Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My electorate of Hasluck contains part of the Perth Airport’s operational area and surrounding airport land. In recent years the Westralia Airports Corporation has dropped the ball on airport operations, judging by the regular chaos that exists at the Perth domestic terminal. Access to the terminal on many occasions during the week and on weekends is difficult. Road traffic is highly congested, parking is not available and there are long queues waiting to get through security and to check bags.

Then we see where their focus has been. For the past two years I have had firsthand experience of the problems that can arise under the current act when major developments are proposed on airport land. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these amendments are justified and warranted. Unfortunately, if corporate Australia is not prepared to consider the needs of communities surrounding such facilities on a voluntary, good-neighbour basis, governments need to impose legislation and regulations that ensure that the needs of the community are adequately addressed and their amenity protected.

The current act does not adequately do this. For example, we had on Perth Airport land the West Aviat Golf Club and golf course that had been established over some 24 years by the blood, sweat and tears of its many members—mostly retired or semi-retired members of the local community. The Westralia Airports Corporation served notice on this club to quit this facility with just 28 days notice. That was legal, yes, but consistent with building goodwill in the community or being a good neighbour, no.

The West Aviat Golf Course was a fantastic community facility that blended into the surrounding environment which had become the home of many species of birds, native marsupials and flora—and of course golfers. This facility and its members deserved to be treated better than was initially the case. I am pleased to report that after representations by me, and the hard work of club secretary, 84-year-old Mr Peter Cox, and others, the Westralia Airports Corporation agreed to change the notice period to six months instead of 28 days. If the Westralia Airports Corporation lived up to the claims detailed in their master plan, this would have happened in the first instance.

When I first heard of the proposed brickworks, there was a lot of rumour and misinformation being promoted in the community about the proposed development, which was strongly denied by the proponents. I therefore sought an urgent meeting with BGC and the then CEO of Westralia Airports Corporation and encouraged both parties to effectively engage the community and discuss and confirm their plans. This should be a standard process for any organisation interested in working with and in the community. This did not happen. In February 2006 I tabled in this House a petition opposing the development, signed by 5,000 constituents. In May 2006 I raised specific concerns in a letter to the newly appointed executive chairman of the Westralia Airports Corporation regarding, among other things, claims in their Perth Airport Master plan 2004. I was concerned that the plan outlined key objectives which were not being met. The plan included such objectives as:

... respects and supports current regional and local planning principles and concerns as outlined in the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS) and Town Planning Schemes.

and—

... respects and supports the planning efforts of airport neighbours such as the City of Swan, the City of Belmont, and the Shire of Kalamunda.

There have been a lot of reports in the media that would suggest the corporation has done otherwise.

The plan also sets out a development strategy which recommends development plans based on compatibility with surrounding communities; land uses which complement adjacent communities’ existing and planned land uses which are assigned to the respective precincts; and uses which were assigned with the goal of ensuring that the precincts were compatible with surrounding communities’ development efforts. The development objectives state:

Perth Airport has considered environmental issues in its planning efforts, including:

Neighbouring Communities. The airport will adopt a good neighbour philosophy and consult adjacent communities in its planning process.

The corporation acknowledged the role of local government and noted ‘the importance of the arrangement between Perth Airport and the state in also considering local government requirements to ensure that, as much as possible, there is uniformity and transparency in the working arrangements between all parties’.

Throughout that master plan, Westralia Airports Corporation consistently restated its commitment to appropriate land use which was compatible with airport operations, acceptable to adjacent communities and had consideration of state and local government planning objectives. The building and operation of brickworks on Perth Airport land is, in my view and that of many of my constituents, a breach of this commitment and was certainly pushed through without any community consultation or strategy to inform the community of its plans, other than of course the statutory requirement as provided in the current act. A brickworks is very clearly not compatible with airport operations or compatible with the land uses of the adjacent communities as they are largely residential or industrial—mostly light industrial.

The master plan makes a number of other reassuring-sounding statements such as listing future development opportunities as being business centres, corporate headquarters, manufacturing complexes, entertainment centres and logistics hubs. There is no mention of heavy industry. Industrial use is defined as activities which may involve manufacturing, distribution and assembly. There is no mention of heavy, emission-producing industries such as brickworks. It is my view and the view of many residents that the proposed brickworks are in contravention of the key objectives listed in Perth Airport Master plan 2004. A number of concerned constituents with aviation expertise have raised concerns at the potential aviation risk posed by the brickworks being placed at the end of a runway. I am advised that the brickworks will be directly under the approach path of runway 24 and within the departure envelope for runway 06.

It is also rather astonishing that the Perth Airport Master plan 2004 clearly states:

… Perth’s airport was located at Maylands, which by the late 1930’s had become inadequate because of its restricted size and the presence of flight path obstructions, mainly brickwork chimneys.

Can you believe that? I would have thought the Westralia Airports Corporation would have been willing to learn from the mistakes of the past. Anyone reading the master plan would have been left with the distinct impression that the proposed brickworks did not fit within the scope of their master plan.

Much of what I have had to say today I have said before in this House, and that does demonstrate the need for a clear legislative framework with effective supporting regulations for airport operations and for commercial activities incidental to airport operations. Unless they are based in the legislation or provided for in regulations, master plans are nothing but reassuring words to fool people into thinking they have some level of protection and security in their communities. Unfortunately, under the current act, they do not.

