Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address this very important bill: the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. In my opening remarks I must say that I am actually amazed, having left the shadow transport portfolio in December 2004, that this bill is still unfinished business. The truth is that extensive consultations occurred around this bill in the last parliament. It was effectively understood within the industry that it would have been dealt with by 2005 at the latest. Yet here we are, very close to another election, and the government is still trying to clean up its failure to pay proper attention to the legislative framework that surrounds the operation of airports in Australia.

Having said that, as the member for Dawson noted in her second reading speech, the privatisation of Australia’s 22 federal airports has indeed fostered a vibrant and dynamic industry and in doing so has enabled these airports to provide improved services with minimal call for public investment. That is important, because the travelling public expects quality services in terms of what they encounter at airports around Australia, both major capital city airports and regional airports.

The rapid growth in non-aviation development is also very welcome to generate the funds needed for future expansion, replacement of aviation infrastructure and improved quality of service at Australian airports. There is no way any government of any political persuasion could carry the investments required to maintain these quality airports. The funds generated from commercial development of airports will certainly remove what would otherwise be an enormous burden on taxpayers to deliver the essential aviation services that underpin more than ever our national economy.

But this development has not come without its problems, many of which have been unnecessarily created through the poor implementation of the planning and approval process by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Local communities, particularly around Essendon, Adelaide and Perth, are very sensitive to some of the commercial developments at airports, and rightfully so. It is difficult to explain to a local community why on earth they should trust the planning regime for airports, when successive ministers have delivered an inappropriate decision or two—for example, to place a brickworks in Perth on airport land opposite a residential development. On all counts I think most accept that that development should never have proceeded; it is just inappropriate. It is those inappropriate decisions that create community concern and make it far more difficult to handle these issues, in the minds of some members of the House, in a rational and constructive way.

I say that because the problem is not so much with the planning regime but with the poor judgement of the minister in failing to consider surrounding land uses and plans when he has made decisions about commercial developments at airports. The price for that is that we will have to seek to amend this bill before the House, in the same way the minister himself has had to amend it—and he announced those amendments even before the debate started today. That reflects the fact that the minister’s own colleagues did not trust him with the responsibility for decision making and the exercise of due process. Obviously they, like the opposition, are reflecting the concerns and frustrations of their constituencies. Airports are very sensitive issues, and all too often ministers find it very difficult to make the right decisions because of local political campaigns. I refer to the fact that three weeks ago the minister, Mr Vaile, said:

I have received a number of representations from government MPs and senators asking me to extend the 45 working day period for consultation to 60 working days.

If there were historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, I believe the revised timelines—and some did not even appreciate that they were talking about working days as against ordinary days in the consideration of this bill—which would have brought the planning regime into line with state and territory planning processes, may have been accepted. But the nature of the emotion that surrounds this bill has effectively meant that the minister himself has had to make an adjustment to be able to carry his caucus with respect to this bill. The unwillingness to reduce consultation timelines is a manifestation of distrust in the implementation of the process. The department, in association with the minister, have to work very hard, once this bill is approved by the parliament, to try and turn around that mistrust in the Australian community. It is for that very reason that my own colleagues are equally concerned and so are their constituencies.

The government’s record on airport development, with the brickworks at Perth, and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon, means that we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval timelines. This is about distrust of the process and the will of the minister and the government to have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. Perhaps the minister has finally learnt from his experiences with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon that he has to also take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure, such as roads. Local councils and state governments expect serious consideration of those issues.

I say that because I consider that the minister made the right decision three weeks ago with respect to the proposed Sydney airport retail development. That development would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by the state and adjacent local authorities. Those are the issues that have to be considered by ministers when thoroughly considering applications to change master plans and seeking development approvals arriving out of those master plans.

I think it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it. But I will also be fair—I will give the minister a break here. It is time that some of the airport lessee companies also woke up to their responsibilities, because their own performance is creating local problems in airport communities around Australia. It is not acceptable for some of those companies to treat state and local government authorities and local communities with the arrogance and disdain that some have clearly displayed when it comes to airport development. If you actually seek to work with the local community, you can take them with you. In the end, local communities are vitally dependent on efficient, modern airports.

It is also time that some state and local government authorities demonstrated a capacity to negotiate in good faith with airport developers for reasonable rate equivalent payments and contributions to off-airport infrastructure. Airport developers are all too often seen by a small number of councils as the source of the golden egg. That was never the intention with respect to airport development. But they must also recognise that the benefits of airport development flow on to local communities, and they are winners on a variety of fronts. For example, they are a huge generator of jobs in our regional and major capital cities.

