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

I wish to make a few brief comments with respect to the Airports Amendment Bill 2006, which Labor thinks is a very important bill. In doing so, I indicate that the opposition supports a number of the amendments. However, we also oppose some, one such being the shortening of the time span for consultation. Having said that, we will not be dividing on the consideration of the amendments. I would like to raise a couple of issues in passing, firstly, because this bill is very topical at the moment and the Australian community has actually raised an issue which goes to the view of state and territory governments at a ministerial council this week attended by Mr Lloyd, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads.

It is important for the record to indicate that the opposition’s view is that the Commonwealth should retain control of the planning and development of airport land. Airports are exceptionally important to Australia economically. They are vibrant hubs of economic activity, key to our national interests. Whilst we believe the Commonwealth should retain control of airport land, both for aviation and non-aviation purposes, this bill is about ensuring that planning approvals are considered in a proper way by taking local community, state and local governments with you on planning decisions, some of which are very tough. Examples include where you have to consider additional runways, extensions of terminal facilities and whether or not a freight hub should be allowed to be developed. Obviously, these are tough decisions that many in the local community find hard to live with. Everyone wants an airport, but no-one wants it in their backyard.

Against that background, a letter was forwarded to the Prime Minister on 5 March this year as a result of processes by state and territory government representatives under the hand of the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann. I specifically refer to recommendation (d) of that letter, on behalf of all state and territory governments. Recommendation (d) states:

... if non-aviation development control remains with the Australian Government, it should provide clarification as to how it will enforce conditions of development approval placed on airport lessee companies and what role State and Territory Governments are expected to play in relation to these conditions.

The letter goes on to suggest:

In addition, amendments should be made to the Airports Act 1996 to require the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to formally consult with State, Territory and Local Governments concerning a Masterplan or any development application and to take into consideration the State/Territory and Local Government planning policies governing the region in which the airport is located when making an approval decision.

I think that is the intent of the current legislation, including the amendments which have come out of the Senate process and which are currently before the House this morning. To make sure that is the appropriate way for the act to operate, Labor would be happy to work with the premiers to implement the recommendations, should Labor win the next election, but we would not support the handing over of planning responsibility to state, territory and local governments. As we all appreciate, non-aviation development is a very important part of aviation operations and is a crucial source of funding for future aviation development. The truth is that the decision of the Labor government to commence the privatisation process was the correct decision.

There is no way that an Australian government of any political persuasion could handle the cost associated with the requirements to expand and operate airports in the 21st century. The private sector has the capacity not only to operate and manage airports in a proper fashion but also to put together the necessary investment funds to guarantee that we have modern, internationally competitive airports.

Meanwhile, we should do everything we can to work with agencies such as Airservices Australia to ensure that airports operate in the most efficient and safe fashion. Effectively, this means that we work out how to combine our aviation and non-aviation activities to guarantee that the private sector has the capacity to put together an income stream which enables it to continue to upgrade and expand our airport operations in Australia. This is exceptionally important, because there is no way a government of any political persuasion is going to go back to building, owning and operating airports in Australia. That day has gone. We are reliant on the private sector and its capacity to put in place proper planning processes which guarantee the right outcomes for the Australian community, especially people living in and around airports, and in so doing to guarantee the right outcomes in the national interest of Australia. (Extension of time granted)

We have to understand that, while state and territory governments place letters such as this one before not only the government but also the opposition, the truth is that they would not want this power. They would not want the local political pressure which goes with managing the operations of airports in Australia, whether they involve aviation or non-aviation activities. Unfortunately, some governments, even with their existing planning powers, run away from making tough decisions because they are unable to make the right decisions or argue their decisions through and put them in place.

Just think about it: this letter refers to their wanting to guarantee airports the capacity to expand their aviation activities, including freight operations. The truth of the matter is that when governments have to consider some of these tough decisions—for example, second runways or whether or not at some point in the future Canberra operates as a freight hub—governments of all political persuasions run for cover or run local campaigns against the Australian government, as occurred when we were in government, to take the political pressure off themselves. It gets too hot for them to make the decisions and to do the right thing by the Australian community.

