Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Transport, Roads and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (32):

(1)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (lines 17-18), omit the item.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 30-31), omit the item.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (line 23), omit “as a business day”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (lines 4-5), omit the item.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 56, page 11 (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 58, page 11 (lines 20-21), omit the item.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 59, page 11 (line 27), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 5-6), omit the item.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 7-8), omit the item.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (lines 27-28), omit the item.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line  4), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 10-11), omit the item.

(14)  Schedule 1, page 15, after item 85 (after line 20) insert

85A  Subsection 93(2)

Omit the subsection, substitute

      “(2)    A draft major development plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by

             (a)    a written statement signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of the persons consulted; and

                  (ii)    summarising the views of persons consulted, and

             (b)    a copy of any document provided by a person consulted.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 16 (line 4), omit “as a business day”.

(16)  Schedule 1, page 16, after item 87 (after line 11),

87A  After subsection 94(1)

Insert

   “(1A)    The Department must ensure that before the Minister approves or refuses to approve the plan an assessment of the plan is made by qualified town planners and comments on the plan by town planners are provided to the Minister.

(17)  Schedule 1, page 16, after item 88 (after line 15) insert

88A  After subsection 94(5)

Insert

     (5A)    If the Minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions of relevant state or territory planning agencies or local government authorities the Minister must provide a statement in writing setting out the reasons for the decision.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 89, page 16 (lines 16-17), omit the item, substitute

89  Subsection 94(6)

Omit the subsection.

(19)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after item 89) (after line 17), insert

89A  Subsection 94(6A)

Omit the subsection.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 90, page 16 (after line 27) add

      (7C)    The Minister must specify in approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure; and, if so, having regard to relevant rate-equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport - lessee company to negotiate in good faith with relevant State, territory and/or local government authorities with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate contributions to be made by the airport-lessee company to specific off-airport infrastructure.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 95, page 17 (lines 15-16), omit the item.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 100, page 18 (lines 1-2), omit the item.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 101, page 18 (line 8), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 103, page 18 (lines 14-15), omit the item.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 112, page 19 (lines 19-20), omit the item.

(26)  Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (lines 17-18), omit the item.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (lines 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (lines 30-31), omit the item.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (line 24), omit “as a business day”.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 136, page 23 (lines 4-5), omit the item.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 141, page 23 (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(32)  Schedule 1, item 147, page 24 (lines 12-13), omit the item.

This is an exceptionally important debate on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. It goes to the operation of key infrastructure vital to the future of Australia, and I am talking about our airports not only in our capital cities but also in key regional centres. For that reason, following detailed consideration of the bill and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, the opposition are moving amendments which we think are exceptionally important to the future operation of the bill. In moving these amendments I am pleased to acknowledge that the government has agreed this evening to two recommendations of the Senate with respect to changes to the operation of the bill.

Having said that, we have also sought, from an opposition’s perspective, to reach an understanding with the government with respect to the operation of this bill. Unfortunately, we have been unable to negotiate such an outcome to date, but we would be happy to continue to negotiate, our intent obviously being to refine the operation of the bill, because we actually think it is a very important bill in terms of its application on a day-to-day basis.

That aside, the opposition is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines, and I will return to this key issue shortly. I also note the changes proposed by the government with respect to time lines; they unfortunately fall short of what is required by the opposition. I therefore also refer to the fact that, earlier this year, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Vaile, said:

I have received a number of representations from Government MPs and Senators asking me to extend the 45 working day period for consultation to 60 working days.

If there were historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, I believe the revised time lines proposed, which would have brought the planning regime largely into line with state and territory planning processes—in fact, in some instances they are far more restrictive than existing state and territory processes—might well have been accepted by the opposition.

The problem is that in recent times some of the decisions made have caused major concerns, not only amongst opposition members but also, as is obviously reflected by the fact that the government has been forced to amend its time lines, amongst government members. But the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines, as I have said, is a manifestation of the distrust in the government’s implementation of the process, not only by members of the House but also by substantial numbers of people out there in the Australian community, especially amongst local and state government representatives. My colleagues are equally concerned, and so are their constituents, because we appreciate that the operation of airports is a very sensitive local issue. Just ask any member who has responsibility for an airport in or close to their electorate.

