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

I rise to address this very important bill: the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. In my opening remarks I must say that I am actually amazed, having left the shadow transport portfolio in December 2004, that this bill is still unfinished business. The truth is that extensive consultations occurred around this bill in the last parliament. It was effectively understood within the industry that it would have been dealt with by 2005 at the latest. Yet here we are, very close to another election, and the government is still trying to clean up its failure to pay proper attention to the legislative framework that surrounds the operation of airports in Australia.

Having said that, as the member for Dawson noted in her second reading speech, the privatisation of Australia’s 22 federal airports has indeed fostered a vibrant and dynamic industry and in doing so has enabled these airports to provide improved services with minimal call for public investment. That is important, because the travelling public expects quality services in terms of what they encounter at airports around Australia, both major capital city airports and regional airports.

The rapid growth in non-aviation development is also very welcome to generate the funds needed for future expansion, replacement of aviation infrastructure and improved quality of service at Australian airports. There is no way any government of any political persuasion could carry the investments required to maintain these quality airports. The funds generated from commercial development of airports will certainly remove what would otherwise be an enormous burden on taxpayers to deliver the essential aviation services that underpin more than ever our national economy.

But this development has not come without its problems, many of which have been unnecessarily created through the poor implementation of the planning and approval process by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Local communities, particularly around Essendon, Adelaide and Perth, are very sensitive to some of the commercial developments at airports, and rightfully so. It is difficult to explain to a local community why on earth they should trust the planning regime for airports, when successive ministers have delivered an inappropriate decision or two—for example, to place a brickworks in Perth on airport land opposite a residential development. On all counts I think most accept that that development should never have proceeded; it is just inappropriate. It is those inappropriate decisions that create community concern and make it far more difficult to handle these issues, in the minds of some members of the House, in a rational and constructive way.

I say that because the problem is not so much with the planning regime but with the poor judgement of the minister in failing to consider surrounding land uses and plans when he has made decisions about commercial developments at airports. The price for that is that we will have to seek to amend this bill before the House, in the same way the minister himself has had to amend it—and he announced those amendments even before the debate started today. That reflects the fact that the minister’s own colleagues did not trust him with the responsibility for decision making and the exercise of due process. Obviously they, like the opposition, are reflecting the concerns and frustrations of their constituencies. Airports are very sensitive issues, and all too often ministers find it very difficult to make the right decisions because of local political campaigns. I refer to the fact that three weeks ago the minister, Mr Vaile, said:

I have received a number of representations from government MPs and senators asking me to extend the 45 working day period for consultation to 60 working days.

If there were historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, I believe the revised timelines—and some did not even appreciate that they were talking about working days as against ordinary days in the consideration of this bill—which would have brought the planning regime into line with state and territory planning processes, may have been accepted. But the nature of the emotion that surrounds this bill has effectively meant that the minister himself has had to make an adjustment to be able to carry his caucus with respect to this bill. The unwillingness to reduce consultation timelines is a manifestation of distrust in the implementation of the process. The department, in association with the minister, have to work very hard, once this bill is approved by the parliament, to try and turn around that mistrust in the Australian community. It is for that very reason that my own colleagues are equally concerned and so are their constituencies.

The government’s record on airport development, with the brickworks at Perth, and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon, means that we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval timelines. This is about distrust of the process and the will of the minister and the government to have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land use and infrastructure plans of local government authorities. Perhaps the minister has finally learnt from his experiences with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon that he has to also take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure, such as roads. Local councils and state governments expect serious consideration of those issues.

I say that because I consider that the minister made the right decision three weeks ago with respect to the proposed Sydney airport retail development. That development would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by the state and adjacent local authorities. Those are the issues that have to be considered by ministers when thoroughly considering applications to change master plans and seeking development approvals arriving out of those master plans.

I think it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it. But I will also be fair—I will give the minister a break here. It is time that some of the airport lessee companies also woke up to their responsibilities, because their own performance is creating local problems in airport communities around Australia. It is not acceptable for some of those companies to treat state and local government authorities and local communities with the arrogance and disdain that some have clearly displayed when it comes to airport development. If you actually seek to work with the local community, you can take them with you. In the end, local communities are vitally dependent on efficient, modern airports.

