Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Batman and to indicate that I have a couple of interests in relation to the Airports Amendment Bill 2006firstly, as a local member, because the Moorabbin Airport is within my electorate, and, secondly, as the shadow minister for regional development, understanding the importance of airports in connecting the nation’s great regions.

The privatisation of Australia’s 22 federal airports—which are situated in not just the capital cities but the regional areas as well—has led to improved airport services for the good of the nation and the travelling population. The original act to sell the airports was introduced by Labor in 1995. I was a member of the government that brought in that legislation. At the time the rationale was clear and sensible: it was to enable the 22 airports in question to provide improved services without a significant call on new public investment. Under the arrangements, the Commonwealth would retain control over land use—the building and planning at major airports—so as to ensure a nationally consistent approach to the planning of airports. We considered that it was important that this remain under the Commonwealth minister because of the importance of airports to the national economy.

That has led to a growth in non-aviation developments at those airports which has enabled the replacement of aviation infrastructure and has significantly improved services at Australian airports. As I said, I was part of the government that introduced that legislation. We took the decision because, at the time, if the airports were left to public ownership, the competing pressures for limited resources would not have enabled them to grow in keeping with the demands of the regions, tourism and the travelling Australian population.

Airport infrastructure is vital in a nation our size for the long-term development of our economy. The Commonwealth is best placed to take a long-term view of the national strategic infrastructure. It was the right judgement at the time to introduce the legislation, but it was always dependent on ensuring that future airport development took account of local circumstances and local issues, particularly in dealing with land use. In the legislation that we introduced, we therefore provided for detailed provisions to ensure that such issues were properly considered. For example, we required the development of an airport master plan to provide a long-term land use plan to meet the demands over a 20-year period. We also argued that those development plans for major projects required an environmental impact statement. The legislation required that airport owners undertake public consultation on their master plans and it provided for the recognition of legitimate interests of states and territories in planning issues relating to airports to ensure their orderly planning—still under the control of the Commonwealth but having regard to local planning considerations.

As the federal member for Hotham—which includes, as I said before, the Moorabbin airport—since 1990, I have also had to deal with this issue from a local perspective. I accept the position of Moorabbin Airport which argues that the commercial development of airport sites subsidises the continuation of aviation activities. Moorabbin and most other small airports operate in a competitive environment with limited ability to extract rents from their tenants, in these cases flying schools and smaller commuter airlines. It is only the commercial activities which allow small airports to continue operating as airports, which of course they are required to do under the terms of their leases.

At the same time, Moorabbin is a good example of an airport which has taken the responsibility for consulting with its community. I take the opportunity to note that Mr Phil McConnell, the CEO of Moorabbin Airport Corporation, takes this area of activity very seriously, and I commend him and his staff for the commitment that they have made to their community. I also acknowledge the continuing work of Mr Tom Uren and the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association in representing the interests of residents who live around the airport. Down there we have an active interaction between the residents and the airport authority.

Over the years, many representations have been made to me on issues concerning airport development, in particular on land use. The Moorabbin Airport Corporation has also asked for consideration to be given to the regulatory arrangements for small general aviation airports to be different to those for the main airports in capital cities. I get a lot of representations about airport noise and about the aircraft that can actually use the airport. I have had a number of representations also on land use issues, particularly associated with traffic and the development at Moorabbin. However, in all of those representations I am not getting representations demanding a change in legislation which vests the control in the Commonwealth minister. I am not getting claims for that to change.

Kingston City Council, which is the relevant municipal authority, opposes the proposed reduction in statutory public comment and the assessment period for airport master plans as proposed by the bill, but the Kingston council is not arguing for a change in legislation which vests control with the Commonwealth minister. Neither, I might add, in my discussions with the Local Government Association, does it propose a change to that component. In its submission to the Senate inquiry, prior to this bill being introduced, the LGA expressed concern that non-aviation planning at airports takes place differently from other planning, but it did not propose taking planning power for federal airports away from the Commonwealth minister.

That being said, it is also true that over the past 12 years, since the decision to sell the leaseholds of the 22 federal airports was originally made, non-aviation development has led to a number of issues with land use and planning. Our view is that the issues could and should have been managed with more consultation and, in particular, greater consideration of local concerns and, significantly, greater ministerial accountability. How else does one explain the circumstances of the Perth Airport development which has seen the establishment and building of a brickworks at that airport? Certainly, it would not have been the intention back in 1995, when we were talking about the sorts of expansion envisaged on these leasehold lands, that such a development could have happened. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services should have been more in touch with the public opposition to that development.

Also, closer to home, we have the example where the minister failed to provide in advance for sufficient changes to the roadworks at Essendon Airport consequent upon the important commercial developments which have taken place at that airport. This is another example of the minister not properly considering the totality of the agreement to development plans. All of this means, with the public outrage and outcry, that public confidence in the Airports Act has been undermined. That is not because the original intention was bad but, in essence, because of poor implementation and because of the planning and approval processes overseen or supposedly overseen by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.

