Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Medicare) Share this | Hansard source

I speak in respect of the Airports Amendment Bill 2016, and I note that this bill has been before the parliament since December 2016, almost two years. Perhaps it will get through today. I make that point because it was only earlier this year that a master plan for the airport within my electorate, Parafield Airport, was finally approved. I suspect, had this legislation been in place in 2016, there might have been some differences with respect to the treatment of that master plan.

There are 21 federally leased airports around Australia, of which 19 require a master plan to be prepared every five years. This legislation makes several changes to the Airports Act, and I will go through them very briefly. Firstly, it increases the processing time for master plans from five years to eight years, so there will be an eight-year cycle instead of a five-year cycle. Secondly, updated noise exposure forecasts will be required with each new master plan application. Thirdly, there will be a lifting of the monetary figure from $20 million to $35 million and the introduction of a three-yearly construction indexation for the requirement of a separate major development plan. Fourthly, it will establish a decision time frame of 15 days for the minister to consider reduced periods for major development plan approvals. Fifthly, it will enable the minister to extend more than once the period during which developments are required to be substantially completed. And, lastly, it will allow airport operators to notify the minister if exceptional circumstances mean that a major development cannot proceed.

I speak in support of the comments already made by the member for Grayndler in respect of this legislation. And I understand that there'll be some amendments moved, perhaps in the committee stage of the bill, particularly with respect to the $35 million matter and the 15-day approval proposal that I referred to earlier.

This legislation is very relevant to the people that I represent, because, within the Makin electorate, lies Parafield Airport. It is a general aviation airport established in 1927. Until 1960 it was located in what was considered to be outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide and surrounded largely by open farmland. Today that is no longer the case. Urban Adelaide now surrounds Parafield Airport, with homes and industry right around it. In 1998, the airport was leased to Adelaide Airport Limited for 99 years. It was effectively privatised, with the only control reserved by the federal government being the approval process of the five-yearly master plans, a process that appears to be little more than a box-ticking exercise, which I expect comes at great expense and time to airport management.

Airports are exempt from all state and local government laws, as are all Commonwealth properties, and therefore there is little input that state and local government authorities and residents can make with respect to the plans. Yes, the plans are put on display, and, yes, there is a consultation period that the operators have to go through, but ultimately the airport can still determine what it wants to do on its land without having to be accountable to the local community. The master plan process is therefore really a mechanism—and it's the only mechanism—available to the federal government to limit any airport development, because, as I made clear a moment ago, airport developments are not limited by local authorities. In fact, when we see what is happening at airports today, they are not only used for aviation activities, to which the exemptions originally were meant to apply, but are now also used for wide-scale, non-aviation commercial developments.

In January this year, the former Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for New England, approved the 2017 Parafield Airport Master Plan. In his letter of approval, the minister stated, 'In making my decision, I considered the views of the South Australian government as well as all relevant federal agencies and other interested parties.' Many residents were aggrieved by that decision. Indeed, many residents contacted my office with respect to it. They felt their views had been ignored, that their concerns were not heard, and that, in reality, they had no say. I sympathise with those residents.

Parafield Airport management went through the public consultation process required of them. It culminated with a public forum held in Salisbury, attended by senior airport representatives and around 100 local residents. At the forum, airport representatives provided detailed representations of the master plan and how it was to be developed. Regrettably, insufficient time was provided to allow all of those people present to raise their personal concerns, ask questions or make verbal submissions. Several people that spoke to me when the forum had ended expressed their disappointment about not having been given an opportunity to speak in the public forum—albeit that, in fairness to them, the airport management staff offered to stay back and speak to people privately about the matters of concern to them.

The dominant issue of concern that was raised was the incessant noise generated by circuit training around the airport, particularly by trainee pilots, most of whom are being trained by an international training college based at Parafield Airport. It is in the middle of suburbia, and flight-training activities which were once not a problem are today, for many, incompatible with residential living. It is particularly a problem for those homes that are directly under the flight-training air paths. Flight training is, however, important for the aviation industry and I accept that. It's not only an important economic driver for South Australia, with most of the student pilots coming from overseas, but it's important that we have sufficiently well-trained pilots to work within the air industry. I accept that it remains a fact that the airport has been at Parafield since 1927, prior to residents moving in, and that flight training has always been a core business of the airport. I understand that, at present, there are about 215,000 aircraft movements at the airport per year, and that most of them are attributed to the flight-training activities. There have also been commendable efforts by airport management, through its technical advisory committee, to reduce noise impacts on surrounding residential areas. However, I believe that more can be done.