Having said that, in some cases it may well be reasonable for the state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate equivalent payments, flow-on economic opportunities and job opportunities as a result of these huge investments by the private sector. These also include ordinary workers’ superannuation funds. They are looking for a fair return on their investment, which they are entitled to because it goes to their capacity to retire with some dignity.

On that note, I refer to the Gateway upgrade project in Brisbane, which I consider is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when infrastructure owners and all levels of government are prepared to work together to get the right outcomes for regional infrastructure. Obviously Brisbane Airport has learnt from past mistakes. The Brisbane Airport and airport precinct is not only important for the region; it is also of strategic economic importance for Queensland and the nation at large. So if we want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports it is time for all parties, including the Commonwealth, to lift their game.

It is time for the federal minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to consider the impact of developments on off-airport infrastructure, and to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate equivalent payments and contribute to off-airport infrastructure, where that is reasonable. There is a qualifier: ‘where it is reasonable’. Some councils also have to appreciate that airports are not milking cows to help them avoid their own responsibilities on the rate base at a local level.

It is time for airport lessees to engage properly and fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land uses, and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. It is about what is fair and reasonable for all involved in a local community, the private sector, and local, state and federal government authorities.

When it comes to planning control itself, it is clearly in the national interest that strategic economic infrastructure like our major airports, just like our ports, remain under proper planning process. And the airports should absolutely remain under Commonwealth control. At the end of the day, I do not believe that state and local government authorities really want ownership of controversial airport decisions—it is all too hard. That effectively means that the Commonwealth government has to do this difficult task in a fair and proper way.

Airport development, as we all appreciate, is a contentious community issue and both state and local governments remain far more exposed to the electoral pressure of short-term expediency than the Commonwealth. That would effectively mean that if we are not careful we would get overburdened with legal obligations and there will be no airport investment in Australia, because politicians—especially at local and state levels—are all too fearful of making those tough decisions because of local political considerations. I therefore rigorously argue that it is the role of the Commonwealth to adopt a leadership position and to take a long term view when it comes to national strategic infrastructure development, like airports. It is the level of government best placed to do this.

Therefore, it is my view that the Commonwealth must retain ownership of airport land and control over the long-term development of airport infrastructure that is vital to the future success of the Australian economy. If you have any doubts about that, just think about how dependent the national tourism industry is on the aviation industry. Many of the concerns about this bill relate to bad historical experience, with fault on the part of some local government authorities and planning authorities and some airport lessee companies from time to time. There is fault at all levels. However, the minister has the power, if he or she chooses to actually exercise it, to ensure good planning outcomes at airports for all parties. They must be held to account in this regard.

Poor implementation of planning processes has been a problem at state and local government levels as well, and changing the jurisdiction, as some suggest, would not solve the problem. It is actually about using the current legislative framework, including any refinements, to do the right thing in tough planning decisions. I say that because, in addition, we all appreciate that airport development is a contentious issue and we all accept that the Commonwealth is the only level of government that is actually capable of making these tough decisions. It is the only government authority that is capable of taking a more long term view when it comes to national strategic infrastructure development decisions like airports. It is the level of government, as I have said previously, best placed to actually make these decisions.

That aside, I also believe—as reflected in the amendments in the bill and those that the Labor Party will seek to move in the consideration in detail stage—that the airport approvals processes for airport developments clearly need further improvements in the current planning regime. In particular, I draw attention to the Airport Development Consultation Guidelines, released by DOTARS in December last year, which the Labor Party, as the opposition, very much welcomes.

The guidelines clearly set out the Australian government’s expectations of all stakeholder groups when it comes to consultation about airport planning and development. Some of these recommendations also arise from previous consideration of airport issues by the Senate with respect to some of the airport developments in years gone by. They therefore appropriately suggest an outline for an approach to effective consultation. While the guidelines are not binding, I say to airport owners that there is an onus on them for their own effective operation to make sure that they seek to implement these guidelines in the future. Any minister worth his or her salt is going to have regard to the process of consultation undertaken by proposed airport developers with respect to the application of these guidelines. That is what is expected in the guidelines: acting in good faith, applying proper practice and procedure, and consulting the community on major airport developments.

My colleague and friend the member for Hindmarsh is to be congratulated for his proposal, by way of a private member’s bill, for the appointment of an ombudsman. I understand that in the airport leasing industry there are mixed views about this issue. Some are in favour; some have some private concerns. But the member for Hindmarsh is one of the few members in the federal parliament of Australia who has, within the boundaries of his electorate, a major capital city airport, and he understands the sensitivities of airport development. He wants to make sure that in securing airport development he has the best possible opportunity to take his community with him, rather than create unnecessary fights where the community is divided about the airport development.

