Aviation Consumer Protection Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill 2026, Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill 2026

Ms COFFEY (Griffith) (16:11): My community is among the most affected by aircraft noise in Brisbane, with many Griffith residents experiencing significant disruption to their daily lives. While this legislation covers a range of issues, I'll focus my remarks on aircraft noise, what I learned before being elected to represent this community and what I have learned since.

Deputy Speaker, you may remember the former prime minister and former member for Griffith, the Hon. Kevin Rudd AC, who self-funded a campaign against the proposed parallel runway at Brisbane Airport more than 20 years ago. Kevin Rudd saw then what many in our community have seen since: aircraft noise has had and will continue to have a lasting impact on our community.

In 1996, the former member for Griffith Kevin Rudd said: My position is clear: a parallel runway would be an absolute disaster for the quality of life for all residents on the south side. It would simply double the traffic volume. It would simply create for us an unmanageable problem in terms of noise minimisation.

In his autobiography, Kevin Rudd reflects on this period and the lengths he went to in challenging the Howard coalition government's decision to approve this parallel runway. Anyone who knows Kevin knows that he can be a determined person when he sets his mind to a task, and on Brisbane Airport he set about organising the biggest community campaign our part of Brisbane has ever seen.

There were hundreds of thousands of flyers, letter-writing campaigns, a public petition with 10,000 signatures, public meetings and rallies with nearly 5,000 locals coming along together to Bulimba Memorial Park to protest, all in a community not previously known for its political activism. In Canberra, he made more than 20 parliamentary statements and successfully secured a two-year Senate inquiry into the legality of the decision with hearings in Brisbane and Canberra and nearly 200 public submissions.

He took both the Australian government and the Brisbane Airport Corporation to court to overturn their decision to approve the runway. But, frustratingly, without sufficient consultation, Brisbane Airport's new parallel runway was approved by the Howard government in 2007. Fast forward 13 years, and the new parallel runway opened on 12 July 2020.

Aircraft noise generated from the new flight paths following the opening of the new parallel runway has significantly impacted some residents and raised concerns about future operations and resultant noise as our population and the number of flight movements grow. It's an issue I'm very aware of. I have lived in Hawthorn and in Cannon Hill and now live in Norman Park, and I have close family in Bulimba, all under the flight paths.

Indeed, the 9 pm Emirates departure shakes the tin roof of our Queenslander home each night. I've been a member of the Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance online community, the BFPCA, since 2020. The BFPCA's goal is to demand that best-practice design principles be applied to minimise noise pollution and adverse health impacts from Brisbane airports flight paths on Brisbane residents and businesses.

In the almost 15,000 doors I knocked in the lead-up to the last election and all the ones that I have knocked since, I've heard firsthand about the impact flight noise has on people's children, their work, their sleep and their enjoyment of their outdoor spaces. When doorknocking in 2020 for state member for Bulimba, Di Farmer, I remember I met one lady who had just moved to Brisbane from Sydney.

She and her husband had bought their beautiful home sight unseen during COVID and had not been informed at all that their property would be so heavily impacted by aircraft noise. This lady now found her sleep interrupted and her work, which she tried to do from home, almost impossible. She told me how much her mental health was impacted and that she was now having to take medication to sleep and stabilise her mood.

I will never forget how this woman cried on her front doorstep about the aircraft noise. I knew that, in being elected the member for Griffith in 2025, I needed to ensure that voices of residents were heard and considered in decisions about Brisbane Airport and to listen, learn and advocate for practical action on aircraft noise. From when I was first endorsed as a candidate, I have made sure that I have been in regular contact with the Brisbane Airport Corporation, the minister and her office and our local representatives of the Brisbane Airport Community Airspace Advisory Board.

It is very important to me that I continue to increase my knowledge of this complex issue so that I can continue to advocate strongly for our community's interests. There is little doubt that the aviation industry, directly and indirectly, underpins many jobs and livelihoods critical for Brisbane and Queensland's trade and tourism. The year 2025 was the busiest on record, with 25 million passenger movements at Brisbane Airport, an increase on the previous year of 10.7 per cent for international flights and 3.2 per cent for domestic.

