
Mr Curran: That’s correct.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. I have been advised that residents are concerned that these 13 sessions were very poorly advertised, particularly considering that new suburbs will now be affected. How did we advertise these?
Mr Curran: Thank you, Senator. We undertook a number of activities to raise community awareness about these consultation sessions. I am just looking for the numbers specifically on that and the process we undertook. We undertook the sessions at 13 locations, as you said. We had more than 850 attendees at them. The activities that we undertook for these 13 sessions included notifications to communities through the Engage website, which has an outreach to 1,700 subscribers.
Senator McKENZIE: So 1,700?
Mr Curran: It is 1,700 subscribers.
Senator McKENZIE: Engage has 1,700 subscribers. How many impacted households are in
this area?
Mr Curran: I would have to take that on notice because there are a number of communities. I will run through. There’s quite an extensive—
Senator McKENZIE: Are we talking a couple of thousand or are we talking tens of thousands?
Mr Curran: It is tens of thousands across Brisbane.
Senator McKENZIE: Tens of thousands and we’ve advertised it on something with 1,700. No worries. Keep going.
Mr Curran: We did outreach through those who we hold in our database who have previously made complaints, which is 3,312. We distributed information through a letter in social media to offer sharing to state and federal members. On 20 April, we launched the noise action plan for Brisbane, which invited community feedback. We did that through a range of media inquiries. We held a press conference on 21 April, which was attended by TV channels Seven, Nine and Ten. The ABC also covered the story but without interviewing Airservices Australia. We held a media interview on 10 May at the Toombul community session, which was attended by Channel Seven. We advertised in a number of newspapers, including the Courier-Mail. We placed two advertisements there. In a New Farm—
Senator McKENZIE: A full-page advertisement in the Courier-Mail at page 2?
Mr Curran: I would have to take that on notice. I have a copy of it.
Senator McKENZIE: Or up in the back?
Mr Curran: It wasn’t up in the back. It’s probably somewhere between the two, I would say.
Senator McKENZIE: I would like that on notice.
Mr Curran: We targeted advertised into areas where we know that communities will be impacted or potentially impacted by the options we are consulting on. It went to New Farm’s My Village News, the Kenmore Local Bulletin, the Moreton Bay Sentinel, Ipswich News Today, Logan West News, MyCity Logan and the Village Pump in Samford. We also advertised on Facebook, which included online advertising targeting the geographic locations of the 13 community meetings that we were conducting.
Senator McKENZIE: How many followers do you have?
Mr Curran: We advertise that through Facebook groups. The information I have is that the population that reaches is one to two million. That is fairly broad, but that is what we were aiming to reach. We also used local Facebook groups. We undertook some consultation as a part of the post implementation review, which we closed out in December last year. In that consultation, we specifically asked communities, ‘How can we consult better?’ We understand that we will be going through this noise action plan over the next year or so. The feedback we got was to use local Facebook groups. We engaged with local Facebook groups. I think there are just over 30 local Facebook groups. I have a list of them. I could provide them on notice.
Senator McKENZIE: On notice will be fine…

Answer:

1. Airservices uses population data to estimate the population affected by aircraft noise. Table 1 estimates the population within the 60 decibel noise contour (for the operations being consulted) for:
   • current aircraft operations
   • the proposed options (using the option impacting the highest number of people where more than one option was presented).

