Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

As I resume my speech on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006, I note the condolence motion earlier today when the House was reflecting on the tragic circumstances of the terrible accident of Garuda flight 200 in which a number of Australians, some well known to people in this House, lost their lives. I add my condolences on this very sad occasion.

In respect of the legislation before us, the amendment that has been moved by the member for the Batman and the concerns that Labor has about this bill, I should say that we support the recommendations of the Senate inquiry which considered this matter. One of the recommendations was that airport lessee companies advise relevant state and territory governments, as well as local councils, of the commencement of public consultation processes. This would ensure that they are fully aware of opportunities to engage in the consultation process. It would also mean that the relevant state and territory governments and others—in particular, local councils—did not find out about proposed developments in the newspaper.

In relation to the government’s airport development consultation guidelines, whilst it is better to have guidelines than not, the issue that the guidelines are non-binding on airport lessee companies remains. As a consequence, they actually cannot be enforced. When the guidelines were released by the minister late last year, the point was made that communities have an expectation that they will be consulted effectively on such intensely local issues. That is an absolutely legitimate expectation that communities have. But, if the guidelines themselves are non-binding, there would be a lack of public confidence as to the consultation processes of any kind having any weight, strength or force.

If we are talking about having effective consultation, the opportunity for community views to be heard does not mean simply hearing them and then doing nothing else. When we consider the nature of the amendments proposed in the legislation and when we note in particular our objection concerning the reduction in the amount of consultation time for airport master plans, major development plans and environmental strategies, that consideration raises yet again the very serious issue of the actual quality and nature of the consultations that are envisaged when proposals of any kind come here.

Whilst it is clear that the primary purpose of federally leased airports must be for aviation activity, and Labor does recognise that airport lessees can conduct non-aeronautical activity on airport land, the essential point is that these activities must take into account and consider local community concerns. Take an airport as busy as Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, Australia’s busiest airport, where any proposed development will have an impact not only on the management of the airport itself but also on the surrounding environment, the amenity of the area and the provision of infrastructure, particularly transport, in one of the busiest parts of Australia. Additionally, there are the likely consequences of threats to security from terrorism or accident. There is a range of issues, a plethora of issues, that arise particularly in relation to the proposals for the development of Sydney airport which the Minister for Transport and Regional Services ultimately did not approve. These make it very clear that this bill in its current state is unsatisfactory.

Should Labor’s amendments to be moved in consideration in detail be defeated, in government the Labor Party would revisit the amendments whilst undertaking a broader review of this legislation, taking particular note of its impact on local communities. I know the residents of the electorate of Kingsford Smith, particularly citizens in Botany, Eastlakes, Maroubra and Pagewood, and those in the surrounding areas, including the electorate of the member for Grayndler, would want to hear that we will definitely be taking specific notice of the kinds of impacts that developments that are mooted for airport land would have on local communities. I say, by way of conclusion, that the issue of the conduct of Kingsford Smith airport and the likely intersection of the frequency of aircraft movements and any potential developments that might take place there are matters of some concern, given that residents of the electorate of Kingsford Smith are still subject to a number of unauthorised movements that are clearly happening at the airport.

The Australian National Audit Office report Implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 found that there had been a number of failings in relation to the act. They found:

... elements of the legislative scheme are unclear, do not operate in the way intended or are ineffective.

The Audit Office also found evidence that a high number of unauthorised movements—that is, movements without a slot and movements outside the slot tolerances—had occurred at Sydney airport, but that, since the scheme commenced in 1998, no infringement notices had been issued to operators or other penalties applied. Further, ANAO found that the compliance scheme chaired by DOTARS had not effectively applied the compliance scheme’s provision for identifying unauthorised aircraft movements and that there may have been as many as 357 additional breaches of the movement limit not reported to the minister or the parliament.

The pressure on communities living in and around Sydney airport is immense. People’s ability to have a reasonable night’s sleep and be well prepared for the activities of the day is constantly infringed by aircraft movements. Now we find that there is evidence of a high number of unauthorised movements taking place—some 357 additional breaches of the movement limit that have not been reported to the minister or the parliament. That is completely unacceptable to the people of Kingsford Smith. Frankly, the fact that the Australian National Audit Office has found a number of failings in relation to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act reflects really poorly on the management regime implementing that act.

It is clear that the government is not effectively maintaining and administering the legislation in relation to airports. There are a number of shortcomings that have been identified by Labor. There are a number of amendments to this bill which we believe need to be supported to enable local communities to have some confidence that they will be adequately consulted and have the opportunity for their voices to be heard in relation to developments that are proposed to take place in or around airports. The bill in front of us does not rectify the flaws that have been identified. It needs to be significantly improved. The amendments that we have proposed deserve the support of this House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context