In particular, the airport's Fly Friendly Program could be improved. Daily commencement and end times of flight training, particularly on weekends and public holidays, could be made much more family-friendly. Several other suggestions that would reduce noise impact have also been made over the years, but it always seems that there is an unconvincing reason as to why those suggestions cannot be adopted. More recently, I note that the state member for Playford, the Hon. Michael Brown, has proposed that the aircraft used for circuit training should be replaced with electric aircraft. I understand that electric aircraft are currently being trialled at Jandakot in WA with services to Rottnest Island. My understanding is that they can stay in the air for about an hour, perhaps with a reserve of another 30 minutes after that, so that may well be the way to go. I don't know if they will make a difference to noise, because I'm not an aircraft engineer. But if they do improve the situation, then that is, perhaps, another matter that could be considered into the future.

At the core of the residents' concern is that they felt that their voices were simply not being heard, and that the changes they were proposing with respect to the master plan were not in any way adopted within the plan. And, to my knowledge, I'm not aware of any notable changes having been made to the master plan as a result of the consultation process—which highlights the point I made earlier: is it really a consultation process? Or is it really an information process, for the surrounding public to be made aware of what the airport management propose into the future?

The other matter that I will speak about is the issue of the noise exposure forecasts. I note that, under this bill, the noise exposure forecasts must be lodged with every master plan update. What effect that will have on the approval process is, in my mind, unclear. Again, will they simply provide more information or do they change the nature of the master plan that is to be approved? Bear in mind that, if no change is made to the master plan, the existing plan continues in operation: the fact that a master plan is not approved does not restrict the airport owners from continuing with development on airports; it simply restricts them from making developments inconsistent with the currently approved master plan.

Another matter has more recently emerged in respect of this issue, which is also very relevant to the question of master plans. I understand that the government is currently consulting with respect to what are referred to as public safety zones. In short these safety zones are intended to ensure that areas at the end of each runway at airports around the country might have restrictions placed on them with respect to the types of buildings that might go onto that land. I also understand that, where a development has already occurred, that will not be affected. If developments are already in place, those developments will be able to continue regardless of what changes are made in respect of public safety zones.

Clearly this proposal will create a limit on the types of developments that can be constructed at the end of the runways. I'm referring to land at the end of the runways outside of the airport itself—in other words, privately-owned land that lines up with the airport runways. That will clearly have an impact on the value of that land. People in the northern suburbs of Adelaide have already expressed concerns with respect to the impact the public safety zone proposal will have on their land. In particular, a lot of the land in the northern areas of Adelaide lies between Parafield Airport and Edinburgh air base, so it's actually trapped between two airports. That in turn means considerable tracts of land may be subject to whatever recommendations arise out of this proposal.

I understand its purpose. In the past my understanding was that any developments were restricted only on the basis of the noise exposure forecast grids created around the airports. This adds a new dimension to the restrictions, which was not foreseen at the time local governments put in their own citywide development plans, when many people made investments and planned for their future in the knowledge that the noise exposure forecast grid determined what could be built on their privately-owned land around the airports. I accept that the broader community is currently being consulted on this matter and no final position has been reached, but it is clear to me that if public safety zones are to be included in future developments around airports then the public safety zones would have a direct impact on the master plan process and the master plans currently applying to each and every one of those 19 airports. How will the public safety zones be incorporated into the master plan process in the future, and what impact will public safety zones have on them?

I will listen with interest to the debate in respect of the amendments. I believe that the amendments proposed to be moved by the member for Grayndler are very sensible, as other members on this side of the House have made clear, and I once again endorse the comments made by the member for Grayndler when on behalf of the opposition he responded to this legislation.

See this speech in context