Table 1

2. Quarter page advertisements to promote engagement were placed in the Courier Mail
   on:
   • 17 April 2023 (page 2)
   • 21 April 2023 (page 10)
   • Tear sheets for each advertisement are provided in Attachment A and Attachment B.
3. The following local Facebook groups were contacted to request sharing of information
   about the engagement sessions:

• Acacia Ridge 4110 Ridge Life
• Acacia Ridge Community Page
• Balmoral Community
• Belmont Community QLD
• Belmont Tingalpa Community Group
• Brookfield Sisterhood
• Bulimba Balmoral Hawthorne & Morningside Local Group
• I love Bulimba & 4171
• Carina Neighbourhood Hub and Community
• Corinda Sherwood 4074
• Cornubia Community Page
• Deception Bay Community Page
• Deception Bay Community Watch
• Hamilton 4007/4010/4011 Community Noticeboard
• Hamilton, Ascot & Hendra Community Noticeboard
• 4007 Ascot & Hamilton
• 4007 Ascot, Clayfield and Surrounds
• Kenmore 4069*
• Kimberly Plateau Neighbourhood Watch
• Logan Community Page
• Loganholme Community
• Moreton Community
• North Brisbane News
• North Stradbroke Island (Minjerribah) Community Matters
• Nundah Northgate and Surrounds
• Nundah Northgate Community
• Oxley Community 4075
• Redlands Community Wall
• Samford Valley Community Noticeboard
• Shailer Park Community Page
• Sherwood 4075
• Yeronga Community

* Kenmore 4069 group indicated they would not share the information as it was promoted elsewhere.

180. Airservices – noise complaints

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. You confirmed you had received noise complaints from people across 134 suburbs in estimates in 2021-22. In estimates 2022-23, that figure increased to 226 suburbs. Are they only Brisbane suburbs, or are they noise complaints across different states?
Mr Curran: I would want to take that on notice, if I may. I believe that would be across a national frame, not just Brisbane.
Senator McKENZIE: Yes. Can you break that down as to where Brisbane airport has been relative to others? Could you break that down by a monthly number of complaints received online by phone or by post and list the suburbs in which the complainants live, if that data is available?
Mr Harfield: Just to confirm, do you want the method in which we’ve received the complaint?
Senator McKENZIE: And the number month by month, yes, thank you…

Answer:

The suburbs reported in 2021-22 and 2022-23 Estimates are for the Greater Brisbane
area.

Please refer to Committee Question Number 250 (SQ22-002708) from the 2022-2023
Budget Estimates hearing for Brisbane noise complaints by contact method for the
period July 2020 to October 2022. The table below shows Brisbane and national noise
complaints by contact method for the period November 2022 to May 2023.

Attachment A lists the suburbs of complainants that have contacted the Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) in relation to Brisbane Airport over the period November 2022 to May 2023.

181. Airservices – Brisbane SODPROPS

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Finally, can you supply SODPROPS? Everyone is nodding.
Mr Harfield: SODPROPS is simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you so much, Mr Harfield. Your experience is showing. There is daytime and night-time ops in an Excel spreadsheet format since the opening of the new runway in Brisbane on 12 July 2020. Are you able to supply that data?
Mr Harfield: We should be able to supply that data.
Senator McKENZIE: Thank you. It would be really appreciated if it could also include the dates, number of SODPROPS flights and hours of operation of SODPROPS.
Mr Harfield: We should be able to provide that.
Senator McKENZIE: Excellent. I look forward to receiving that…

Answer:

Brisbane SODPROPS data for the period 12 July 2020 to 31 May 2023 are provided in Attachment A.

Supplementary Budget Estimates 2022 / 2023

📺 Video recordings: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Aviation Branch); hearing date: 13 Feb 2023

Department Video Part 1 of 3: Aviation White Paper

Department Video Part 2 of 3: Establishment of the Brisbane Airport Community Forum

Department Video Part 3 of 3: Dorothy Dixer Questions by VIC Labor Sen. Linda White

📺 Video recordings: Airservices; hearing date: 13 Feb 2023

Airservices Video Part 1 of 2: Airservices // Sen. Larissa Waters

Airservices Video Part 2 of 2: Airservices // Sen. Bridget McKenzie

Answers to Questions on Notice: Department’s Aviation Branch

30. Aviation white paper – Terms of Reference

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: … Mr Wood. I want to ask about the aviation white paper and to ask about the process. Seven million was budgeted to fund the delivery. Can you give us a breakdown of how that $7 million is being spent, Ms Werner?
Ms Purvis-Smith: In relation to the detailed breakdown, we can take that on notice. It is over two years, because the white paper process will be a 12- to 18-month process. But we can give you the details of that on notice, Senator.

