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

I second the amendments. Without the amendments proposed by the ALP, the government’s changes to the Airports Act will impede and do violence to an already flawed maladministration of Commonwealth law. It is time to put a plug in the government’s tendency to propose amendment after amendment to laws so as to give corporations more licence to ill-gotten gains. I call them ill-gotten gains because they are obtained at the expense of the environment, the public interest and aviation safety.

In conclusion, I note that there is no connection between the section 92 public comment requirement and section 94 approval of the major development plan. Subsection 94(3) specifies what matters the minister must have regard to. I note that the findings of the public comment, from subsection 92(2), are not enumerated in the list of what matters the minister must have regard to. The proposed amendment in clause 87A, the new subsection 94(1A), introduces a new, third and separate element into the process—that is, an ‘assessment’ by a ‘qualified town planner’. No reference is made to the arms-length impartiality of this town planner or its assessment. Equally, the provision is silent as to what weight ought be given to this encroachment of expert opinion specifying town planning expertise. Why not prescribe an assessment from a planning engineer or an environmental scientist? Why does town planning get special mention?

Equally, the amendment in clause 87A sits uncomfortably within the whole purpose of sections 92 through 94 inclusive—that is, the provisions are ostensibly about public interest comment. Expert advice does not sit well here. If it is the intent of this part of the provision to scientifically assess on technical grounds, these requirements are better placed within the legislation where such technical assessment is placed—that is, within the statutory requirements of the draft major development plan prescribed in section 91. To have a separate assessment outside the provisions of section 91 is both clumsy and confusing. The equivalent provision under New South Wales state planning law is that of environmental impact assessment and environmental impact statements, which usually default to the responsibility of the developer applicant, under part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, or the proponent, under part 5 of the act.

I conclude by inviting members opposite to do the right thing by those people who are affected by the expansion of airports and support the amendments moved by the shadow minister for transport this evening.

See this speech in context