Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. In the second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services spoke in lyrical terms about the importance of community input to airport planning. Specifically, the government claims to have developed consultation guidelines to ensure the exchange of views between the operators of privatised airports and the other stakeholders in airport planning. This legislation ensures that the consultation period will be 60 business days. What is not clear from the bill is the use of the term ‘demonstrating’. This is used in the context of airport management demonstrating due regard for public comment in the preparation of the airport master plan.

Over my parliamentary career I have taken an intense interest in issues relating to Bankstown Airport. While it is not currently in my electorate, residents of Banks are deeply affected by the operation of the airport. With the recent redistribution in New South Wales, Bankstown Airport will now fall within the new seat of Banks. I should at this point acknowledge the vigorous attention given to Bankstown Airport by the member for Blaxland, Michael Hatton. No doubt he and I will continue to work together on this issue, as it will remain critical to the residents of both Banks and Blaxland.

Theoretically, this bill is to ensure that state planning authorities, local governments and the community are provided with sufficient opportunity to comment on the airport regulatory regime. We are told by the parliamentary secretary in the second reading speech:

... the government is committed to ensuring the consultation processes in the scheme are operated effectively and ensure genuine engagement.

In addition to the change in the consultation processes, the dollar threshold for even requiring a major development plan is to be increased from $10 million to $20 million. This will allow airport owners more opportunity to implement development plans before actually consulting local residents and other key stakeholders.

I note that the lessees will be required to provide planning documentation to be more readily available to the community. I also note that improved information regarding noise exposure levels will be provided to the public and local planning authorities. I am unclear how these steps are going to assist the communities around regional airports to have the opportunity to comment or whether those comments are going to be listened to. The reality is that the government has the numbers and, in all probability, this bill will become law. The public consultation period will now be 60 days. That said, I would like to think that airport operators might take this as an opportunity to consider the quality of the consultation process and make genuine attempts to confer with their local communities. The bill provides the impetus for a review of the past and a move towards a more positive consultative process.

Bankstown Airport was established in 1940 and has become a part of the community of Bankstown and the surrounding areas. Families moved into the area knowing there was an airport. In the time I have represented the electorate of Banks, I know that most residents have come to terms with living near an airport but maintain concerns over potential increases in noise, activity and impact on local infrastructure. That is why it is critical that airport management work hard to maintain positive relations with the local community. If handled appropriately, the consultative process can reach mutually satisfactory results.

At the same time, concerns have been raised with me by aeronautical businesses currently operating out of Bankstown. This includes the disquiet expressed by Bankstown City Council and others in relation to the development of the Bankstown Airport zone, which will include space for retailers, manufacturing, logistics and a business park. In its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport’s inquiry into this bill, the local government and shires association stated at page 1:

The impact of airports on adjacent urban areas has been exacerbated in recent years with a significant shift in the use of airport land from purely aviation-related purposes to other commercial developments such as retail, hotels and entertainment. These developments are no different to commercial developments elsewhere, yet are excluded from normal State and Local Government planning processes due to the historical arrangements underpinning the Airports Act.

The New South Wales government submission to the inquiry makes a similar point, while indicating that:

... all airport non-aviation development (excluding defence or airport ancillary developments inside of terminal buildings) be subject to relevant State and Territory Planning Laws, policies and procedures.

The New South Wales government further suggests that master plans and major planning proposals be ‘subject to a review by an independent panel’.

A number of small operators and the organisation Save Our Secondary Airports, or SOS, have indicated some of the changes to their operations in the two years since the privatisation of Bankstown. These businesses are now under increasing financial pressure being applied by Bankstown Airport Ltd. This pressure consists of several key decisions taken over the past two years. Ground rents have been increased, and SOS indicates that this has been up to 200 per cent. Mr Bill Miller, who runs a helicopter charter business, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 March 2006 that his rent has increased by 108 per cent in the past year.

By their very nature, businesses located on airport land require space to operate. These small operators at Bankstown bought into their businesses or established them on the basis that ground rents would remain reasonable. An excellent example is that of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which has a small base located at Bankstown. The real value of that organisation to both the local and the broader community cannot be realised by high rents.

Some leases have not been renewed or have been renewed for only short periods of time. There has been a tradition of renewal, given that the airport is on crown land and freehold title has not been possible. SOS argues that the government, prior to the sale, could have offered the leaseholders the opportunity to regularise these arrangements. When the minister was asked about this in a question on notice by the member from Hunter on 9 May 2006, he responded that rental arrangements are a commercial arrangement. Certainly they are; nonetheless, tenants have a genuine grievance when their businesses were established on the basis of crown land leases and then the rules are changed.

The rules have not changed in terms of the planning processes involved, as the New South Wales government has indicated. I have been advised, however, that there seem to be mechanisms to allow a lessee some recourse when negotiating leases. In an article in Airports magazine in April 2006, the CEO of Moorabbin Airport said, in a discussion on the nature of airport leases:

… but mechanisms do exist to ensure that if agreement cannot be reached then arbitration and ultimately independent valuation will be used.

