House debates
Tuesday, 20 March 2007
Airports Amendment Bill 2006
Second Reading
7:45 pm
Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source
For arrivals the duty-free store at Sydney airport is open at 5 am. That is what time the flights arrive; they do not leave then. As we have heard many times before, every single day many aircraft are allowed to land—you can log on to the Sydney airport website and see these flights, such as QF2, which arrives from London—in breach of the curfew. When the original legislation was brought in, there was, at the shoulder period, provision for occasional breaches. That was meant to be for an exceptional circumstance. It was not meant to be abused, which is what has occurred in recent years with scheduled flights and scheduled breaches.
We now have a government that is failing to insulate schools and other community buildings, and therefore young people’s educational circumstances are suffering. We have a curfew which is breached each and every day at Sydney airport; we have a cap which is breached. The Audit Office report indicates that the government is not even fulfilling its responsibilities to report to this parliament. The Airports Amendment Bill is totally inadequate in terms of what is required to ensure that proper processes are put in place around airports—in particular Sydney airport. That is why this bill is totally inadequate in so many ways, and that is why the opposition will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage of the debate.
We already know that this government is deaf to expert advice offered by local councils and state governments. Many concerns were raised during the Senate inquiry into this bill, but sadly those concerns have fallen on deaf ears too. In the same way, we expect the government will arrogantly ignore our amendments. Despite the rhetoric you are likely to hear from members on the other side, revising the reduced public consultation period from 90 days to 60 days instead of 45 is plainly useless if no public consultation is required by law. Failing to introduce a mechanism to meet infrastructure shortfalls around airport development sites that are created by federal government decision making is Howard government arrogance at its best.
We are dealing with a government that has no intention of working in partnership with state governments to improve community outcomes. We are dealing with a government that constantly resorts to blaming the states—the blame game—rather than taking a cooperative approach to federal-state relations. For the Howard government it is the blame game first and the community interests last.
On this side of the House we believe that the national interest is the same as community interests. We believe that by having proper consultation you can bring the community, who have a rational view about these issues, with you. I regard Sydney airport as a very important infrastructure asset. I resist the lunatic fringe in my electorate who want Sydney airport shut, because that would be a disaster for the economy locally and for jobs. You need infrastructure projects such as Sydney airport. But the support for that infrastructure is undermined if governments do not regulate their behaviour properly. That strengthens the case of those people who would argue an extreme position. The Greens position on these issues is to shut Sydney airport, but they will not say where a replacement airport should go. That might be fine, I say to them, because you could still get into Sydney, but you would have to parachute out of the plane!
No comments