The member for Hindmarsh knows only too well about the conflict between the greater public good that airports provide and the inconvenience that comes for some residents. For that reason, in days gone by, as a candidate he was at the forefront of a campaign to put in place a noise amelioration program with respect to the operation of Adelaide Airport. The residents he represents have experienced significant disruption to their lives as a result of noise. Adelaide Airport is there, and it is there to stay. Our job is to make sure, as best we can, that the operations of airports work to meet the needs of the local communities.

As I have said, people know that airports are there to stay but they want to be able to show someone other than those with a vested interest that from a resident’s perspective there is still a lot to be done to achieve better airport planning. They want to be able to direct their concerns through an independent umpire. They can access an ombudsman to hear their concerns regarding the defence forces, immigration or taxation, and even the postal industry. There are complaint bodies to receive representations regarding banking, financial services, telecommunications, energy and insurance but, unfortunately, at this stage, when it comes to airports and the impact they have on the community, there is no independent umpire.

If this government had been more active in paying attention over the last decade to the conflicts that have arisen between the new airport lessee companies and their neighbours—businesses, residents and local government authorities—the Australian public might have more confidence in the airport planning regime and we would not be where we are today. There have been long delays in getting these changes before the parliament.

That brings me to some of the other issues I want to raise today with respect to this bill. I note the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport tabled last night and I fully support the two recommendations laid out in that report. The report represents a proper consideration of the right of members of the community and the business sector to have their views heard through due process with respect to the bill currently before the House.

In the light of that report, and our own consideration of these issues, the opposition will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage to give effect to those recommendations. Firstly, we will seek to add the requirement that airport lessee companies advise state or territory and local government organisations of the commencement of public consultation processes so that they have full awareness and the opportunity to comment and be engaged early in the process rather than simply reading about it in the local newspaper.

Secondly, we will seek to provide for all public consultation submissions received by the airport lessee company to be forwarded to the minister as the decision maker, together with the written statement already required. That is merely a matter of detail so that all the submissions are before the appropriate authority when it considers these complex decisions.

In addition to those two amendments arising from the Senate report there are a number of other amendments that the opposition will propose to improve the integrity of the airport planning and approval process. Should these amendments be defeated the opposition will, in government, revisit these amendments in the context of a broader review of legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

However, having said that, might I also say that airports are not only key parts of the nation’s economic infrastructure but also unique in that there is only one in each capital city. We have to make sure that we secure the future of airports; otherwise we will be cutting off our noses to spite our faces in terms of future economic development in Australia. There is no way any government is going to set about building more airports, because it simply cannot achieve that outcome in many communities.

Airports are here to stay. I will tell you why they are here to stay. The truth of the matter is that the Australian community wants modern airports because they want to use them more than ever. Air travel has grown over the last decade in Australia, especially because of the introduction of Virgin Blue and Jetstar, which means that many people who previously did not have the opportunity to travel by air now regard it as something that they can do on a regular basis.

But it is important that we do the right thing. These airports are the social, tourism, business, government and trade gateways to our regions, states and nation. They connect us with each other—with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. For that reason we have to get the planning process right. If we get it wrong we are going to make a major economic decision that is wrong for Australia.

Let me also remind the House that it was a federal Labor government—we should never forget this point—that privatised airports, for good reason. The community simply could not afford to keep pace with the investment required to maintain and grow our airports and to expand the aviation industry that we so want in Australia. The privatisation of airports was the right decision for Australia and for Australian taxpayers.

The modernisation and upgrade of airports is now being done by the private sector, and that is good for Australia. But investment in the airport facilities and services that business and the community at large expect and demand will not continue if we undermine the regulatory regime that is the foundation for the viability of airport businesses and their expansion.

The private sector expect some certainty in the investment decisions they make, because they are making those decisions on behalf of their shareholders. Unless there is some certainty that they will get a reasonable return on the value of their investment, they will not make the investments in the future. That is why all of us have to work to make sure that there is a planning regime in place which meets the needs of the private sector, the airport lessee companies, whilst at the same time meeting the needs and expectations of local communities. Our review of legislation, if necessary, will focus not only on local community impacts of airports but also, and importantly, on the greater public good that they bring and on continuing to provide the investment certainty that airport owners need to grow these vital infrastructure assets so necessary to Australia in the 21st century.

In the meantime, let me briefly outline the additional amendments that the opposition will be moving. Firstly, while we note the comments of the Senate committee with respect to the ‘deemed approval’ provision, the need for investment certainty by airports, the view that the deemed approval process places some pressure on the minister and the department to meet their obligations under the act in a timely manner, and the fact that the provision has never been used, it remains of concern to us. I remind the House of the Treasurer’s nondecision of 22 May last year, when at midnight the National Competition Council’s recommendation to declare BHP’s Newman railway under the Trade Practices Act was deemed rejected. That was the right outcome, but it came only because the Treasurer was too gutless to make a decision.

