Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Aviation brings people and cultures together like no other form of transport. Air travel reunites Australian families and friends within and beyond our Australian borders. It can also be a lifeline for Australians in remote and regional areas who rely on aviation to receive critical aeromedical services.

The aviation sector is central to Australia's economy. It is a significant creator of jobs and contributes in excess of $30 billion per annum to the Australian economy. It also plays a vital role in supporting international tourism, which is a key part of Queensland's economy, with over half the international tourists travelling to their destination by air. In particular, Australia's airports are critical pieces of economic infrastructure which support our aviation sector.

Archerfield Airport is a key part of my electorate of Moreton, with a history dating back to the early 1930s. In fact, Archerfield was originally set up in the late 1920s and it actually replaced Eagle Farm as Brisbane's domestic airport in 1931. During World War II, Archerfield became a hive of activity. My grandfather worked there as a grader driver. During World War II, Archerfield was used by the Royal Australian Air Force, obviously, but it was also used by the Royal Netherlands Air Force because the Dutch East Indies government-in-exile was actually just down the road at Wacol. So there was actually another crown operating in Australia at that time in Wacol. Not many people realise that. It is a tale worth telling, especially when it comes to Indonesian independence. Much of their equipment—naval equipment, aeroplanes and the like—wasn't able to go back to fight the Indonesian independence movement because the Australian union movement black-banned the movement of those vehicles. But that's a story for another time; we're talking about airports. Archerfield was also used by the United States Army Air Forces and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. In fact, they were almost at the end of my street in Moorooka. Many of the houses in my electorate were built by military forces that were there during World War II. Especially after MacArthur moved his headquarters to Brisbane, the use of the rather waterlogged Eagle Farm declined and the focus went to Archerfield. Then, obviously, Brisbane has taken off as the airport, incorporating part of Eagle Farm. If you have flown into Brisbane, you would have seen that they had to put a lot of fill there because it is very swampy territory. That is a little bit of the history.

Archerfield Airport and Brisbane Airport have changed over the years. Obviously, the Archerfield Airport has faced numerous ups and downs. Currently, the airport operates as a general aviation airport under the Airports Act, and, like most, but not all, airports, it's on Commonwealth land with a 99-year lease. Likewise, Brisbane Airport is on Commonwealth land with a 99-year lease, renewed after 50 years. The Archerfield Airport employs the equivalent of 13 full-time staff and has approximately 140,000 aircraft movements per year. As such, Archerfield Airport operates at a much smaller scale than major airports like Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney or Perth. Currently, however, the Airports Act does not appropriately distinguish between the major airports and smaller airports like Archerfield when it comes to planning and development. This has become a significant problem for Archerfield Airport and prevents the airport from realising its full potential—something its neighbours are probably okay with because, obviously, planes flying overhead cause some disturbance to people in my electorate. It is therefore necessary for the viable management and operation of Archerfield Airport that a more appropriate regulatory framework is applied to it. The proposed Airports Amendment Bill changes multiple aspects of the act in order to achieve a more suitable regulatory framework for general aviation airports like Archerfield. Therefore, I support this bill. However, I believe some amendments are needed to achieve a more appropriate balance in the regulatory framework.

Firstly, the bill seeks to make changes to airport master plan requirements in the Airports Act. The Airports Act provides for the establishment of much-needed airport master plans for federally leased airports. A master plan operates as a 20-year strategic vision for an airport site. The master plan addresses future land uses, types of permitted development and noise and environmental impacts that involve consultation with neighbours. It also includes an environmental strategy which sets out the airport's plan to manage environmental issues. This is vitally important, as airports, if not managed correctly, can have many negative environmental impacts on local communities, such as poorer air quality, poorer water quality and high waste production. I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, you are well aware of the consequences of PFAS getting into the environment.

Under the act, a new master plan must be prepared every five years for all federally leased airports except the Tennant Creek and Mount Isa airports. Preparing a master plan can be potentially a very laborious and expensive process for smaller general aviation airports like Archerfield, which often do not have the internal resources to carry out this entire process in house, as many of the major airports do. As a result, much of this work is farmed out to external consultants and advisers. The plans themselves take nearly two years to develop, and a significant burden is placed on the staff at the airport during such processes. There is also the prospect of administrative review, which an airport's neighbours are obviously entitled to consider.

Such difficulties are demonstrated by the process undertaken by the Archerfield Airport Corporation in relation to their previous master plan. Consultation for that plan began in December 2008; however, because the plan was subject to a three-year Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, it was not completed until July 2015. Just six months later the process had to start again for the current master plan. This has come at significant distraction to the effective management and operation of the airport by staff.

The Airports Amendment Bill is a significant step towards addressing this issue. Under the proposed changes new master plans will be required only every eight years, instead of every five years, for federally leased airports like Archerfield, with the exception of the major airports—Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. The changes enable an improved balance to be struck between the regulation of airports and effective airport management and operation. This amendment will help to ensure that master plans continue to provide an updated, comprehensive vision for the sustainable use and development of airports, yet the plans will not be produced so frequently as to substantially infringe on the day-to-day operation of airports like Archerfield.

Further, the Airports Act currently requires master plans to include an Australian noise exposure forecast, which forecasts future aircraft noise patterns for the areas surrounding the airport. Such forecasts are very important, as aircraft noise can substantially affect the liveability of Australian homes and neighbourhoods. However, the act currently does not specify that the forecast must be renewed for each plan. I certainly know this as I'm right under the path of the emergency helicopters that are based at Archerfield. Obviously, I know that someone is in a lot of trouble whenever the emergency helicopters go over, so, whilst it might wake me up, I always figure that it's better that I'm in my bed than in that helicopter.

