Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is an extension of the government’s position when it comes to airports, a position that says, ‘Hands off!’ as much as possible, a position which has undermined the community’s support for airports. In the last fortnight we have seen an Audit Office report which indicated that there are hundreds of breaches of the cap at Sydney airport that have not been reported to this parliament and that there is a failure by this government to enforce its own legislation.

Here, just like in its failure to enforce the curfew at Sydney airport, the Airport Amendment Bill 2006 seeks to make a number of changes that are quite frankly of great concern to my constituents and also to me in my role as the shadow minister for infrastructure. The opposition will be moving detailed amendments to this bill in the consideration in detail stage of this debate. We will revisit key issues in government in a broader review of the legislation to make sure that airports act in conjunction with local communities rather than disregarding them.

Although Australia’s significant airports have been privatised, the government continues to control planning and development at airport sites, making our federal airports an important part of Australia’s infrastructure assets. In her second reading speech De-Anne Kelly stated that the government wanted to ensure ‘genuine engagement’. Let us look at what genuine engagement looks like under the Howard government. This bill proposes a streamlined consultation process that allows development materials to be available electronically and free of charge. In its own right, this might appear like a worthy amendment, but the devil is in the detail.

Firstly, the original draft of the bill proposed to reduce the period for which preliminary draft major development plans are placed on public exhibition from the current period of 90 calendar days to 45 days. Following widespread community outrage, the minister announced on 13 February that he would amend the bill such that the consultation period is reduced from 90 days to 60 days. Whether it be 45 or 60, the reduced consultation period creates problems for many community groups and individuals, given the difficulties in examining large documents that make up airport planning proposals.

The second proposed amendment seeks to raise the dollar threshold for construction costs from $10 million to $20 million. The value of construction costs is one of the major considerations for whether a major development plan actually needs to be submitted. So this amendment has the effect of increasing the amount of development that can occur without the need for a major development plan. It is clear that this severely limits the opportunity for the plans to be exhibited publicly and for the public to comment. There is no use streamlining the process and making it free of charge if the process does not apply and, when it does apply, the time for public consultation is reduced from 90 days to 60 days. This is the Howard government’s definition of ‘genuine engagement’.

Other proposed amendments to the act have the effect of reducing opportunities for public comment upon minor variations to major development plans and preliminary environmental strategies. Despite its rhetoric, it is plainly obvious that this government is not serious about community consultation and that it is deaf to expert advice offered by local councils and state governments.

The bill also proposes to make possible development that is not related to the function of the airport provided that such development is consistent with the airport lease and approved master plan. The expansion of non-aviation uses, such as the megamall that was proposed at Sydney airport, has significant consequences for local councils and state governments, local businesses and the community, including many of my constituents. For example, local shops, businesses and communities suffer economically. Also, increased traffic congestion around the airport exacerbates existing traffic problems.

State and local governments’ development and planning laws do not apply to developments at federal airport sites. Yet it is these governments that bear the cost of improved traffic management and provision of public transport. On 12 February the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mark Vaile, finally rejected the draft development plan for Sydney airport. His publicly stated reason for blocking the proposal was that he was not satisfied with the assessment of all public safety issues. Let us be clear: the Australian Labor Party always supports putting safety before profit. But you have to ask why it took so long for the minister to arrive at this conclusion when state and local governments and local communities were all stating that this was the case.

I first objected to the proposal in parliament more than a year ago. It was clear from the outset that this proposed development was never about improving services to travellers. It was all about using a hole in Commonwealth legislation to make money for big developers. The plan, which included a 48,000-square-metre outlet centre, commercial buildings and thousands of parking spaces, would have created chaos for surrounding areas. It would have placed incredible strain on infrastructure, public transport systems, small businesses and residential developments.