Answer: Of the total $7 million funding for the delivery of the Aviation White Paper, $3.1 million is allocated for the 2022-23 Financial Year and $3.9 million is allocated for the 2023-24 Financial Year.
Funding is being used for a range of purposes including the establishment of a branch of up to 20 staff over the two years identified; engagement of consultants to provide specialist advice and services; consultation at different stages of the Green and White Papers’ delivery, including travel expenses and venue hire; design, typesetting and then production of the Green and White Papers; and procurement of any legal or expert advice required.

31. Aviation white paper terms of reference

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: The terms of reference, then, were developed in the department. The terms of reference for the consultation, rather than having a discussion paper, were developed in the department and sent up to the minister’s office?
Ms Purvis-Smith: It was in the department. We consulted with some other government agencies, including CASA. My colleague Ms Werner will be able to take you through that in more detail.
Ms Werner: The initial draft terms of reference was developed by the department based on the government’s election commitment. The terms of reference was then shared across the Public Service with PM&C, Treasury, Finance, department of climate change, DFAT, Austrade, Home Affairs, department of industry and Defence, and with the portfolio agencies, Airservices, CASA and ATSB, for comment. The draft terms of reference were then provided to the minister, who then sought agreement to them from the Prime Minister.
Senator McKENZIE: Did CASA or Airservices Australia add anything to the terms of reference? Ms Werner: Unfortunately, Senator, I don’t have that level of detail with me. Ms Purvis-Smith: We can take it on notice.

Answer: The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts sought comments on the draft Terms of Reference from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia (Airservices) on 24 October 2022.
CASA provided written feedback confirming that the draft Terms of Reference were sufficiently broad enough to cover CASA’s aviation safety interests and also suggested the inclusion of opportunities for manufacturing, particularly in regard to new technologies. This suggestion was captured in the Terms of Reference released on 7 February 2023.

32. Working with affected community members regarding noise pollution from the Brisbane Airport

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked: 

Senator McKENZIE: Would you consider working with affected community members as part of that consultative group, either in its permanent or in its current form, to actually look at that work? This is a significant concern that’s been raised with me.
Ms Purvis-Smith: I think we’d take that on notice. I think it would depend on what the community forum will look like, what the terms of reference will be and what the options are going forward. But we will work within that governance arrangement going forward. 

Answer: The Australian Government announced the establishment of the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB) on 09 March 2023. The AAB is an ongoing, independent community consultation body on the management of airspace and flight paths around Brisbane Airport under the Noise Action Plan. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts has a representative on AAB. 

Under its Terms of Reference, issues outside of the scope of the Noise Action Plan, including property value movements, are excluded from the responsibilities of the AAB.

33. Minister Catherine King won’t meet with communities

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

Senator McKENZIE: Assistant Minister, you’re a resident of Brisbane. This issue would be no surprise to you, I’m sure. It’s been a key issue for a long time. Community members are very exercised about the fact that the minister had her chief of staff write back to them and that she could not actually meet with them in person. Were you aware of this?
Senator Chisholm: I wasn’t aware of that and I’m happy to take on notice and try to provide some more information about it, Senator McKenzie. At the risk of trying to be helpful, the terms of reference are currently being finalised and I expect the minister will have more to say shortly about the establishment.

Answer: On 9 March 2023, the Australian Government announced the establishment of the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB), as an independent forum for community input on airspace and flight path changes. 

The AAB is independently chaired by Mr. Ron Brent, the inaugural Australian Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. Five community member positions will be filled with local Brisbane residents following an open Expression of Interest process that ran from 9 to 26 March 2023. 

The first meeting of the AAB is expected to be held in May 2023. 

