Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. We are told that the purpose of the bill is to amend the principal act to improve the land use planning system applicable to federal airports. There are two areas of concern here. One is, of course, the principal act and the way it has been used right around the country to plan and to develop airports. Secondly, the question that should be asked is: does this bill work to provide solutions to these problems and to the conflicts that arise? Perhaps it actually contributes to them.

I would like to make a couple of points in response to the contribution of the member for Hasluck. We heard about the Perth brickworks located opposite a residential area in Perth. We heard the member criticise the state ministers and the state Labor government but, at the end of the day, that particular brickworks site was ticked off, signed off on and agreed to by the federal transport minister. The state government had absolutely no say in that final decision regardless of whether it agreed to or disagreed with it. Let us make it quite clear: that final decision, that final tick of approval, lies with the federal transport minister. So the consequences of the decisions made clearly lie on his shoulders.

I would also like to condemn the government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through the approval decisions such as that one relating to the Perth brickworks site, which is located—as I said—opposite a residential area. Another example is the Essendon direct factory outlet, which was proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure. These were signed off on by the federal Liberal government transport minister. As we have seen from this government so many times before, the devil lies in the detail. Indeed, as any member in this place who represents an electorate that has an airport in it or nearby will tell you, airport land use and the systems within which airport lessee companies are told to operate—in the interest of their shareholders, of course—give rise to highly contentious issues. Let me add at this point that the airport operators, and I can only speak about the operators at Adelaide Airport, Adelaide Airport Ltd, try to work within the legislation. The CEO, Phil Baker, and others, ensure that they follow appropriate procedures in the day-to-day operations of Adelaide Airport. I must also add that, when a dispute does arise, they are quite happy to come out and consult with the residents.

I would like to pay due respect to the Adelaide Airport operators because they operate within the legislation that is provided to them. They have shareholders and their No. 1 interest, of course, is to return a profit to those shareholders. But at the same time they are very consultative, and at every request from residents’ associations and residents’ groups around the airport they have always been willing to come out and speak to see if they can resolve particular issues. But they are operating within the legislation that is provided to them, and that legislation is not always favourable to the residents, which is why we have these disputes.

There are a number of issues that I want to raise about the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 that concern how airport developments affect local residents. While the objective of streamlining the processes for businesses and for economic development may be a good thing, we must still remember that airports and their use of land also affect ordinary people—the battlers who live in and around airport land. We can all remember the classic Australian film The Castle. All of us here, I am sure, have seen it. That film serves as a reminder that a person’s house is his or her castle, even if that ‘castle’ is near an airport.

As the member for Hindmarsh, an electorate which Adelaide Airport is squarely situated smack bang in the centre of, I am continually being contacted about how the airport and development on its land affects local residents. I hear a range of complaints on a daily basis: from issues to do with the curfew to issues about developments that take place on airport land. Residents in the Hindmarsh electorate are concerned about not only the development of land around Adelaide Airport but also the excessive noise generated by planes. I have introduced a private member’s bill to this House: the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2007. I have done that because for years residents have had concerns about noise generated by overhead aircraft and airport developments. However, there is nowhere for these residents to turn when a dispute arises—absolutely nowhere. It is time that we had an independent, non-party-political, non-partisan body established to monitor the airport and take into account complaints that are made about noise or disputes that arise out of developments.

My concerns about the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and the introduction of the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2006 are in the interests of the residents in the electorate of Hindmarsh: residents of suburbs adjacent to the airport, such as Brooklyn Park, Cowandilla, Henley Beach, Lockleys, West Beach, Richmond, Mile End and Glenelg. Many residents from those suburbs have contacted me, anxious about the changes that we are discussing today. They are anxious about the changes to the current regulations that guide the development of airport land. I see local residents as a critical stakeholder. They too should have a say in what takes place in and around their neighbourhoods, regardless of whether it is on Commonwealth or state government land.