Hopefully it will not come to this. I hear the arguments from BAL and the other airport owners about the nature of rents in the past, and there is some justification in those arguments. Notwithstanding that, I urge the airport owners to give consideration to the view that, given the size of the increases, these be gradually introduced over time. In this way, airport owners may go some way toward demonstrating their good faith in operating with the lessees.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia also made a submission to the Senate inquiry. Two of the key points made by the association—and, I note, supported in other submissions—were that AOPA ‘believes that the consultation processes employed by GAAP airport operators to date may be deficient in the area of consideration of dissenting views’. Secondly, AOPA supports proposed item 47, paragraph 79(2)(c), which states:

This item provides that an airport-lessee company must ‘demonstrate’ how the company has had due regard to comments provided by the public in preparing their draft master plan …

There are conflicting views about the use of the word ‘demonstrate’ in item 47, as I noted previously. Bankstown Airport Ltd states in its submission on page 5 that more information needs to be provided on exactly what the term ‘demonstrate’ means. It seems to me that airport management, airport lessees and the community would like to have this term qualified.

I am not against a company turning a fair profit. But let me comment on the impact that these decisions have on my community. If businesses close or move to other airports because of escalating costs, then people in my electorate and surrounding electorates are at risk of losing their jobs. Bankstown Airport is a major employer in the area. The flying schools employ staff and attract clients who purchase commodities on site and at local shopping centres. These schools use fuel supplied by local fuel companies who employ local people. Aircraft servicing in the form of aircraft parts, parts fabrication, avionics servicing and installation, aircraft painting, cleaning, office cleaning, catering, office supplies, IT support, security services and so on are all required. Local people are employed directly and indirectly because of aircraft operations at Bankstown Airport. Concerns have also been raised by AOPA Australia. In a media release on 16 August 2006, AOPA said:

They—

operators—

are being forced off airports with little or no recompense for any improvements or building costs incurred. There is no effort at enhancement or assistance for existing aviation small businesses—instead they are told to pay more and earn less, or leave.

Again I say that I do not object to companies turning a profit, but we must carefully consider the impact of the 120 hectares of land which has been designated for a business, manufacturing and retail park at Bankstown. Where is the money to repair and replace our neighbourhood roads? State government estimates indicate that road traffic in the area could increase by 13,000 vehicles per annum.

I have provided some detail of local community involvement with Bankstown Airport to simply make the point that the airport is clearly a part of the community. That community must be provided with reasonable opportunity to comment on developments at the airport. Further, that comment must be taken seriously. It is only when all the parties operate in good faith that a mutually satisfactory result can be achieved.

In 2004, we saw a consultative process conducted when BAL published its draft master plan. Almost 4,000 submissions were made, including submissions from me; the member for Blaxland; the state member for East Hills, Alan Ashton; and thousands of people in the local area. I am pleased to say that we did get a prohibition on large jet aircraft—that is, 737s, 717s and the like would not be able to land at Bankstown Airport. But things change. I refer to a report in the Daily Telegraph on 22 June 2006 that the airport owners were in discussion with Airbus to introduce the so-called ‘quiet’ A318 aircraft. The member for Blaxland, Mr Michael Hatton, stated at the time that it was important to see the statistics on the levels of noise—and so it is. It could be said that this is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the so-called 20-year master plan. We have a master plan approved, we have community consultation of a kind and then the rules change. Whether the claims about Airbus are true or not, I use this to provide an illustration of how things can change—even when there was a form of community consultation.

My point is this: given the likely passage of this legislation, it will now be even more incumbent upon airport management to ensure that the consultative process is quality based. This can be an opportunity for both sides to show they are operating in good faith. I draw the attention of the House to the community commitment made by BAL. I quote from their website:

The Bankstown Airport Community Consultative Forum is a community committee established to provide a forum for community to have direct interaction and input into the development and operation of Bankstown Airport through representatives of interested community based organisations.

One of the purposes of that forum is to ‘assist in resolving and prioritising issues based on local knowledge’. I urge Bankstown Airport management to continue to take that commitment seriously.

In the 17 years that I have been the member for Banks, my record—including comments I have made about Bankstown Airport—speaks for itself. I have never been an airport basher. I have always accepted that the airport is there, that it provides jobs and that it is integral to our local community. All that I have insisted upon in my time as the member for Banks is that the residents and the local community be dealt with in an honest, open and transparent fashion, that the airport and those involved with the airport recognise that their actions impact on the local community and that we want the airport owners to be good community citizens. I met with representatives of the airport, and I was impressed with the meeting that I had with them. All I ask is for them to give that consideration to the local community, because I think it is better for the airport to have the local community on side. And most of the local community are on side, because the airport provides jobs and it impacts on the local community.

Consultation and changes need to be considered. Changes were made to the master plan in respect of where helicopters would take off. The initial proposal would have had an adverse impact on residents in Milperra, who had never experienced that aircraft noise before. To the credit of the airport operators, the master plan was changed. Amendments were made, and I was communicated with recently by them in that regard. That is a positive example of a satisfactory conclusion being reached after interaction between the local community and the airport owners. It turned out to be a win-win situation. With some modifications, the airport owners achieved what they wanted and the impact on the community was not as bad.

That sort of thing goes a long way to allaying the fears of the local community. In respect of Sydney airport—and this applies to both sides of politics—when Labor was in power, misinformation was given to the local community. The local community was not informed in an honest fashion of the consequences of some of the decisions. I do not want to go over the old third runway arguments, the lead-up to the third runway, what was promised, what happened and what subsequently changed, but I think those sorts of things do not do anyone any good.

It is important that legislation such as this has the support of both sides of the House, the government and the alternative government, because we should not play politics with airports. These decisions have long-term impacts on local communities and they should not be taken with an eye to politics. For some people, that is in some ways an unrealistic view of the world—because most things do involve a level of politics—but key structural decisions about transport needs and the impact on local communities can be above politics. Those decisions should be based on not only what is best for the companies concerned but also the impact on local communities. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context