No-one would argue against an effective and efficient access regime for rail haulage for all Pilbara iron ore producers. But the National Competition Council’s recommendation failed to protect the initial investment of BHP Billiton and its billion dollar export industry. And in effect it favoured access seekers over the operations of existing owners, who have borne the risk of investment, who maintain the infrastructure and who operate a sophisticated logistics chain to supply their export markets. Instead of doing the right thing and clearly articulating the national interest, the Treasurer went missing in action. As a result, there remains no investment certainty for BHP and Rio Tinto in the Pilbara. The parties are now embroiled in legal disputation and the future investment in Australia’s export supply chains is at serious risk as a result. Deeming provisions can and do go wrong, and this is an issue we want addressed in this legislation.

The second issue we would like to see addressed is an explicit provision that the department have qualified town planners as one of the many disciplines involved in the assessment of airport development plans. This seems a fair and reasonable requirement to address the concerns of local government authorities when it comes to the integration of town plans with airport plans. I understand that the department does have town planners on its staff and that their advice is utilised in airport development assessments. However, I can see no reason that this should not be an explicit requirement in the act to provide additional confidence to state and local government planning authorities when it comes to the capacity of the department to properly consider airport developments.

The third issue relates to the provision of an explicit statement of reasons if the minister decides not to adopt the recommendations contained in the submissions from state planning agencies and local government authorities. While I understand that the minister’s decision is already reviewable through the administrative appeals process and that aggrieved parties have the right to obtain a statement of reasons from the minister, again I can see no reason that this should not be an explicit requirement of the minister in the decision-making process. This is about providing the community, and state and local government, with confidence in the process and requiring better accountability of the minister. I remind the House in this context about decisions such as the one regarding the Perth brickworks. The fact is that there is a history of disregard of due planning processes and due consideration of the concerns of communities and local governments.

The fourth issue would require the minister to specify in approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and, taking into account rate equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessee to negotiate in good faith with state and local government authorities to reach agreement for appropriate contributions to specific off-airport infrastructure. Again, I know that the act already has a broad conditions power and that the minister has in fact addressed road infrastructure impacts and contributions in previous decisions—though I am not so sure about this being the case at Essendon Airport and the DFO development associated with that—but I am not convinced that the minister has done enough to address the conflicts between airport lessees and local councils when it comes to rate equivalent payments and the interpretation of the obligations in this regard when it comes to airport leases.

When it comes to the important issue of lifting the threshold for major developments from $10 million to $20 million, I simply have to say that this is a fair and reasonable proposition given that construction costs have increased significantly since 1997 and site works must now be included in total costs. By way of comparison, the Public Works Committee recently increased its threshold for project consideration from $6 million to $15 million. Building costs in south-east Queensland last year increased by 13.8 per cent compared to 2005, following a six per cent increase in 2005 and a 9.6 per cent increase in 2004. This suggests that a cost inflation index is appropriate. There will also now be a capacity for the minister to require consecutive or concurrent developments to be included in the total cost. The opposition will be moving an amendment to make sure this is done and is not simply optional for the minister. It is about caution. Again, it is about transparency and about providing greater confidence to the community that the right thing will be done.

There are two other issues which will not be addressed through amendment but which I would like to place on the record. Firstly, the opposition would not like to see Bankstown Airport become one of the non-core regulated airports subject to the lifting of the five per cent airline ownership cap, and we will be addressing this issue should regulations be introduced in this regard.

Secondly, we have some concerns about the accreditation by CASA of parties other than Airservices and the Australian Defence Force to provide airspace and fire and rescue services at Australian airports. I note that to date these provisions have only applied to Townsville Airport and the accredited service provider, Delta. We will be addressing this issue on a case by case basis should additional airports or service providers be added to the schedule by way of regulation.

The opposition will support the bill but, as I have outlined, we will be moving a number of amendments during consideration in detail and I hope the government will give careful consideration to these amendments in the interests of restoring the integrity of the airport planning regime, providing community confidence in it and providing for greater accountability on the part of the minister when it comes to airport development decisions. I therefore move on behalf of the opposition a second reading amendment which seeks to merely lay out our overall concerns about the application of the act in the past, especially with respect to Perth brickworks and the Essendon direct factory outlet. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.

In moving the amendment, I simply say that the opposition supports the thrust of this bill and the amendments but we believe that there are further improvements to be made. We are seeking to work with the government in a constructive way and we will consider these amendments in the proper consideration in detail process of the House. I simply say to the minister: the Australian community wants airports and it is our responsibility as a parliament to deliver a planning process which guarantees investment whilst at the same time taking local communities with us. Airport planning is a tough process. It is a Commonwealth responsibility. (Time expired)

See this speech in context