This government has ignored the many residents who have lived near the airport for many years. The first concern raised by residents was that the Airports Amendment Bill proposed to slash the consultation period currently required from 90 days to 45 working days. How can that be a good thing, when you propose to slash a period of 90 days for consultation down to 45 days—half the amount of time? The Minister for Transport and Regional Services conceded that this amendment was a mistake, and rightly so. The Australian Financial Review of 14 February 2007 published an article to this effect. The transport minister moved to amend the government’s original proposed consultation time in the Airports Amendment Bill for major development of airport land. Instead of 90 days, or about 13 weeks, it was proposed that the consultation period be 30 days. Following the amendment, the time frame was increased to 60 working days—approximately 12 weeks. It is still a reduction, and we do not agree to the consultation period being cut to 60 days. That is why there is an amendment to be moved to keep the consultation period at 90 days.

The second concern raised by residents was the doubling of the threshold for developments not requiring ministerial approval from $10 million to $20 million. Let us go back for a moment to the consultation period. The present Airports Act 1996 requires that an airport lessee company have its draft master plan open to community consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister. The consultation process is valuable for all those who have a stake in airport development. Whether it be the airport company itself, tenants of parcels of airport land, carriers, businesses or residents, they all have an interest in how airport land is used. We cannot afford to have a one-sided process that could shut out any of these stakeholders, whether by design or otherwise.

My concern as the local member and as a resident who even before my parliamentary days was very active in airport issues is that consultation is not a straightforward process. It is not a matter of simply ticking boxes. Stakeholder consultation in any land use matter can be incredibly complex. For airports, the complexity is something that we can try to simplify. But ultimately, due to the very nature of the airport land use itself and the ongoing lack of impact assessments on surrounding areas, road and traffic management, land uses and the like, the myriad of issues cannot be compressed into a nutshell. It is positive to see that the Airports Amendment Bill provides that there must be evidence provided that community consultation has taken place.

I have worked to ensure that community consultation is an integral part of the development process. But for consultation to be meaningful—as I said earlier, it is not just a tick the box process—stakeholders must have a reasonable opportunity to go through the matters that will affect them. Much of this is not included in the master plan and is left for others to deal with after the fact. Any grounds for recourse will be lost if there is no consultation before the development at the airport goes ahead, as there is currently no body such as an ombudsman—an independent, impartial body—that residents can approach with their concerns. That is why the introduction of an airport ombudsman—a proposal in a bill which I presented to this House not so long ago—is so crucial and is becoming even more crucial with the introduction of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006.

As I have mentioned, it is an unavoidable function of airport development that master plans give rise to such a wide range of complex issues and that, therefore, they will necessarily take time to process. While we do not want red tape to be unnecessarily burdensome for anyone, community consultation should be encouraged. As I said earlier, community consultation can only be a good thing. There is nothing negative in community consultation. The more of it there is the better off we all are.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 also proposes that the threshold for a major airport development be increased. The consequence of a development being a major airport development is that a further level of vetting applies. It cannot proceed without ministerial approval—without the minister giving that tick mentioned earlier. Under the current Airports Act 1996, the major airport development threshold is $10 million—that is, constructions that would cost more than $10 million would be subjected to ministerial approval. The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to double that to $20 million.

We all know that any regulatory threshold can be manipulated for land use. We have seen carefully planned strategies used in the past to work around the threshold above which ministerial approval is required. There has been much ambiguity as to what exactly counts towards the existing construction cost threshold of $10 million. Is it the cost of building the structure? Does it include costs associated with fit-outs? What about the expenses that are necessarily incidental to construction but not necessarily relating to the bricks and mortar? Does it include stage 2 and stage 3 of the same development? These are the questions that have to be asked and that we have to grapple with.

The proposed amendment clarifies that construction includes carrying out all associated building activities but, to minimise the impact of the amendment, for holding developers with planning and cost assessments to at least account for their proposals in the future. The bill simply continues the perceived irrelevance of this provision by doubling the amount on the basis of increased material and construction costs. It has been a deliberate abuse of the act to provide costings. In this amendment, the motive of those flouting the rules is seen by the public to be rewarded, and the minister is still protected from having to make a decision. Anyone without vested interests would surely struggle to see how local residents would benefit from having the threshold doubled.

