Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 I would like to firstly acknowledge members of the Australian Defence Force who are in the gallery this morning to be part of the parliament and to witness the proceedings. I assume they are here as part of the exchange program, and they are very welcome. I hope they find the debate interesting and that they can admire the spirit of bipartisanship we are witnessing here this morning.

I rise to support this bill because, firstly, the Airports Amendment Bill, while not revolutionising the Airports Act 1996, provides some improvements to the act—in particular, the arrangements for airlines that own smaller airports. Secondly, the bill makes changes to airport land use, planning and building controls and environment management provisions. Thirdly, the bill confirms the ACCC’s capacity to monitor and evaluate the quality of airport services and facilities. It is the second point into which I will be going in more detail today.

I believe that the bill before the parliament does in fact offer some sensible changes to the Airports Act. I also believe that airport users will be particularly pleased at changes that are contained in it. In my community of northern Tasmania, the issue of air services, by way of access and quality, is a constant talking point, both for the tourism industry and for the business traveller.

Launceston Airport is serviced by three airlines. Those are QantasLink, Virgin Blue and Jetstar. Last year, Qantas announced that it was scaling back its services, which was met with predictable and understandable concern from the local community. Qantas withdrew its jet service and replaced it with a QantasLink turboprop service, and that of course had immediate ramifications for the concerns in the community that the quality of the travelling experience to Launceston would be adversely affected. I am pleased at least to be able to report to the House that the planes that are arriving in Launceston are reasonably well occupied and that there appears to be a strong case for QantasLink in the future to provide even better services than they presently do.

As the local member, I felt it was my duty to respond to these challenges, and I went on to form the Launceston Air Action Group. We have had some positive and productive talks with all of the airlines that service Launceston, and I hope that those discussions will continue to be fruitful in the future.

But, despite my general support of this amendment bill, I still remain concerned about the discharge of the Australian government’s responsibility to deal with airport land use, planning and building controls so far as it concerns airports which are covered by the act. I say that with thought to my home state of Tasmania—in particular, Hobart International Airport, which is one of the airports that are the subject of controls within the Airports Act.

I would like to take this opportunity this morning to remind the House about the controversy that has been raging for the last 12 to 18 months over the planned Direct Factory Outlet for southern Tasmania. To inform the House further, I would like to remind you that the development is being proposed by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd. If it goes ahead, it will cover an extraordinarily large ground area of 77,000 square metres in retail floor space alone. This is not taking into account exterior hard surfaces or the footprint of the development en masse; what I am referring to is the actual amount of retail floor space upon which customers can wander up and down corridors or mall ways and go into stores: the stores themselves, the internal floor space of 77,000 square metres.

To anybody listening, perhaps that just sounds like another number. Let me just put it into context. Those 77,000 square metres of retail floor space would represent the largest discount factory outlet in Australia, along with its furniture stores, a hardware centre and bulky goods. This would be the largest of its kind in the country, in the capital city of the smallest state. In retail space alone, this represents some 20 acres of shopping. I am advised that that represents about the size of four Australian Rules football fields.

It is not that I oppose the development per se, and it is not that I oppose the entry of a new retail precinct into Tasmania—and some may be wondering why I am concerned about something happening in Hobart, in the south, when I plainly have an electorate well away from that, in the north. But the reality is that it is simply the dimensions of this project that cause me grave concern, not just for the business district in Hobart and surrounding areas but because of the size and the scale of it. I am very deeply concerned about the distortion effect that it will have on small business and the retail sector all across the state. I think it is inconceivable for anybody to put up an argument that a development of this size and scale will not have an adverse impact on businesses in my community of northern Tasmania.

Today I would particularly like to acknowledge the concern which has been expressed by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce in a submission that it lodged with Hobart International Airport in the course of Hobart International Airport’s obligation to consult and to take public comment. The chamber raised issues of planning and how the proposed development simply does not comply with Tasmania’s own Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. That is a state act of parliament which of course, as we all know, does not apply to developments which are proposed on Commonwealth owned land—that is, airports covered under the Airports Act. However, it is a relevant argument to be raising. It is important for us to understand. In the process of a federal government assessment of a development on Commonwealth owned land, we ought to have close regard to how that proposal would be considered if it were on state controlled land, which is just about all land in Tasmania other than Commonwealth. The chamber argues that the development does not fulfil the aims of the National Charter of Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning.

In particular, I think it is important to point out that when other development proposals of this kind have been proposed in Tasmania they have faced many hurdles, which perhaps is not always the case in other states. In particular, there was a proposal for a big box development in the northern midlands area, which is just to the south of Launceston, in a rural community. The application for a rezoning and subsequent approval of the big box development was approved by the Northern Midlands Council. It was taken to appeal and the Resource Planning and Development Commission heard that appeal and took into account the concerns which were being raised, principally from the Launceston City Council, a neighbouring council and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, along with Cityprom Ltd, which represents central Launceston retailers.

Interestingly, the RPDC accepted the view of those people who are arguing against this development, and it did so on a number of bases. Time does not permit me to go into the detail but, in particular, the RPDC was concerned about regional strategy. In the end, it did not regard the Northern Midlands Council as a stand-alone jurisdiction which could be viewed in isolation from its neighbouring council areas. Unfortunately, in Tasmania, as a result of a legacy of our local politics, we have, for a population of less than half a million people, 29 local government areas. That has some positives, but it also has many problems associated with it. One of them is the lack of a regional approach that can result from having neighbouring councils fighting. You are far better to take a regional approach, as much as possible, with small populations.