Unfortunately, in recent times the government’s record on airport development has raised serious questions about its lack of proper concern for the needs and welfare of many local people who live around Australia’s key airports. I refer specifically, for example, to the brickworks at Perth and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon. On the basis of those outcomes, we in the opposition are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval times.

The second issue I go to relates to public consultation submissions received. It is the view of the opposition that, as the Senate committee quite rightly recommended, all public consultation submissions received by the proponents of airport developments should go to the minister as the decision maker—a proposition which is now accepted by the government. Amendment (14) in my schedule of amendments addresses this important issue. I think it is appropriate that the minister receive a copy of all public submissions going to planning proposals for the operation of airports. It would enable the minister and the department to properly consider these issues. That is the practice of a number of airport owners at this point in time, as instanced by the current planning process underway for a second runway at Brisbane Airport, which is a controversial issue in the minds of some people. (Extension of time granted) I am pleased to note the government’s support for this recommendation, because I think it is very reasonable. It is obviously part of the Senate’s consideration of the bill and it is part of the Senate committee’s recommendations, which are important in terms of trying to refine the operation of this bill.

I go to a number of key amendments. Amendment (16) goes to ensuring that the minister receives advice from qualified town planners when making approval decisions about master plans and major development plans. Amendment (17) introduces a requirement for the minister to provide a written statement of the reasons for his decision if the minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions by relevant state and local government planning authorities. Amendments (18) and (19) remove the deemed approval provision whereby a development is automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the appropriate time frames provided under the act.

All these propositions, we believe, are practical. They are also about ensuring, in terms of day-to-day decision making, that the operation of the bill is in line with the intent of the bill, which is that we properly handle sensitive issues going to the operation of airports with respect to both aviation and non-aviation activities at this point in time.

Whilst there is no history of the minister abrogating his responsibilities when it comes to making decisions within the appropriate time lines, there is a history of this in other parts of the government. For example, I specifically refer to the recent failure by the Treasurer when it came to a decision on BHP Billiton’s Pilbara railway which went to the critical operation of export infrastructure in the iron ore sector in north-west Western Australia—an issue which is now subject to ongoing litigation because of the Treasurer’s failure to actually make a definitive decision.

Amendment (20) requires the minister to specify in the approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport lessee company to negotiate appropriate contributions to that infrastructure. This is an issue of huge concern at a local and state government level, as instanced by the difficulties surrounding the operation and development of the DFO at Essendon Airport in Melbourne. There were major infrastructure difficulties that arose from that decision to approve the DFO.

I can only hope that the minister has learnt from his experience with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon Airport that he has to also take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. I say this because I believe the minister reached the right decision earlier this year on the proposed Sydney airport retail development. Perhaps he has learnt from some of the backlash that has occurred as a result of previous decisions, such as the approval of those discount operations at Essendon Airport. The Sydney airport development, interestingly, would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by state and adjacent local authorities. Clearly, it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it.

If we as a community want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports, it is time for all parties to lift their game. There are some instances where the last thing I want to do is hand over planning powers to state and local government representatives, because there are also some concerns in the Australian community about some of the decisions that they make, but I think we are about a balance with respect to a very sensitive and difficult area of planning in Australia—that is, the operation of the airports. I do not think that there is any minister of any political persuasion who will always please the community when making these very tough decisions. The truth of the matter is that everyone wants airports but, as usual, no-one wants them in their backyard.

That is evidenced by the campaign by the Greens to close Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. It is interesting to see that every time you pass through an airport there are representatives of the Greens, yet you come to the parliament and you would think that airports are a plague on the nation. I tell you what: they do not mind racking up their frequent flyer points and using our key infrastructure with respect to the operation of airports. These are very serious issues and I raise them in a very serious manner.

See this speech in context