As the local representative, I have done and will continue to do my best to ensure that the views and concerns of local residents in my electorate affected by Adelaide Airport get due recognition and responses. With the act as it is, they have no rights. Their concerns are ignored by the government and, at the end of the day, they are just paid lip-service and then put in their place. We have seen that over and over again with a range of developments at airports all around the country.

One broad concern that still arises despite the amendment, which purports to make things easier, is that there will be no independent way to resolve any land use disputes that might arise between residents and airports—again, no independent body for residents to have their voices heard in an impartial way. As local residents and resident organisations have taken up the fight against impositions against their domestic interests, I stand ready to continue to support them as I have in the past, even after the government ignores the fundamental problems inherent in airport development rules and passes an amendment bill that only adds salt to their wounds.

I wish to acknowledge the hard, thankless and obviously voluntary work of resident organisations, including those of Glenelg, Lockleys South, West Beach, Henley, Grange and Netley, the Adelaide Airport Action Group, and those of Brooklyn Park, Richmond and Cowandilla. All these residents groups were put in place because they were unhappy with what was happening either through aviation activities at the airport or development of land at the airport. All these people and residents groups that I have just mentioned had input into and submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on this particular bill.

As members of a democratic society Australians expect to be able to have their views heard, particularly when their homes—as I said earlier, their castles—are at stake. Community consultation is not particularly onerous for lessee companies or developers, and I hope that the committee process for this bill concludes on the realisation that we must do what we can to give all stakeholders a voice, including the residents. We are trying to give the community groups and residents a voice. I was originally approached by individuals within Hindmarsh frustrated with and concerned about the lack of accountability for aviation noise and land development. Again, I have been contacted by residents worried about the development at Adelaide Airport. I received a huge response from the Hindmarsh community when I initially put forward the proposal for an airport ombudsman. I know there is support for an ombudsman within Hindmarsh, and this support has only intensified with the introduction of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006.

Big business and the members of the Senate inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 should not ignore the cries of residents near the airport calling for more rigorous consultation processes and their voices to be heard. At present the master plan is virtually worthless anyway. Even after substantial consultation, the incorporation of community views into the zoning of airport land for appropriate usage and the draft plan—the result of so much company and voluntary time—is approved, residents are back at square one. The only way a resident can rest assured that a parcel of airport land will not be used for a particularly dreaded purpose, contrary to the master plan, is if something else is built on it. If it is vacant land at the airport, anything could end up there—and probably will. One virtually has to resort to blind hope that the land will be used for something positive, necessary and pleasant, even if clearly against the master plan.

We have seen in a number of states, in relation to multiple airports, conflict descend upon stakeholders that has almost led to a constitutional challenge. The power being exercised by this government in relation to airports and the use of airport land has been mishandled so acutely that airport interests and local government interests have been at war, lobbying legal challenges and opinions over no-man’s-land from their respective bunkers. The fact that opinions on the status of any parcel of airport land and consequent implications for surrounding authorities can be at such variance, that the government can remain silent, inactive, irrelevant, and that relations between parties can sink into such hostility, makes a pretty clear case against the government responsible for the administration of this act and the role that they see themselves as playing in its implementation, which is, of course, effectively zero; none.

This is a peculiar example of how one government—in this case the federal government—can engineer a situation that causes hostilities to break out between its agent, the airport lessee company and state or local authorities. For what purpose this is, I do not know—money, presumably. I have called the airport lessee companies the federal government’s agents because they are clearly doing exactly what the government wants them to do. Otherwise the federal government would intervene or substantially amend the act to prevent them from doing what they may disagree with, not just aid and abet the current dynamic.

As I said earlier, I do not blame the lessee companies and the operators of airports; they are doing their job. They are doing what their shareholders want them to do and they are doing what the act says they should do. They are doing it in ways the act—and thereby the government—says they should be able to do it. The government is in charge because the minister ticks off the developments whether the minister, the local residents, the Australian public or the Labor Party like it or not. Consequently, the minister is responsible for the demoralisation of the local residents, the enmity between stakeholders and the deterioration of the entire area within which the airports are located. The opposition will be moving detailed amendments to this bill in the consideration in detail stage of this debate. If rejected, a federal Labor Party will revisit these key issues in a broader review of the legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

See this speech in context