The Minister receives a high volume of meeting requests and decisions on whether to accept is a matter for the Minister. 

95. Government’s 50 year lease agreement with the Brisbane Airport Corporation group

Senator Larissa Waters asked:

Senator WATERS: Minister, I am after a copy of the federal government’s 50-year lease agreement with the Brisbane Airport Corporation group and was hoping to get that copy of that.
Senator Carol Brown: I’ll have to take that on notice. I certainly don’t have it to hand.

Answer: Access to land title documentation registered in Queensland is governed by state law and administered by Titles Queensland, which manages the land and water titles registries.

Subject to acceptance of Titles Queensland’s terms and conditions, copies of the Brisbane Airport lease can be purchased from the Titles Queensland website at: https://search.titlesqld.com.au/product-search. The dealing number for the Brisbane Airport lease is 702599136.

241. Brisbane Aircraft Noise

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked:

• Can the Department report on what progress has been made to establish a permanent consultative body on aircraft noise around Brisbane airport?
• How will members of the community be able to nominate to be part of such a consultative body?
• How would the Alliance best engage with the Department about such issues given the Minister’s office has said the Minister will not meet them?

Answer: The Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board (AAB) was announced on 9 March 2023.

Community representatives to join the AAB are being selected through an open Expression of Interest process. Interested Brisbane community members were able to nominate to be considered for the AAB from 9 March to 26 March 2023. The final selection of community representatives was a decision of the Independent Chair, Mr Ron Brent.

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, acting as the secretariat for the AAB, contacted the Brisbane Community Flight Path Alliance directly following the announcement of the AAB on 9 March 2023 to advise of the establishment of the group and the expression of interest process.

Further information on the AAB and how to contact the department is available at: infrastructure.gov.au/AAB

Answers to Questions on Notice: Airservices Australia

93. Brisbane flight paths

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Senator WATERS: Thanks for joining us so late in the evening. I’ve got some questions about the Brisbane flight paths. First of all, I’ve been told by some Brisbane community members that the Queensland police have recently checked in on them after they submitted complaints to Airservices about flight noise. I understand there’s been over 14,000 complaints to Airservices since July 2020, so my question is: what has elevated some of those complaints to complaints that Airservices have referred to the police? Anything you can tell me about that, please?
Mr Harfield: That is news to me, so I’ll take that on notice.
Senator WATERS: Thank you. I’d appreciate any advice you can provide. Do you know how many of those 14,000 complaints were referred to the police?
Mr Harfield: No. I have no idea. I’ll take that on notice. 

Answer: Complainants identified as at potential risk of self-harm or threats made against the security of aircraft operations or Airservices personnel are referred to Airservices’ Security team for assessment. If Security determines the complainant is at risk or there is a credible risk of action, they will refer the complainant to the relevant police service. 

Since the opening of Brisbane’s new runway, eight complainants have been referred to Airservices Security with three referred to police for a welfare visit.

94. Revenue from aircraft operating in Brisbane 

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Senator WATERS: Can I ask now about income from levies. I understand that you levy charges to aircraft operating in our airspace. How much income do you generate from aircraft operating in and out of Brisbane Airport?
Mr Logan: I don’t have the specific numbers for Brisbane. In total, Airservices collects about a billion dollars a year across 29 locations, but certainly we can get that information for you.
Senator WATERS: If you could take that on notice for me. Can you tell me again: a billion dollars a year across 19 sites, did you say?
Mr Logan: Twenty-nine.
Senator WATERS: Has the introduction of the trial extension of SODPROPS hours, which you’ve just taken me through, since February resulted in any reduced levy income to Airservices?
Mr Logan: Not that I am aware of that’s related to that.
Senator WATERS: Is that something that you might expect, or you wouldn’t expect that?
Mr Logan: No, we wouldn’t expect that to impact.
Senator WATERS: If you could either provide me right now or perhaps on notice the monthly income generated from aircraft operations at Brisbane Airport since January 2021, that would be very helpful. 

