John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to enthusiastically support the detailed amendments just moved by the member for Batman, the shadow minister for transport and roads, without which the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 would be left resembling a Macquarie Bank manifesto for achieving greater operating profits for the directors and shareholders at the expense of the public interest and the local community, particularly the people I represent in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney’s inner west. Constituents in my electorate of Lowe have suffered for too long and will continue to suffer for many years to come from the reckless, irresponsible and negligent aviation policies of the Howard government. Members of the government now have an opportunity to do the right thing by my constituents by supporting the shadow minister’s amendments rather than pandering to the interests of the big end of town and its affiliates. I applaud the shadow minister, who, unlike the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has shown serious concern that airport stakeholders may not have sufficient time to respond to amendments to airport master plans, major and minor development plans and environment strategies. That is why the ALP is proposing the amendments to retain existing approval and consultation time frames.

Members of the public currently have 90 calendar days to assess and make comments on master plans, major development plans and environment strategies. Members should realise that these are instruments which contain reams of technical data, statistics and complex calculations—yet the government proposes to slash to just 45 days the time available for ordinary Australians to assess them. This slash to consultation period times is unforgivable and ought to be rejected out of hand. Members of the government can do so by putting pride aside, joining with us and supporting the member for Batman’s amendments.

It should also be noted that members of the public currently have 30 days to assess and make comments on minor variations to master plans and environment strategies. The government proposes to slash this to 15 days, despite the data being no less technical. The slash to this consultation period is equally unforgivable and it, too, ought to be rejected out of hand.

I am surprised that there has been so little condemnation by government members of the savage and totally unjustified slashing of community consultation periods. Why should the only substantive submission to an airport master plan or major development plan be from the applicant itself? How is the public interest served by the savage cuts in consultation periods? How is a member of the public, a local council, a state government or one of my constituents in Lowe supposed to respond within days to a complex plan which could destroy the amenity of a neighbourhood, not to mention the potential devastating impact on property values of the government’s promotion of the massive expansion of airports for the benefit of the likes of Macquarie Bank? How can we legitimately expect these stakeholders to respond within days to a plan that may have taken upwards of three years to prepare? We cannot, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I now turn to the government’s proposed amendments to section 81(5), section 84(3), section 94(6) and section 95(3), all of which have the effect of slashing the amount of time available to a minister to approve or refuse master plans and major development plans, or amendments to them, from 90 days to 50 days. A minister’s inability to assess the reams of technical data and complex calculations within the slashed assessment period will result in a ‘deemed approval’. Why is the government giving carte blanche to these ‘mini republics’ to do what they want, when they want, and with greater ease? It is hard to imagine local councils adopting a policy of ‘deemed approval’, rather than ‘deemed refusal’, for a two-storey home if it cannot be comprehensively assessed within time. How, then, can members of the government seriously allow this to happen for new flight paths over people’s homes or for a 48,000-square metre shopping centre at Sydney Airport? These proposals are bordering on the preposterous and the absurd. Members opposite would do well to support our amendments and do away with the unjustified slashing of ministerial assessment times and the legal fiction that ministerial silence amounts to consent.

I turn finally to the member for Batman’s amendments to ensure that major airport development plans are subjected to assessment by town planning professionals rather than simply bureaucrats within the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Why should Macquarie Bank at Sydney Airport or Colonial First State at Bankstown Airport be permitted to develop airport lands as retail outlets without any exposure to planning and environmental professionals? There are many town planners with a comprehensive and well-founded knowledge of worldwide planning regimes which have been developed and refined over decades. They know what works and what does not—not bureaucrats in the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. (Time expired)

See this speech in context