In fact, Brisbane Airport is home to the most connected network in Australia, servicing over 62 domestic routes. In terms of employment, Brisbane Airport supports over 20,000 jobs across 600 businesses. By 2050, this number is expected to grow to over 55,000 jobs.

Indeed, there are many aviation industry workers who live in my community of Griffith, many of whom I've had the fortune to meet and get insights from. But the strength of the aviation sector cannot come at the expense of communities being left unheard. A strong aviation sector and a fair deal for residents should not be seen as competing goals.

We should be able to hold both together. That means we can support a competitive, reliable and affordable aviation industry whilst also expecting airlines, airports, regulators and agencies to treat people fairly. This bill, the Aviation Consumer Protection Bill, is part of that broader task.

It paves the way for the Aviation Consumer Protections Charter that will set minimum standards for airlines and airports. It establishes the Aviation Consumer Ombudsperson to help resolve consumer complaints. It establishes the Aviation Consumer Protection Authority to monitor and enforce compliance.

Crucially, for my community, it establishes the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, the ANO, to review the management of aircraft noise. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson cannot undo past decisions. It will not move a runway, stop every aircraft flying over a home or provide a simple solution to a complex problem.

My community understands that. After countless conversations with residents, it's clear they are looking for understanding, accountability, transparency, a fair hearing and fair outcomes. This bill moves the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson from Airservices Australia to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, providing greater independence where Airservices Australia's own actions may be under review.

The ombudsperson will independently review aircraft noise complaints, examine how Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence manage those complaints, assess community consultation processes and the provision of aircraft noise information, and publish reports and recommendations for policy or regulatory change. For communities like mine, this is about trust.

To be frank, there is some distance that needs to be travelled on that front. When residents take time to lodge a complaint, gather evidence, attend meetings, read technical documents or explain the impact on their household, they deserve a system that treats their concerns seriously. I want to touch briefly on two aircraft noise mitigation measures that are especially relevant to communities living under Brisbane's flight paths.

One of the contributing factors to aircraft noise for my community is that, when the second runway was approved, pilots were able to take off over the bay in tailwinds of up to 10 knots. However, by the time the runway was completed, this had been dropped to five knots, greatly limiting the number of flights that can go over the bay. An 18-month tailwind trial commenced on 1 December last year at Brisbane Airport, a trial that I have been advocating for since my endorsement as a candidate.

Within safety parameters supported by CASA, this trial allows pilots to request a tailwind departure from air traffic control during overnight hours between 10 pm and 6 am. Given we are now more than six months into this trial, many locals have commented to me about how low the number of requests from pilots for tailwind departures is. Many of us held a lot of hope that this trial would provide our community with some much-needed respite overnight.

I recently caught up with representatives from Brisbane Airport to find out why the pilot requests have been so low. They said that prevailing wind directions were a factor, and said: When combined with recent wet weather conditions, participation in the trial to date has been relatively low and in line with our expectations. They explained, 'During the upcoming winter months, prevailing winds are more commonly from the south, meaning aircraft would ordinarily depart over the city.

In these conditions, and when operationally appropriate, they advised there is greater scope for pilots to request a tailwind departure.' They said, 'For these reasons, we anticipate an increase in participation in the trial during the winter period.' My community was hopeful that this trial would have a positive impact and provide some much-needed relief, and I can assure you that my community of Griffith will be watching.

I also wanted to mention simultaneous opposite-direction parallel-runway operations—SODPROPS. SODPROPS allows one runway to be used for departures over Moreton Bay while the parallel runway is used for arrivals over the bay, keeping more aircraft over water when conditions allow. On 18 September 2024, the minister directed Airservices Australia to maximise SODPROPS whenever it is safe and operationally feasible, recognising the impact of aircraft noise across more than 220 Greater Brisbane suburbs.