It is also time that some state and local government authorities demonstrated a capacity to negotiate in good faith with airport developers for reasonable rate equivalent payments and contributions to off-airport infrastructure. Airport developers are all too often seen by a small number of councils as the source of the golden egg. That was never the intention with respect to airport development. But they must also recognise that the benefits of airport development flow on to local communities, and they are winners on a variety of fronts. For example, they are a huge generator of jobs in our regional and major capital cities.

Having said that, in some cases it may well be reasonable for the state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate equivalent payments, flow-on economic opportunities and job opportunities as a result of these huge investments by the private sector. These also include ordinary workers’ superannuation funds. They are looking for a fair return on their investment, which they are entitled to because it goes to their capacity to retire with some dignity.

On that note, I refer to the Gateway upgrade project in Brisbane, which I consider is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when infrastructure owners and all levels of government are prepared to work together to get the right outcomes for regional infrastructure. Obviously Brisbane Airport has learnt from past mistakes. The Brisbane Airport and airport precinct is not only important for the region; it is also of strategic economic importance for Queensland and the nation at large. So if we want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports it is time for all parties, including the Commonwealth, to lift their game.

It is time for the federal minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to consider the impact of developments on off-airport infrastructure, and to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate equivalent payments and contribute to off-airport infrastructure, where that is reasonable. There is a qualifier: ‘where it is reasonable’. Some councils also have to appreciate that airports are not milking cows to help them avoid their own responsibilities on the rate base at a local level.

It is time for airport lessees to engage properly and fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land uses, and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. It is about what is fair and reasonable for all involved in a local community, the private sector, and local, state and federal government authorities.

When it comes to planning control itself, it is clearly in the national interest that strategic economic infrastructure like our major airports, just like our ports, remain under proper planning process. And the airports should absolutely remain under Commonwealth control. At the end of the day, I do not believe that state and local government authorities really want ownership of controversial airport decisions—it is all too hard. That effectively means that the Commonwealth government has to do this difficult task in a fair and proper way.

Airport development, as we all appreciate, is a contentious community issue and both state and local governments remain far more exposed to the electoral pressure of short-term expediency than the Commonwealth. That would effectively mean that if we are not careful we would get overburdened with legal obligations and there will be no airport investment in Australia, because politicians—especially at local and state levels—are all too fearful of making those tough decisions because of local political considerations. I therefore rigorously argue that it is the role of the Commonwealth to adopt a leadership position and to take a long term view when it comes to national strategic infrastructure development, like airports. It is the level of government best placed to do this.

Therefore, it is my view that the Commonwealth must retain ownership of airport land and control over the long-term development of airport infrastructure that is vital to the future success of the Australian economy. If you have any doubts about that, just think about how dependent the national tourism industry is on the aviation industry. Many of the concerns about this bill relate to bad historical experience, with fault on the part of some local government authorities and planning authorities and some airport lessee companies from time to time. There is fault at all levels. However, the minister has the power, if he or she chooses to actually exercise it, to ensure good planning outcomes at airports for all parties. They must be held to account in this regard.

Poor implementation of planning processes has been a problem at state and local government levels as well, and changing the jurisdiction, as some suggest, would not solve the problem. It is actually about using the current legislative framework, including any refinements, to do the right thing in tough planning decisions. I say that because, in addition, we all appreciate that airport development is a contentious issue and we all accept that the Commonwealth is the only level of government that is actually capable of making these tough decisions. It is the only government authority that is capable of taking a more long term view when it comes to national strategic infrastructure development decisions like airports. It is the level of government, as I have said previously, best placed to actually make these decisions.

That aside, I also believe—as reflected in the amendments in the bill and those that the Labor Party will seek to move in the consideration in detail stage—that the airport approvals processes for airport developments clearly need further improvements in the current planning regime. In particular, I draw attention to the Airport Development Consultation Guidelines, released by DOTARS in December last year, which the Labor Party, as the opposition, very much welcomes.