Even government MPs and senators have lobbied for amendments to extend the consultation period for decisions on airport development from 45 to 60 working days. If there had been greater confidence in the process, there may have been less urgency for the minister to move amendments to his own bill. The member for Batman has moved a second reading amendment and he will also be moving detailed amendments at a later stage in this debate. Whilst Labor has indicated its support for this bill, I support the second reading amendment of the member for Batman, which does give expression to Labor’s concerns with some of the ministerial decisions.

The minister must now ensure that public confidence in the system is retained. That will be enhanced, in our view, if he is prepared to adopt the amendments that we are proposing. Whilst not opposing the bill, we will seek to move amendments in the consideration in detail stage to give effect to improvements in the approvals regime. The fact is that we have to revisit the act and ensure it meets the original intention. We must strike that balance again—the proper balance between the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users and the communities in which those airports are located. What is needed is a more robust framework to ensure that the minister takes the local community’s concerns into account in making decisions on airport developments and to rebuild confidence in the system.

In essence, our amendments will give effect to the recommendations laid out by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport in its report tabled in early March this year. They include, first, the requirement that airport lessee companies advise state, territory and local governments of the commencement of the public consultation processes. This will provide full awareness and the opportunity to comment and be engaged early in the consultation process.

Second, at the moment there is no requirement that all submissions received on master plans be forwarded to the minister. Our amendment will ensure that that happens. Third, Labor has some concerns with the potential problems with deemed approval and will address this by way of amendment. Fourth, Labor would also like to see the act specifically require the department to utilise qualified town planners as one of the many disciplines involved in the assessment of airport development plans. Fifth, at the moment the minister is not required to give an explicit statement of reasons if recommendations from state and local authorities on developments are not accepted. Our amendment will ensure that the minister is required to give such a statement.

Sixth, Labor will also move amendments to require the minister to specify in approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and to take into account rate-equivalent contributions. The minister will also be required to specify whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessees to negotiate in good faith with state and local government authorities to reach agreements. More should be done to address the conflicts between airport lessees and local councils when it comes to rate-equivalent payments and obligations on airport leases. Seventh, Labor will move an amendment to ensure that it is not optional for the minister to require that consecutive and concurrent developments be included in the total cost, given that the threshold for major developments will be lifted from $10 million to $20 million.

We urge the government to adopt these amendments. They come from the process of inquiry and are about giving greater requirement for consultation and accountability, which was always the intention of the act when we first introduced it. If the amendments are defeated, Labor will not oppose the bill but, in government, will conduct a broader review of the legislation to minimise the impact on local communities. We are already flagging the sorts of directions in which we would be heading.

I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the significance of regional aviation services to their communities. Regional airports and aviation services are vital to the economic and social wellbeing of regional and remote communities. They are an essential part of a region’s transport infrastructure. They provide an opportunity and some guarantee for those communities to remain better connected. Regional airports also serve to promote regional development opportunities, including tourism, to assist the transportation of local products and to improve regional supply chain efficiencies. For remote communities they provide a lifeline in medical emergencies and for access to a range of other services.

Over the past 18 months, as shadow minister for regional development I have had the opportunity to visit a range of airports in our regions. No matter which region I visit, the airport is vital infrastructure for the local community. In the case of Hamilton in Victoria, a major mineral sands processing operation is underway supporting the zircon mining industry in Western Australia, along with an expanding blue-gum forestry industry. The airport enables these important industries to link directly with Melbourne and, in turn, the globe.

Further afield, the airport at Gladstone is providing a vital link to a region of significant growth, with potential for the world’s largest alumina refinery and Australia’s largest aluminium smelter. The region’s industry base also includes tourism, engineering, agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The Queensland government has taken significant steps to further develop Gladstone as a world-class major export hub, and ensuring the airport can meet those needs is terribly important.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services found in its 2003 report into regional commercial aviation services that nearly all communities want to retain their local airport, despite their cost sometimes exceeding their direct income. Larger communities can generally support their airports, but some smaller communities are finding it difficult to support and maintain their airports. Some local airports need upgrading to meet current standards for aircraft and safety. With limited financial resources, these communities have difficult decisions to make on the future of their airports. The committee recommended additional Commonwealth assistance to smaller regional communities as a justifiable expense. While there has been no response from the government to date on this report, I urge all members, particularly those who have an interest in regional development, to consider the report’s recommendations.

In conclusion, whilst Labor support the bill, we believe that the planning and approvals process must provide a more robust framework to enable the minister to take local considerations into account when determining airport developments. That was the original intention of the legislation. In our view, it has not been carried out faithfully by the incumbent government. The original decision to privatise the 22 federal airports was the right one and has led to a vibrant industry meeting the growing needs of the Australian economy, but we have to get the balance right between the conflicting interests of airport owners, airport users, communities and particularly the areas in which the airports are located. We have to get the consultation process right, get greater accountability and require the minister to consult, listen and report on decisions finally taken. He has to act in the interests of local communities and not just be blindsided by a decision-making process in Canberra.

See this speech in context