From 1969 until 1990 there was an organisation by the name of the Tamar Regional Master Planning Authority. That comprised members elected by the City of Launceston itself and also by neighbouring municipalities. So in that regard, it was a regional body. It developed a master plan for the region, which was finalised in 1990. It was never formally adopted. However, councils which comprise that committee did take away from that organisation its master plan and effectively implemented it in their local communities. While the local councils were still independent of each other, there was this notion of having a regional approach because, by working together, you all become stronger.

Interestingly, the commercial hierarchy, recommended by the TRMPA, based on size and function, essentially recognised that for all of these communities the regional centre was Launceston. Launceston is, if you like, the hub of all of these communities. It then had larger district centres, such as Kings Meadows, and it had smaller district centres, such as Mowbray and Riverside. Scaling down, as you go out from the radius of Launceston, effectively you then get down to large neighbourhood centres, small neighbourhood centres, local stores and rural centres, such as Longford, Perth and Evandale. The local councils, including Northern Midlands—the subject council in this case—Meander Valley and West Tamar all then went away and effectively implemented that plan, at least in intent, in their planning schemes.

Coming back to the RPDC decision, it rejected the rezoning application for the big box centre on the basis that it was contrary to the regional strategy, which was agreed to. Its conclusion was that the amendment provides for:

… uses and development which can be expected to impact adversely on the Northern Tasmanian regional retail hierarchy, and thus be in conflict with planning strategy for the region.

This is a key point because, under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act of the Tasmanian parliament, it recognised that, in all of the approvals, appeals and all of those processes which go through state planning bodies, retail hierarchy and regional strategy are factors to be taken into consideration. This is not a feature of the Airports Act. When the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services receives an application for a major development on Commonwealth owned land at an airport which is subject to the Airports Act, unfortunately these aspects, which are reflected in Tasmanian law, are not a feature of the Airports Act. Given a future opportunity, I would welcome the Australian government introducing such a provision into the Commonwealth act. I think that would be a major improvement.

I think the concerns of those people in this place about developments which they regard as inappropriate, or which they regard as needing some extra assistance in getting approved, would also be satisfied if we could implement within the act a more deliberate function of the minister regarding state planning laws. I do not agree with the argument which is being put up by various state planning ministers that the states ought to take back the role of land use and planning issues for Commonwealth land. That is a ridiculous notion. But I do believe that the Commonwealth government, in determining the future for development on Commonwealth land, ought to have a regard and, even if it is just that, it ought to be a deliberate function of government.

In addressing this point, I would like to bring to the attention of the House some advice I have received with regard to this matter, which gives me some heart. Can the minister take into account planning issues when giving his approval for airport master plans and major development plans? I asked this question specifically with regard to the issue at Hobart. The advice is that it seems that the fact that the legislation specifically states that both major development plans and final master plans need to at least include information regarding how the plans fit in with state planning laws does suggest that the minister may need to keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to approve the plans.

I hope that is so. But it is not deliberately mentioned in the act, so I again put it up as a future proposal. Having said that, I have had meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as minister administering the Airports Act. A major development plan has still not been put forward by Hobart International Airport. They keep talking about it, they put up their public information and they go through these processes, but, as far as I am aware, no MDP has been put forward. I continue to urge the minister to have regard to the issues of regional strategy and retail hierarchy. I believe the proposed development will have a very adverse effect on the retail businesses in my electorate in northern Tasmania.

I will turn briefly, in the time remaining, to the role of the state government in this matter. I am very angry about the way in which the Tasmanian government has conducted itself with regard to the DFO proposed for the Hobart airport site. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise you and my colleagues in the House that Hobart International Airport is 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian government. All shares in the airport are owned by the Tasmanian government. How ironic that the government which is demanding that the Commonwealth give back planning powers to the state governments is putting up this proposal through one of its 100 per cent owned companies.

When the community raised concerns about this proposal with the Tasmanian state government, government ministers and Premier Lennon himself said: ‘Nothing we can do. We can’t control this process because we don’t have any jurisdiction over it.’ That is wrong. While in a legal sense he is certainly right, the Tasmanian government are the owner of this company and, as such, the actual proponent of the proposal. If the Tasmanian government were so minded, they could pull the proposal tomorrow. They could direct their directors to scrap the proposal. They could direct that the proposal be changed. They could direct that the proposal be made to conform with Tasmanian planning laws.

As I have said in the past, there is some room for both the Tasmanian and Australian governments to give some ground on this matter. The fact is that the Tasmanian government has been extremely dishonest in its handling of this matter. It has wanted to sheet the blame away from itself for a proposal that will have an adverse impact on small business and employment in my community. The government has been very duplicitous, and it ought to be condemned for that.

The bill is an improvement. I am very pleased that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister listened to me and a number of my colleagues when we asked for the consultation period to be increased. I welcome the fact that it is being increased to effectively 12 weeks, at 60 working days. I thank the minister for that, and I understand that an amendment will be forthcoming. (Time expired)

See this speech in context