Answer: 

Airservices recovered the following in Terminal Navigation, Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting charges and Enroute charges for flights arriving or departing Brisbane Airport: 

• In financial year 2018-19 Airservices recovered $201 million 
• In financial year 2019-20 Airservices recovered $154 million 
• In financial year 2020-21 Airservices recovered $87 million 
• In financial year 2021-22 Airservices recovered $111 million 

Attachment A: Airservices Monthly Airways Revenues, Brisbane Aircraft Operations (Financial Years 2020-21 to 2021-22) 

98. Consultation with Redlands residents

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked: 

Senator McKENZIE: Was there any consultation with bayside residents of Redlands prior to the SODPROPS trial being implemented?
Mr Curran: I think the answer to that may be no. I would need to take that on notice to confirm, but I believe the answer is no.
Senator McKENZIE: I’d like to know why.
Mr Curran: As I said, I believe the answer is no, but I would need to take that on notice. I understand that part of the engagement with the community was initially focused around the areas that were immediately impacted with the implementation of the new flight paths in Brisbane. As the post-implementation proposal evolved and additional work on SODPROPS over-the-bay operations became an option, the implications for broader Brisbane residents, as in Redland residents, which are further afield, became apparent, and we subsequently undertook engagement. 

Answer: The trial to extend SODPROPS operations was implemented following a recommendation from the Brisbane Airport Post Implementation Review Advisory Forum (BAPAF) appointed by the previous government. Engagement was not conducted ahead of implementation of this trial as it was an existing procedure. The trial implementation was promoted through the engagement platform, citywide media coverage and BAPAF quarterly reporting.

Formal engagement on the trial commenced upon implementation, with feedback sought from community members on any improvement or impact noticed. Further feedback will be sought during evaluation of the trials. This feedback will be considered in determining if the trial should become a permanent operation, if it should cease or if it should be modified for continued assessment.

99. Management of responses

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked: 

Senator McKENZIE: What precisely does Airservices mean by ‘the management of community and political responses’? Please provide some candid and frank examples to illustrate this. I’m assuming they’re quoting directly from Airservices Australia communication or the report.
Mr Curran: I’m not familiar with the quote. I would have to take that on notice. 

Answer: The management of community and political responses was in relation to stakeholder feedback for the Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR). The PIR provided an opportunity for the community, industry and elected representatives on behalf of their constituents to provide feedback on the effects of the implementation of the flight paths at Brisbane Airport. 

Community responses have also assisted in enhancing engagement materials and methods for future post implementation reviews. The Community Suggested Operating Principles for engagement have contributed to the development of principles which will guide future airspace change opportunities. 

100. Aircraft noise complaints 

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked: 

Senator McKENZIE: On notice, I would like to understand: of the numbers we have in front of us, how many are your repeat complainants versus individual complaints? That would tend to suggest to me that there are a lot more complaints than what’s actually being reported, if we were going to take the time it took somebody to pick up the phone or write the email. Just because it’s from the same person about noise shouldn’t disqualify it from being counted as a complaint.
Mr Curran: We can certainly take that on notice. To clarify, if I may: the only time we wouldn’t count the complaint as an additional complaint is if it was about the very same flight. To call and complain about the same flight again, perhaps, immediately thereafter.
CHAIR: The next day.
Mr Curran: then that is not—
Senator McKENZIE: Or six months later. I appreciate that, if you could take that on notice.

Answer: Airservices’ Noise Complaints and Information Service (NCIS) received 15,406 complaints from 3,149 individual complainants relating to Brisbane operations for the period 12 July 2020 to 31 January 2023. A third of all complaints were made by 10 complainants with a total of 5,472 complaints, including one complainant who made 1,168 over the period.

All complaints are recorded against each complainant regardless of how many times they make a complaint.