The guidelines clearly set out the Australian government’s expectations of all stakeholder groups when it comes to consultation about airport planning and development. Some of these recommendations also arise from previous consideration of airport issues by the Senate with respect to some of the airport developments in years gone by. They therefore appropriately suggest an outline for an approach to effective consultation. While the guidelines are not binding, I say to airport owners that there is an onus on them for their own effective operation to make sure that they seek to implement these guidelines in the future. Any minister worth his or her salt is going to have regard to the process of consultation undertaken by proposed airport developers with respect to the application of these guidelines. That is what is expected in the guidelines: acting in good faith, applying proper practice and procedure, and consulting the community on major airport developments.

My colleague and friend the member for Hindmarsh is to be congratulated for his proposal, by way of a private member’s bill, for the appointment of an ombudsman. I understand that in the airport leasing industry there are mixed views about this issue. Some are in favour; some have some private concerns. But the member for Hindmarsh is one of the few members in the federal parliament of Australia who has, within the boundaries of his electorate, a major capital city airport, and he understands the sensitivities of airport development. He wants to make sure that in securing airport development he has the best possible opportunity to take his community with him, rather than create unnecessary fights where the community is divided about the airport development.

The member for Hindmarsh knows only too well about the conflict between the greater public good that airports provide and the inconvenience that comes for some residents. For that reason, in days gone by, as a candidate he was at the forefront of a campaign to put in place a noise amelioration program with respect to the operation of Adelaide Airport. The residents he represents have experienced significant disruption to their lives as a result of noise. Adelaide Airport is there, and it is there to stay. Our job is to make sure, as best we can, that the operations of airports work to meet the needs of the local communities.

As I have said, people know that airports are there to stay but they want to be able to show someone other than those with a vested interest that from a resident’s perspective there is still a lot to be done to achieve better airport planning. They want to be able to direct their concerns through an independent umpire. They can access an ombudsman to hear their concerns regarding the defence forces, immigration or taxation, and even the postal industry. There are complaint bodies to receive representations regarding banking, financial services, telecommunications, energy and insurance but, unfortunately, at this stage, when it comes to airports and the impact they have on the community, there is no independent umpire.

If this government had been more active in paying attention over the last decade to the conflicts that have arisen between the new airport lessee companies and their neighbours—businesses, residents and local government authorities—the Australian public might have more confidence in the airport planning regime and we would not be where we are today. There have been long delays in getting these changes before the parliament.

That brings me to some of the other issues I want to raise today with respect to this bill. I note the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport tabled last night and I fully support the two recommendations laid out in that report. The report represents a proper consideration of the right of members of the community and the business sector to have their views heard through due process with respect to the bill currently before the House.

In the light of that report, and our own consideration of these issues, the opposition will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage to give effect to those recommendations. Firstly, we will seek to add the requirement that airport lessee companies advise state or territory and local government organisations of the commencement of public consultation processes so that they have full awareness and the opportunity to comment and be engaged early in the process rather than simply reading about it in the local newspaper.

Secondly, we will seek to provide for all public consultation submissions received by the airport lessee company to be forwarded to the minister as the decision maker, together with the written statement already required. That is merely a matter of detail so that all the submissions are before the appropriate authority when it considers these complex decisions.

In addition to those two amendments arising from the Senate report there are a number of other amendments that the opposition will propose to improve the integrity of the airport planning and approval process. Should these amendments be defeated the opposition will, in government, revisit these amendments in the context of a broader review of legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

However, having said that, might I also say that airports are not only key parts of the nation’s economic infrastructure but also unique in that there is only one in each capital city. We have to make sure that we secure the future of airports; otherwise we will be cutting off our noses to spite our faces in terms of future economic development in Australia. There is no way any government is going to set about building more airports, because it simply cannot achieve that outcome in many communities.

Airports are here to stay. I will tell you why they are here to stay. The truth of the matter is that the Australian community wants modern airports because they want to use them more than ever. Air travel has grown over the last decade in Australia, especially because of the introduction of Virgin Blue and Jetstar, which means that many people who previously did not have the opportunity to travel by air now regard it as something that they can do on a regular basis.

