nature of the civil aviation activity at Moorabbin, the push for more, the availability of alternatives and the
impact it has on the community, it is clearly
not compatible with human rights.
to intensify aviation activity or even promoting the currents levels of
activity is unconscionable and is not consistent with the ethical standards one
might expect from an advanced society.
asserts economic advantage: Civil aviation provides economic gain for a few
and undermines the economic rights of the majority e.g. increased noise and the
expanding “noise contours” affect planning regulations which then devalue the assets
of the “less powerful” and impact on how those assets might be used. No other business has the economic freedoms
that aviation asserts.
diminishes social rights: Intense aviation in residential areas has been
thoroughly studied and well documented for the negative impact it has on health
undermines civil rights: The community
does not have a voice on matters to do with the impact of aviation on them or
their environment. So called
consultation is at best lip service and the agendas are driven by aviation
It punishes people: In
certain areas the intensity of aviation activity is such that it could be compared to psychological or physical punishment.
It is an imposition on the disabled: Aviation activity which compromises a community, changes the
social makeup of that community. Those
who are advantaged or empowered might move away. Over time a larger proportion of the
remaining community has to endure the impact of aviation because either they
have few or no alternatives or their capacity is disabled in some way, perhaps
It has a selective impact on children: Children
live, study and sleep in these areas of oppressive aviation activity. These young people are developmentally
susceptible to the effects of aviation.
aviation has been conveniently broken into several government departments it is
possible for “softer issues” which are nevertheless extremely important, like ethics and human rights, to be dodged.
Minister points a finger at the departments.
The Departments point at each other. Local Council points at the
Minister. State politicians point at federal politicians and so it goes
on. They can slice and dice the big
picture as it is handed around and no one takes responsibility for it. Meanwhile the community is forced to
subsidise aviation in almost every regard, including from a human rights
For a start
our community needs to ask whether the Civil Aviation Act is compatible with
human rights and whether the application of that Act by the “Civil Aviation
Safety Authority” CASA (which more
correctly should be called the Civil Aviation Safety and Environment Authority)
is compatible with human rights.
very little accountability of CASA for the environmental effects of
aviation. Their environmental obligations have been written into the
Act in such a
way that the Authority can all but ignore them.
The negative economic impacts of aviation are not mentioned in the Act
and there is no consideration of social or civil rights nor the potentially
punitive and discriminatory nature of aviation from a community and environmental perspective.