119. Workshop dates 

Senator Bridget McKenzie asked: 

Senator McKENZIE: Why did Airservices provide a workshop on the implementation review only after Henry Pike, the member for Bowman, which covers Redland City, requested it, despite the fact that the proposed changes to flight paths over the Redlands were a significant aspect of the review?
Mr Curran: I’d have to take the specifics of that question on notice. I am aware of a number of meetings with residents in the Redland Shire as well as with the member for Bowman. The exact timing of that I would have to take on notice.
Senator McKENZIE: When was the workshop?
Mr Curran: We had a number of workshops. We did—
Senator McKENZIE: Just let me know the dates. 

Answer: When Airservices was advised of concerns of impacts on the Redlands community from the Member for Bowman in August 2022, Airservices arranged to brief the Member for Bowman on 12 September 2022 jointly with Trax International (Trax), who were conducting an independent review of Brisbane flight paths. 

At the request of the Member for Bowman, a workshop was arranged for 14 September 2022 to discuss the Trax Brisbane Airport New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Independent Review Final Report with the Redlands community. 

A drop-in session was also held on 11 November 2022 to discuss the draft Airservices Post Implementation Review report with the Redlands community.

123. Retirement Incentive Scheme – follow-up 

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

In QON response #238, Airservices advised that the recent Retirement Incentive Scheme cost $58 million. 

• How many people accepted retirement as part of the scheme? 
• How many of those positions have been re-filled? 

Answer: At the height of COVID-19 when air traffic had reduced by up to 90 per cent, Airservices took the opportunity to bring forward the retirement of those Air Traffic Controllers and Aviation Rescue Fire Fighters who were aged 56 and over at 1 July 2021, and were expected to leave the workforce in the next three years. The aim of the Retirement Incentive Scheme (RIS) was to take advantage of the low traffic numbers and allow Airservices to keep its recruitment pipeline open in preparation for when traffic was expected to return to pre-pandemic levels. 

• 243 people accepted RIS offers over the life of the scheme (1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022). 
• 132 positions have been recruited through the Air Traffic Controller and Aviation Rescue Fire Fighter training pipelines.

125. Key Messages Document – follow-up 

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

The Airservices QON response #236 advised that the “Key Messages” document referred to was privately released for the aviation industry, rather than a public document. 

Please provide details of all resources and documents that Airservices has produced exclusively for aviation industry stakeholders relating to Brisbane airspace in the past 3 years. 

Are any staff positions dedicated to the production of industry-only resources? 

Answer: Airservices is required to produce a range of operational resources, information and products for the aviation industry under Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 175 and the Air Services Act 1995, including for Brisbane airspace. 

Other than these operational products, Airservices has identified the following resources fitting the definition above and exclusively for aviation industry stakeholders relating to Brisbane Airport Flight Path Changes produced over the past three years:

• Safety case supporting the Brisbane Airport Corporation proposal to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to increase the runway tailwind to 7 knots. 
• Independent Parallel Runway Operations Instrument Landing System Presentation. 

Airservices has no dedicated position for the production of industry-only resources other than the operational products required under legislation.

126. Recommendations released by Post Implementation Review (PIR) – follow-up 

Senator Larissa Waters asked: 

Further to the QON response #247, please detail the anticipated positive benefits of the noise attenuation measures proposed or adopted in the final PIR report, including: 

• net noise level reduction (in dB and as a percentage reduction) for each proposed measure 
• net flight number reduction (in actual numbers and as a percentage) for each proposed measure. 

Answer: As noted in Committee Question Number 247 (SQ22-002705) from the 2022-23 Budget Estimates hearing, Airservices will progress options to be consulted with the community and other stakeholders as identified in the Brisbane New Parallel Runway Flight Paths Post Implementation Review (PIR). As part of implementing the recommendations of the PIR, Airservices will model different options to compare against a baseline model of current operations. This will include the number of flights and projected noise levels. Community engagement will be conducted on all options developed.