My constituents of Hasluck deserve better than to be saddled with brickworks at Perth Airport. They definitely deserved better from the state Labor government, who once again sat on their collective hands ignoring their own constituents. I speak in particular of Michelle Roberts, state Labor member for Midland and Minister for Housing and Works, Heritage, Indigenous Affairs, Land Information, and Eric Ripper, state Labor member for Belmont, Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development. You might be asking yourself: where were they in all of this? What action did they take? Did they do anything? Did they endeavour to source an alternative site?

Let us take a look at their roles. Minister for housing and works and land information, Michelle Roberts, would have been only too well aware of the extreme shortage of bricks delaying the construction of houses in Western Australia, causing delay and hardship for many new and first home owners. Some houses were taking up to two years to construct. Another brickworks needed? You bet. What representations did she make to the minister for planning and infrastructure to locate a brickworks in appropriately zoned land around Perth? I would have to say not many.

Then we have the highest taxing Treasurer in the history of Western Australia. Not only is he the Treasurer; he is also the minister for state development. BGC directly or indirectly employ some 7,000 people in Western Australia, providing cost-effective housing as both a builder and a manufacturer of building materials. Surely Mr Ripper’s lack of action would have to be considered to be against the best interests of Western Australia and Western Australians. He also failed his constituents who live in areas around the airport in not seeking an alternative site.

The then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Warren Truss, attached some 60 conditions that have to be met prior, during and after the brickworks are constructed and before they are commissioned. These conditions have been imposed as a result of direct representation by many residents and me to the minister and will address many of the concerns raised in those representations. These conditions go to the heart of the environmental issues, public health issues and traffic concerns.

I said at the time that I was disappointed at the decision to place the brickworks on this land. I am still concerned about a number of the issues that relate particularly to the oversight of the conditions and who is responsible. It seems to me that it is actually the Westralia Airports Corporation who have the responsibility for ensuring that the conditions are met. That seems to be somewhat at odds with the fact that they are a direct beneficiary for their tenant and the income that they receive from their tenant in this relationship. Surely we need to be resourcing the Department of Transport and Regional Services much more than they are currently resourced, with a single airport environmental officer at the Perth Airport to make sure that these works are carried out according to the conditions provided by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. We need additional staffing, human resources. It is not good enough that existing staff pick up that extra workload.

The community are entitled to be part of the development process in ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed in the major development plan as they are fully realised. Airports and airport businesses do not operate in isolation from the rest of the community. In early September 2006 I actively sought the support of the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services by proposing the formation of a community consultative committee for the brickworks development at the Perth Airport. The merits of engaging the community in this way are obvious. The proposal was taken up and supported by Minister Truss in a letter to the Westralia Airports Corporation, and subsequently the establishment of the community consultative committee was announced. The committee’s inaugural meeting was held in early December. Mr John Collins of the Hazelmere Progress Association was elected as chairperson and is strongly supported by several members of the community surrounding the airport.

The community consultative committee will work through the issues that were of concern to the community and provide some community oversight so that the proponents of this development comply with the conditional approval for development set by the minister. I was very pleased to hear late last year that the new Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Mark Vaile, had released new airport development consultation guidelines, which should be adopted as an integral part of any future developments at leased airports. He rightly pointed out that communities have an expectation that they will be consulted effectively about what are often intensely local issues. However, I would much prefer to see these guidelines introduced as regulations, not merely guidelines, based on the recent experiences of constituents of Hasluck.

I am pleased to see that the government have obviously learned a lot from the Western Australian experience. I am pleased to see that they have strengthened the consultation aspects of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. Currently, virtually the only requirement for the airports corporation to show that they have engaged in community consultation is to tick a box. This amendment requires not only proof of community consultation but also that concerns raised by the community are listed. The people consulted and all the concerns, including what the developer intends to do about the issues raised, have to be listed. One has a deep suspicion that the many submissions and representations made by individuals and community groups on the brickworks development at Perth Airport were by and large ignored by the Westralia Airports Corporation. This amendment requires that all submissions be adequately and effectively addressed.

Initially the public comment period was to be significantly reduced, bringing it into line with legislative requirements in other states and territories in Australia. I was not prepared to support that particular change. I lobbied Minister Vaile hard over a long period on this aspect, along with other colleagues, and I understand that he intends to amend this bill to extend the period of consultation to 60 business days. This is a considerable improvement over the period originally intended of some 45 days. It is a win for our communities and for common sense. Developers have an army of professional people—often consultants with skills, knowledge and competency—employed to work through the details of these major development plans, giving them the ability to meet any time lines. For the average working family, mum or dad, or community group this is not the case, and any reduction in time for response to what are often very complex development plans would have been unreasonable. Businesses, including airport corporations, need to be working with the community, and government should be ensuring equity in these processes and establishing a proper balance between the needs of business and those of the community.

The other amendment that I fully support is the stop-the-clock provision. Under the act the minister can only approve or reject a development proposal within a 90-day period, otherwise the project is deemed to be approved. This amendment allows the minister to seek additional information on airport major development proposals by stopping the clock. In the brickworks decision the minister could only approve or reject the development proposal within a 90-day period or the project was deemed to be approved. This amendment will ensure that additional time can be given to address concerns from the community, health and environmental perspectives. It is important that these amendments are supported, enabling further legislative protection for the community. It may be that these amendments do not go far enough but, by and large, those that I have mentioned are a step in the right direction.

See this speech in context