We understand that local and state governments are very important, but state governments represent much smaller seats and local councils represent much smaller areas and numbers of people who are able to impose their will on government organisations. So only the federal Australian government has the capacity to make these tough decisions. We also have to make sure that, when making tough decisions, we properly consider the needs of local communities and that there are appropriate state, territory and local government planning provisions in place.

A couple of planning decisions have made consideration of this bill exceptionally sensitive. The most glaring example of an airport planning decision that I thought was just plain wrong was the development of a brickworks at Perth Airport. This is not a view that I have kept to myself. I have raised it in the House and again this week when I met with representatives of Perth Airport. I made it very clear to them that it was a plain stupid decision. It was an inappropriate development in the local community, it was not in the best long-term interests of the airport and it was not in the best long-term interests of the community that surrounds that airport. This is also the view of the member for Hasluck, who is a member of the government. He thought it was a very foolish, stupid decision too.

It is those sorts of decisions that have made consideration of bills such as this very difficult and sensitive in both major party rooms. The government had a backlash, and it is reflected in the amendment for the shortening of the consultation time in the approval process. The government had to back away from their original intention. However, with this amendment on the time span, the bill as amended will be far more generous than actually exists in a variety of planning processes at local, state and territory government levels all around Australia. It is they who are running the argument that this time span is inadequate, yet the amendment is far more generous than the time spans they provide for in their own planning activities. So let us have a factual debate with local, state and territory governments on the issue of planning in Australia.

Having said that, I think there is a need for us to think about part (d) of the letter from state premiers and territory chief ministers to the Prime Minister on 5 March. We should get the intent of part (d) reflected in legislation and, more importantly, in the decisions we make as a national parliament so that we can then take local and state communities with us. This is important because we cannot go back to the days of trying to say to taxpayers, ‘You are going to run, operate and manage airports.’ That is the job of the private sector. We have to implement a planning process which enables us to work in a partnership with the private sector and the other two tiers of government in Australia.

Airports are strategic infrastructure items for Australia. We accept that airport development is contentious. This was reflected in the contributions on the bill from both sides of the House. The right level of government to deal with airport planning is the federal government. If we are fortunate enough to win the next election, we will seek to work with state and territory governments to implement part (d) of the letter of 5 March from the chief ministers and premiers to the Prime Minister.

In relation to the other amendments, we are pleased that the government has taken up recommendations 1 and 2 of the Senate committee report on the bill, and the opposition supports these amendments moved by the government which have that effect. (Extension of time granted) It is certainly worth while to directly notify state, territory and local governments of the commencement of consultation processes and, in doing so, ensure that the minister receives actual submissions on proposals rather than just supporting evidence. However, as I have said, we cannot support any shortening of the consultation and approval time lines. That would only make it more difficult to get a consensus on the operation of this act in the future.

Having said that, the opposition consider the proper administration of the Airports Act to be the key to taking the Australian community forward on this contentious issue. We have to be careful about some of the decisions. Yes, they are tough, but we should not make it harder for ourselves. The foolish decision that was made with respect to the Perth brickworks upset not only local people but also some people in the government’s own party room. Whilst we do not support the shortening of the consultation or approval times, I indicate our support for a range of other amendments.

I also say to the premiers and chief ministers of territory and state governments: be real about what is possible. Seek to work with the Australian government as to how we make this act work, but also be honest. You might say that you want these planning powers, but, if they are given to you, you will run for cover. In your letter, you talk about the need to guarantee the capacity of these airports to expand for the movement of passengers and freight in the future. They are tough decisions. You have hidden from these decisions in the past. In some instances, you have actually run campaigns to make it harder for the government to make these decisions, such as in the case of the extension of the Gold Coast Airport runway. That was a hugely political issue. It was only because of cooperation between the government and opposition that we got approval to put that proposition in place, but it took three applications.

In conclusion, I simply say that there is a responsibility on the national parliament to listen to local, state and territory governments on these issues. But there is also a responsibility on politicians of all political persuasions to be honest about how tough these decisions are and, in making them, to consider planning powers, but they should not frustrate a process which can cripple and restrict the future expansion and operation of airports in Australia.

See this speech in context