The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to make it a requirement to obtain and include a new Australian noise exposure forecast when preparing a new draft master plan. This ensures that each master plan will include up-to-date information regarding the potential impacts of airport noise in local areas. This is important as these up-to-date forecasts can help to ascertain whether future changes in airport noise will substantially infringe upon local residents and businesses. This has been a concern of some residents in Moreton, particularly for residents close to Archerfield and Acacia Ridge. It's a concern that I take very seriously. It is often aired at the community meetings, thus I support the proposal to require a new forecast for each master plan.

This bill also proposes a number of changes to planning processes for major airport developments, some of which I'm committed to supporting. The Airports Act provides for the establishment of major development plans. A major airport development generally includes any significant building work or any development associated with a substantial environmental impact on the airport site. Major development plans must provide details about these major developments and their likely effects on, for example, noise, flight paths, traffic flows and the environment. These plans must be approved by the minister before any such developments can go ahead.

The act outlines that developments must be completed within five years after major development plans are approved by the minister, unless the approval states otherwise. The minister may also extend that period by up to two years. Whilst a majority of these major developments are completed within the relevant time frame, larger and more complex development projects may be unable to achieve completion within such a time period due to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances.

The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to remove the limitation on the number of times an airport can apply to extend the planned completion period. This allows for greater flexibility for developments—such as a new runway, which is currently occurring in Brisbane—and allows for such projects to adapt to changing circumstances. However, by using a two-year extension the necessary control is maintained. Therefore, I support this proposed change to the Airports Act.

This bill also proposes amending the act to allow an airport to withdraw an approved major development plan by giving notice to the minister of its intention not to proceed with the development. This can apply if the project has not yet commenced and the airport considers that exceptional circumstances beyond its control have made it unviable to proceed with the development. The plan ceases to be in force the day after the minister has given the airport written notice acknowledging receipt of the withdrawal notice. 'Exceptional circumstances' is not defined further by the bill, and the explanatory memorandum does not give any further explanation or examples. Whilst more clarity is needed as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances, it is clear that resources should not be wasted on unviable projects, thus, provided the proper oversight occurs in the withdrawal process, I support allowing such withdrawals.

However, this bill also proposes a number of changes to airport development planning processes that I find very problematic. Labor will be proposing two amendments to this bill to address these concerns. One such change includes increasing the trigger for major development plans to $35 million. In 2007 it was determined that a major development plan would only be required for major developments where construction costs exceeded $20 million. However, over time, rising construction costs and inflation have resulted in a larger number of projects triggering the requirement of a major development plan, perhaps sometimes unnecessarily. As such, I support increasing the trigger for major development plans. However, we need to ensure that this increase accurately reflects changes to development costs so that appropriate amount of developments will be subject to a major development plan.

The government's amendment seeks to increase the major development plan trigger to $35 million. However, this increase is too great. It is larger than the increase in the ABS construction CPI, since the trigger was last adjusted in 2007, and is inconsistent with observations of a currently soft market in civil construction activity in most parts of the nation. Increasing the trigger to $35 million would inevitably mean that many more major projects would go ahead without any public consultation or independent assessments concerning the impact of these developments on local communities. I want people in my electorate to understand what is going on at the airport they live around. I believe that residents in Moreton are entitled to have a say on plans for major airport developments that could significantly affect them. I therefore support amending the bill to change the proposed trigger from $35 million down to $20 million.

Another problem change to the Airports Act proposed in this bill concerns consultation periods for major development plans. A key part of the major development plans process is, of course, public consultation. Under the act, a draft major development plan must be published for public consultation. The public consultation period is 60 business days, although the minister may approve a shorter period of no less than 15 business days. These shorter consultation periods can only be approved if requested in writing by the airport company and if the minister is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the airport master plan and that it 'does not raise any issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community'.

However, this bill proposes to insert a new provision whereby if the airport makes a request for a shorter consultation period and the minister does not make a decision on the request within 15 business days, then the minister is deemed to have approved that shorter period. This amendment raises the possibility that the minister could simply not decide on the request and then be deemed to have approved the shorter consultation period, even if the development is inconsistent with the airport master plan or raises issues that have a significant impact on local communities. In other words, it appears that this provision could potentially be used to circumvent the requirements and purpose of public consultation. Obviously, this is deeply problematic. Once again, it is vital that people in Moreton and every community surrounding an airport, all around Australia, can voice their opinions about airport developments that might affect the value of their homes, that might affect their amenity or that might affect the places that they work in. I'm therefore opposed to this provision. The current act already provides adequate scope for reduced consultation and the further relaxation of these rules not justified.

It is important for Moreton that we achieve necessary reforms to the Airports Act. It is important for airports like Archerfield Airport and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane Airport. There are low points in Moreton that are affected by the runway, particularly in Tarragindi and Annerley. When the second runway comes in, people living Chelmer, Sherwood and Graceville will be further affected by planes flying overhead. It's important that we get the change in the regulatory framework right. The Airports Amendment Bill takes important steps towards achieving a more sustainable balance. As I pointed out, some changes are necessary to strike an even better balance.

See this speech in context