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

It is time for the minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to properly consider the impact of developments on off-airport infrastructure and to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate-equivalent payments and to contribute to off-airport infrastructure where it is reasonable. It should also be acknowledged in that context that, unfortunately, there are also some councils who think that airport owners are an easy target in maximising rate outcomes. The bill is very clear. It is about rate outcomes for non-aviation activities and people should understand that it is about a balance in the application of that principle. Airports should pay their way, but the bill is also about making sure that some surrounding local councils understand that airports are not there, to put it bluntly, to be screwed for local rate outcomes.

This bill is about a balance. It is about making sure that we can make the hard decisions, guaranteeing the operation of these airports. They are the key to our economic future. They are so important for a variety of activities, not just for the tourist industry but also for the movement of business and for attracting investment from overseas. Our requirement is to make sure that we operate them in an efficient way whilst also going out of our way to protect the local interests of people living in and around airports.

Therefore, it is an appropriate time for airport lessees to engage properly—and some are better than others—and to deal fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land users and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. They actually get the benefit of these huge investments which also have a huge impact on surrounding communities. They reap the financial benefits for being allowed to have not only the aviation but also more than ever the non-aviation activities. It is also therefore expected that they make a contribution—as is going to happen, for example, with the Brisbane Airport development—to the infrastructure that is required to enable the operation of the airport in a highly efficient way. In some cases it might also be reasonable for state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate-equivalent payments and potential economic and tax benefits through the operation of those state and local government authorities.

As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, airports are very important for the future of Australia and we have to make sure that we take the community with us. Airports generate funds and economic activities for the nation, but we have to make sure that the poor implementation of the planning and approval processes by the government in some instances to date, which has created huge suspicion amongst some sections of the Australian community with what is a difficult bill to implement, is addressed. The Airports Amendment Bill is a difficult bill, as I have said in this debate. We all want airports and we all want the benefits from aviation, but no-one wants an airport in their backyard. The truth is that airports are here to stay. We as a nation need them. Let us make sure that we operate the planning processes in a proper and consultative way. There will be tough decisions, but let us make sure that we go out of our way to consider all the associated issues in making these tough decisions. I commend my amendments, moved on behalf of the opposition, to the House.

See this speech in context