But it is important that we do the right thing. These airports are the social, tourism, business, government and trade gateways to our regions, states and nation. They connect us with each other—with the rest of Australia and the rest of the world. For that reason we have to get the planning process right. If we get it wrong we are going to make a major economic decision that is wrong for Australia.

Let me also remind the House that it was a federal Labor government—we should never forget this point—that privatised airports, for good reason. The community simply could not afford to keep pace with the investment required to maintain and grow our airports and to expand the aviation industry that we so want in Australia. The privatisation of airports was the right decision for Australia and for Australian taxpayers.

The modernisation and upgrade of airports is now being done by the private sector, and that is good for Australia. But investment in the airport facilities and services that business and the community at large expect and demand will not continue if we undermine the regulatory regime that is the foundation for the viability of airport businesses and their expansion.

The private sector expect some certainty in the investment decisions they make, because they are making those decisions on behalf of their shareholders. Unless there is some certainty that they will get a reasonable return on the value of their investment, they will not make the investments in the future. That is why all of us have to work to make sure that there is a planning regime in place which meets the needs of the private sector, the airport lessee companies, whilst at the same time meeting the needs and expectations of local communities. Our review of legislation, if necessary, will focus not only on local community impacts of airports but also, and importantly, on the greater public good that they bring and on continuing to provide the investment certainty that airport owners need to grow these vital infrastructure assets so necessary to Australia in the 21st century.

In the meantime, let me briefly outline the additional amendments that the opposition will be moving. Firstly, while we note the comments of the Senate committee with respect to the ‘deemed approval’ provision, the need for investment certainty by airports, the view that the deemed approval process places some pressure on the minister and the department to meet their obligations under the act in a timely manner, and the fact that the provision has never been used, it remains of concern to us. I remind the House of the Treasurer’s nondecision of 22 May last year, when at midnight the National Competition Council’s recommendation to declare BHP’s Newman railway under the Trade Practices Act was deemed rejected. That was the right outcome, but it came only because the Treasurer was too gutless to make a decision.

No-one would argue against an effective and efficient access regime for rail haulage for all Pilbara iron ore producers. But the National Competition Council’s recommendation failed to protect the initial investment of BHP Billiton and its billion dollar export industry. And in effect it favoured access seekers over the operations of existing owners, who have borne the risk of investment, who maintain the infrastructure and who operate a sophisticated logistics chain to supply their export markets. Instead of doing the right thing and clearly articulating the national interest, the Treasurer went missing in action. As a result, there remains no investment certainty for BHP and Rio Tinto in the Pilbara. The parties are now embroiled in legal disputation and the future investment in Australia’s export supply chains is at serious risk as a result. Deeming provisions can and do go wrong, and this is an issue we want addressed in this legislation.

The second issue we would like to see addressed is an explicit provision that the department have qualified town planners as one of the many disciplines involved in the assessment of airport development plans. This seems a fair and reasonable requirement to address the concerns of local government authorities when it comes to the integration of town plans with airport plans. I understand that the department does have town planners on its staff and that their advice is utilised in airport development assessments. However, I can see no reason that this should not be an explicit requirement in the act to provide additional confidence to state and local government planning authorities when it comes to the capacity of the department to properly consider airport developments.

The third issue relates to the provision of an explicit statement of reasons if the minister decides not to adopt the recommendations contained in the submissions from state planning agencies and local government authorities. While I understand that the minister’s decision is already reviewable through the administrative appeals process and that aggrieved parties have the right to obtain a statement of reasons from the minister, again I can see no reason that this should not be an explicit requirement of the minister in the decision-making process. This is about providing the community, and state and local government, with confidence in the process and requiring better accountability of the minister. I remind the House in this context about decisions such as the one regarding the Perth brickworks. The fact is that there is a history of disregard of due planning processes and due consideration of the concerns of communities and local governments.