The latest data shows its potential but also its limits. In May 2026, weather meant SODPROPS was unavailable for 340 of 384 priority hours. During the 43 hours it was available, it was used 53 per cent of the time, with additional flights processed outside priority hours and during transition periods.

Safety remains paramount. SODPROPS can only be used when weather, visibility, runway and traffic conditions allow. I will continue to monitor the operation's data and implementation of the ministerial direction to ensure SODPROPS is being used to its fullest extent whenever conditions allow and to assess whether it is delivering meaningful noise relief for our community.

The difficulty with aircraft noise policy is that small gains can be overwhelmed if overall flight movements continue to rise. That is why my community is right to look closely at the practical effect of each measure. It is not enough for a policy to sound good in theory; it has to be measured against what people experience in their homes.

If SODPROPS is used more often, people should be able to hear the impact from their lounge room. If overwater operations are prioritised, people should be able to hear the result on their back deck. If a change is described as noise-sharing, people should be able to understand who receives relief, who receives more noise and whether the overall burden is actually reduced.

I continue to support measures that provide genuine respite. I will also continue to be honest when the measure does not go far enough or does not deliver the relief that was anticipated. I'd like to take this opportunity, very quickly, to pay my thanks to one of our community champions, David Diamond—'DD'—for his work and fierce advocacy in our community on these issues.

He has been a tireless advocate, an ever persistent presence and a force for driving action, serving as the initial Chair of the BFPCA. He recently shared, in an article in InDaily: If you live in a Queenslander, with a tin roof and an open deck, it's a lot of noise— from the aircraft— You have to live inside and shut the door … Most of the community are not against aviation—and I will never be … (but) we can have flights going overhead every three minutes without proper consultation and accurate flightpath proposals and reporting.

David's been a strong advocate in our community. He recently stepped down from the AAB after many years, and I want to thank him for his service. This bill is a step forward to a fairer aviation system for my community.

For passengers, it means clearer protections and stronger accountability, and for communities like mine, who are impacted by aircraft noise, it means a stronger and more independent pathway for review. But I also want to be clear about what I will be looking for as this reform is implemented. I want the Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson to be accessible to everyday people and ensure residents know where to go, what steps to take and what information to provide.

I want complaints data and systematic issues to be taken seriously. I want reports and recommendations to be written in plain language wherever possible to ensure impacts on my community aren't hidden by jargon. We've had a gutful of unreadable materials from relevant authorities.

I want community consultation to be reviewed against the lived experience of residents, not only against whether a meeting was held or a document was uploaded. I want communities like Griffith to know that, when they raise concerns about aircraft noise, those concerns can lead to scrutiny and action. I would like to thank all of the community members who regularly meet with me to discuss the impacts of aircraft noise.

They undertake this advocacy because they want to protect the liveability of our neighbourhoods. This is always so helpful in my advocacy within government, with Airservices Australia and with the Brisbane Airport Corporation. I want to assure my community that I am continuously working within government and with other stakeholders to clearly communicate our community's frustrations with aircraft noise and other impacts.

Aviation is vital to Queensland's economy. Brisbane Airport supports thousands of local jobs, including a significant proportion in my electorate of Griffith. It connects families and businesses, underpins tourism and trade and will only become more important as our population grows.

But the success of our aviation sector should not come at the expense of the communities that live beneath its flight paths. I see it as my job to determine where there are genuine and achievable opportunities for respite and improvement, given the disappointing placement of the runways and the growing aircraft traffic coming in and out of the airport. The Aviation Consumer Protection Bill will not solve every problem facing communities under flight paths.

I won't pretend that it will, but it does recognise that aviation must work better for people. I will keep working with residents across Griffith, community advocates, the minister and her department, Brisbane Airport and Airservices Australia and support the work of the independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsperson, once established, to pursue practical, genuine and achievable improvements for our community.

Our community understands that aviation is an important, essential part of Brisbane's future, but that future must be planned with our communities. It must be honest about impacts, responsive to evidence and never forget the families, workers, children and older residents whose daily lives are shaped by the decisions made in this place and by the agencies we empower to act.

That is the fairer aviation system I will continue to fight for.