Despite the minister’s decision, Sydney airport is unlikely to stop submitting in the future similar plans that would impact adversely on local communities. In fact, the airport company has already drawn up a draft development plan for a retail complex, including a cinema and a supermarket. It is plain that the laws exempting airport land from local and state government planning controls are flawed and that the amendments we are debating today do not take us any closer to fixing the problem. The Commonwealth government’s control of the development of federal airports also characterises the government’s failure when it comes to infrastructure. The proposed amendments simply fail to deal with the major planning issues that arise out of non-aviation development activity. They fail to put in place appropriate mechanisms to ensure that airport operators contribute to financing the development of the infrastructure required to support the proposed level of development. This government has no long-term plan for financing Australia’s infrastructure needs, let alone those short-term infrastructure needs created by federal government decision making. The only plan that the Howard government has to address the $90 billion shortfall in infrastructure, a figure estimated by the Business Council of Australia, is to blame the states.

The Airports Amendment Bill is yet another example of bad policy by a government that wants to seize control of state powers but take no responsibility for the consequences. The Commonwealth government has consistently refused to participate in discussions with state and territory governments over the need for a national policy for urban development. Yet the Commonwealth continues to control the planning and development of airport sites with little regard for the consequences this might have on local communities and how this might impact on surrounding infrastructure. The Howard government simply cannot have it both ways: they either get serious about developing a national policy for urban infrastructure development or get out of controlling non-aviation airport developments that have consequences for the urban areas that surround them.

The government claim in the explanatory memorandum that, to ‘respond to community concern about adequate information concerning flight paths and aircraft noise exposure patterns around airports’, they have proposed amendments requiring that an airport master plan released for public comment specify information such as the Australian noise exposure forecast and flight paths. Here is the clincher: this information must be provided ‘in accordance with any regulations’. This parliament will not see such regulations and therefore cannot make an informed judgement until this bill receives royal assent—when it is too late. If the government were serious about community consultation and ‘genuine engagement’, they would at the very least provide draft regulations so that elected members can assess what sorts of obligations would be imposed.

An equally obscure measure in this bill requires that a new master plan be developed if a new Australian noise exposure forecast is endorsed ‘in the manner approved by the minister’ for the relevant airport. Currently, responsibility for endorsing the technical accuracy of ANEFs lies within the Airspace and Environment Regulatory Unit of Airservices Australia. So exactly what does endorsement of an ANEF ‘in the manner approved by the minister’ mean?

These amendments raise more questions than they answer. But we know that this government is as serious about noise exposure as it is about enforcing its own legislation on curfews and caps, particularly those for Sydney airport. I have continued to express concern to a succession of transport ministers about the government’s failure to provide adequate support to residents around Sydney airport. I give the Deputy Prime Minister credit that when he was previously the transport minister he actually visited the area around Grayndler—unlike the member for Gwydir, who not once in all those years bothered to come to the area and have a look at the issues. The issues are familiar to anyone who goes and has a look at that area; such as, for example, the shadow minister for transport, the member for Batman, who has twice visited Fort Street High School with me. He was immediately convinced by the argument of students, teachers and parents at that school, which is at Taverner’s Hill in Petersham—and ‘hill’ implies that it is up high close to where the planes fly overhead—that those young people’s education was being disrupted by aircraft noise. Common sense tells you that there is nothing more important than people’s education and that it should not be constantly disrupted every 70 or 80 seconds by aircraft noise overhead. We have a noise amelioration project. That could be funded at no cost to the budget, so we could do the right thing if the government were serious about that. But the government is not serious about fulfilling its responsibility to the residents of the communities around Sydney airport.

Recent responses that I have received to questions on notice that I submitted have revealed that up to 25 flights a week arrive outside the curfew hours. This figure exceeds the 24 flights a week cap on landings before 6 am. Residents in my electorate are woken as aircraft arrive at Sydney airport between 5 am and 6 am. Indeed, the duty-free store at Sydney airport now opens at 5 am. They have a curfew between 11 pm and 6 am yet the store opens every day at 5 am.

See this speech in context