The fourth issue would require the minister to specify in approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and, taking into account rate equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessee to negotiate in good faith with state and local government authorities to reach agreement for appropriate contributions to specific off-airport infrastructure. Again, I know that the act already has a broad conditions power and that the minister has in fact addressed road infrastructure impacts and contributions in previous decisions—though I am not so sure about this being the case at Essendon Airport and the DFO development associated with that—but I am not convinced that the minister has done enough to address the conflicts between airport lessees and local councils when it comes to rate equivalent payments and the interpretation of the obligations in this regard when it comes to airport leases.

When it comes to the important issue of lifting the threshold for major developments from $10 million to $20 million, I simply have to say that this is a fair and reasonable proposition given that construction costs have increased significantly since 1997 and site works must now be included in total costs. By way of comparison, the Public Works Committee recently increased its threshold for project consideration from $6 million to $15 million. Building costs in south-east Queensland last year increased by 13.8 per cent compared to 2005, following a six per cent increase in 2005 and a 9.6 per cent increase in 2004. This suggests that a cost inflation index is appropriate. There will also now be a capacity for the minister to require consecutive or concurrent developments to be included in the total cost. The opposition will be moving an amendment to make sure this is done and is not simply optional for the minister. It is about caution. Again, it is about transparency and about providing greater confidence to the community that the right thing will be done.

There are two other issues which will not be addressed through amendment but which I would like to place on the record. Firstly, the opposition would not like to see Bankstown Airport become one of the non-core regulated airports subject to the lifting of the five per cent airline ownership cap, and we will be addressing this issue should regulations be introduced in this regard.

Secondly, we have some concerns about the accreditation by CASA of parties other than Airservices and the Australian Defence Force to provide airspace and fire and rescue services at Australian airports. I note that to date these provisions have only applied to Townsville Airport and the accredited service provider, Delta. We will be addressing this issue on a case by case basis should additional airports or service providers be added to the schedule by way of regulation.

The opposition will support the bill but, as I have outlined, we will be moving a number of amendments during consideration in detail and I hope the government will give careful consideration to these amendments in the interests of restoring the integrity of the airport planning regime, providing community confidence in it and providing for greater accountability on the part of the minister when it comes to airport development decisions. I therefore move on behalf of the opposition a second reading amendment which seeks to merely lay out our overall concerns about the application of the act in the past, especially with respect to Perth brickworks and the Essendon direct factory outlet. I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.

In moving the amendment, I simply say that the opposition supports the thrust of this bill and the amendments but we believe that there are further improvements to be made. We are seeking to work with the government in a constructive way and we will consider these amendments in the proper consideration in detail process of the House. I simply say to the minister: the Australian community wants airports and it is our responsibility as a parliament to deliver a planning process which guarantees investment whilst at the same time taking local communities with us. Airport planning is a tough process. It is a Commonwealth responsibility. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and the government amendment. As members opposite have indicated, in principle, the concept of this bill has bipartisan support because of the investment that is required for airport infrastructure. That recognises that Australia, possibly more so than any other nation, has relied on aviation both for the transport of people and freight, emergency services, defence and a range of other activities. A large part of that comes down to having the appropriate infrastructure in place to enable training, general aviation operations as well as commercial, charter and regular public transport operations to be in place. When the ALP introduced this bill back in September 1995, the concept was supported in practice by the coalition government, who then actually brought the bill to fruition in 1996.

As well as talking about some of the specific provisions of the bill, I wish to look at the underlying purpose of the bill. This is even reflected in the second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in November 2006. She talked about how, under the Airports Act, proposals for development come back to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. She said:

Developments have included non-aeronautical development on airport land where that is consistent with the long-term development of the airport as an airport.

I think that is an underlying point that all parties involved—whether they be government, local government, airport owners or operators, or other people—need to remember. The primary purpose of these pieces of Commonwealth land, which have been set aside and leased to allow further investment, is not to be predominantly a commercial enterprise around retail or other operations; they are predominantly there as airports. My comments will be along some of those lines.

I turn now to some of the specific points of the bill. I am aware that there has been some concern about, as well as some benefits from, non-aviation related developments. Adjacent to the electorate of Wakefield is the airport of Parafield. I am aware that, for example, the Bunnings Warehouse that is there is utilised by a broad range of people from across Wakefield—as are a number of other retailers who have established on the site of Parafield Airport. There is perceived to be, and indeed there is, a broad community benefit derived from those developments. I do not think anyone would seek to oppose them completely.

However, there are other retailers who have had to comply with local government planning restrictions. Local governments who have sought to actually plan developments for the whole of the area feel as though their whole process has been usurped by the fact that developers can come in and, separately to their plans, establish on Commonwealth land. Part of those concerns, particularly from the councils’ perspective, is that where things like road infrastructure are required there needs to be adequate consultation. For that reason I am pleased to support the government amendment which increases the period of consultation to 60 business days. That allows people to have input into developments. It is broadly consistent with—and, in fact, exceeds—some of the other state and territory development planning requirements.

Under the South Australian Development Act 1993, the public comment period for a major development for something like an environmental impact statement or a public environmental report is six weeks and for a development report it is three weeks. So this is not inconsistent with that. Another thing that has been talked about is the lifting of the threshold from $10 million to $20 million. That does accurately reflect the increased cost of doing business, particularly since it includes all site preparation. I think that is an appropriate change.

What I would like to talk mainly about, though, is this other broader implication—the underlying issue of what is the primary purpose of the airport. I have briefly touched on the importance of air travel for Australia. I believe that the comments in the second reading speech in November 2006 need to be the basis upon which all parties involved move ahead. To reiterate: the developments on airport land that are non-aeronautical must be consistent with the long-term development of the airport as an airport. Part of the reason this is important is that people who do not understand aviation, aviation operations and, particularly, aviation safety, say, logically enough, ‘What are the regulations? As long as we meet those regulations we’ll be fine to move ahead.’

I was interested to see in the June 2000 Senate committee report and recommendations that the committee considered that it would raise public faith in the airport corporation—in this case the Brisbane Airport Corporation—if the corporation were to demonstrate a willingness to go beyond the minimum legislative requirements to meaningfully consult and consider the public as it proceeded with the airport development. I would argue that going beyond the minimum requirements also needs to apply to their liaison and engagement with other stakeholders, such as the operators. I am talking here particularly about general aviation airports where those operators are not large firms. They are normally small operators who are working to pretty tight margins and do not have a lot of capacity to adapt, when costs are involved, to changes that are imposed upon them. I think that consultation—which was pushed by the Senate committee in that report—is something that needs to be carried out in good faith by airport corporations. Just meeting the minimum requirements is not necessarily all that is going to be required. It is interesting to note that, when the various airport corporations look at requirements, they do not necessarily see that if there is an impact on aviation operations then perhaps they need to reconsider what they are planning to do.

The strategic plan for the Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd looks at the range of their operators, and some of the operators include general aviation and helicopters. They make the comment that they are not going to invest any further in those facilities. They think they are adequate for the current range of operations. But they imply they believe that in the future the flexibility of those operations may reduce due to tighter regulations or operational restrictions. My argument is that, if the primary purpose of that land being made available is for aviation operations, then developments and modifications are the things that need to be limited, as opposed to those developments and modifications limiting the aviation operations. I think there is a fundamental difference in position there that needs to be considered.

To a certain extent, we see that already. The decision by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services this year to not approve the development of a shopping precinct near Sydney airport on the basis of safety was a welcome decision, but it raises this whole issue of regulation versus reason. I use those two words very deliberately, and I will explain why. Regulations are, if you like, the things that set the minimum standard. They also link into, from an aviation perspective, the Reason concept. The Reason model is a safety model that is used broadly in the aviation community, where it recognises that there is no one element of an aviation operation that is going to guarantee safety.

The original model that Reason put up was that safety was like trying to shoot a ray of light through a number of slices of Swiss cheese. Every slice had holes in it—no slice was perfect—but, as long as you had enough slices and as long as all the holes did not line up, you could stop that beam of light from getting through and you could prevent an accident. But, the more holes you had in those slices, the more you increased the chance of something happening. So, if every single element of safety—whether it be regulation, air crew training, the equipment in question, the airport standards we have designed or the weather minima that are in place—is right at its minimum, that is the equivalent of having a number of pieces of Swiss cheese with big holes in them, which increases the possibility of an accident.

I believe what the committee said: corporations should demonstrate a willingness to go beyond the minimum legislative requirements to consult and this should also be extended to their approach to the minimum requirements in terms of who is operating at their airport, what other factors come into play, and how they collectively work together to ensure that they can be viable as a business with their lease holding and that the aviation operations can continue profitably and, most importantly, safely.

There are guidelines. There is the manual of standards; part 139 for aerodromes is the base that people use now, but there are other standards such as advisory publications. CAAP 92-1 looks, for example, at aeroplane landing areas, and it has principles in it. For example, at paragraph 8.4, titled Geographic Location, it states:

A landing area should not be located:

(c)

where take-off or landing involving flight over a populated area creates an unnecessary hazard.

You can have RPT, regular public transport, operations into a main airport. Generally speaking, they are taking off and landing over set approach and departure routes. So the exposure per flight is literally that approach and take-off.

When you go to a GA airport, though, and training operations are under way, you see that circuit training is quite common. Aircraft are taking off, flying a circuit around the immediate area of the airport and coming back in to land. If risk is a combination of consequence and exposure then what we are seeing there is that there is a far larger exposure where those aircraft are doing training operations. In terms of populating the area around the airport, generally speaking, airports were put there with minimum obstacles around the runway, but also in the back of people’s minds was the thought that we have student pilots and we have aircraft that are not necessarily built to the same standards. You have the FAR 23 for GA and the FAR 25 standard, which is applied to different aircraft depending upon the level of safety for regular public transport operations.

So there is a range of factors. It is a bit like the Reason model: we are now starting to get more holes in those pieces of cheese. It is important that, just as the CAAP provides in the guidance, we should not be unnecessarily flying over populated areas. When we look at how much we actually bulk out areas around a GA airport, we also need to take that into account from a flight safety perspective. Then we have things like operational limitations. Increasingly, aircraft are becoming equipped for flight and instrument meteorological conditions. In fact, CASA are encouraging people to use GPS technology and to have non-precision approach runways. There are standards that apply to that, but the standards that apply under CAAP 89P look at the approach obstacle limitation surface and gradient. It extends that quite considerably compared to a non-instrument rated runway in terms of the amount of obstacle-free area that has to be there.

When obstacles are there, it means that in designing the approach, particularly the circling minimum—that is, when you come down, you break free of cloud and you have to circle around to land—there has to be a given height between obstacles and that circling minimum. Every time we put buildings in there, particularly two-storey or higher buildings, that raises the minima for those approaches. The designers have to take that into account. That starts placing operational restrictions on aircraft that could have got in with no buildings there, but now they cannot make that approach or they perhaps need to carry alternate fuel to go somewhere else because these new obstacles within the OLS area are pushing the minima higher.

The regulation is one thing—it defines the minimums—but the Reason model of flight safety indicates that there are a number of factors that have to be considered. My call to the airport operators is that when they are looking at their consultation, they should use this period that the government amendment approves not only for extended community consultation—to speak to local councils and to the local community, and my understanding is that that process is improving—but also to consult closely with not just the large RPT companies, but also, particularly at GA airports, with the smaller operators and really understand what the implications are of development on both the safety and the effectiveness of operations in terms of both physical hazards and operational limitations with things like implications for IFR approach and procedures.

Aviation is an important industry for Australia. We cannot afford to price them or regulate the training and the breeding ground for our pilots—which is often in the GA world—out of business. Part of that requires a partnership on the part of the airport owners in their consultation. I welcome the decision earlier this year by the minister, which was based on a safety case, to not go ahead with the development, and I think that principle should be applied more broadly to ensure the continuation, viability and safety of all aviation operations in Australia.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. In the second reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services spoke in lyrical terms about the importance of community input to airport planning. Specifically, the government claims to have developed consultation guidelines to ensure the exchange of views between the operators of privatised airports and the other stakeholders in airport planning. This legislation ensures that the consultation period will be 60 business days. What is not clear from the bill is the use of the term ‘demonstrating’. This is used in the context of airport management demonstrating due regard for public comment in the preparation of the airport master plan.

Over my parliamentary career I have taken an intense interest in issues relating to Bankstown Airport. While it is not currently in my electorate, residents of Banks are deeply affected by the operation of the airport. With the recent redistribution in New South Wales, Bankstown Airport will now fall within the new seat of Banks. I should at this point acknowledge the vigorous attention given to Bankstown Airport by the member for Blaxland, Michael Hatton. No doubt he and I will continue to work together on this issue, as it will remain critical to the residents of both Banks and Blaxland.

Theoretically, this bill is to ensure that state planning authorities, local governments and the community are provided with sufficient opportunity to comment on the airport regulatory regime. We are told by the parliamentary secretary in the second reading speech:

... the government is committed to ensuring the consultation processes in the scheme are operated effectively and ensure genuine engagement.

In addition to the change in the consultation processes, the dollar threshold for even requiring a major development plan is to be increased from $10 million to $20 million. This will allow airport owners more opportunity to implement development plans before actually consulting local residents and other key stakeholders.

I note that the lessees will be required to provide planning documentation to be more readily available to the community. I also note that improved information regarding noise exposure levels will be provided to the public and local planning authorities. I am unclear how these steps are going to assist the communities around regional airports to have the opportunity to comment or whether those comments are going to be listened to. The reality is that the government has the numbers and, in all probability, this bill will become law. The public consultation period will now be 60 days. That said, I would like to think that airport operators might take this as an opportunity to consider the quality of the consultation process and make genuine attempts to confer with their local communities. The bill provides the impetus for a review of the past and a move towards a more positive consultative process.

Bankstown Airport was established in 1940 and has become a part of the community of Bankstown and the surrounding areas. Families moved into the area knowing there was an airport. In the time I have represented the electorate of Banks, I know that most residents have come to terms with living near an airport but maintain concerns over potential increases in noise, activity and impact on local infrastructure. That is why it is critical that airport management work hard to maintain positive relations with the local community. If handled appropriately, the consultative process can reach mutually satisfactory results.

At the same time, concerns have been raised with me by aeronautical businesses currently operating out of Bankstown. This includes the disquiet expressed by Bankstown City Council and others in relation to the development of the Bankstown Airport zone, which will include space for retailers, manufacturing, logistics and a business park. In its submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport’s inquiry into this bill, the local government and shires association stated at page 1:

The impact of airports on adjacent urban areas has been exacerbated in recent years with a significant shift in the use of airport land from purely aviation-related purposes to other commercial developments such as retail, hotels and entertainment. These developments are no different to commercial developments elsewhere, yet are excluded from normal State and Local Government planning processes due to the historical arrangements underpinning the Airports Act.

The New South Wales government submission to the inquiry makes a similar point, while indicating that:

... all airport non-aviation development (excluding defence or airport ancillary developments inside of terminal buildings) be subject to relevant State and Territory Planning Laws, policies and procedures.

The New South Wales government further suggests that master plans and major planning proposals be ‘subject to a review by an independent panel’.

A number of small operators and the organisation Save Our Secondary Airports, or SOS, have indicated some of the changes to their operations in the two years since the privatisation of Bankstown. These businesses are now under increasing financial pressure being applied by Bankstown Airport Ltd. This pressure consists of several key decisions taken over the past two years. Ground rents have been increased, and SOS indicates that this has been up to 200 per cent. Mr Bill Miller, who runs a helicopter charter business, said in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 March 2006 that his rent has increased by 108 per cent in the past year.

By their very nature, businesses located on airport land require space to operate. These small operators at Bankstown bought into their businesses or established them on the basis that ground rents would remain reasonable. An excellent example is that of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which has a small base located at Bankstown. The real value of that organisation to both the local and the broader community cannot be realised by high rents.

Some leases have not been renewed or have been renewed for only short periods of time. There has been a tradition of renewal, given that the airport is on crown land and freehold title has not been possible. SOS argues that the government, prior to the sale, could have offered the leaseholders the opportunity to regularise these arrangements. When the minister was asked about this in a question on notice by the member from Hunter on 9 May 2006, he responded that rental arrangements are a commercial arrangement. Certainly they are; nonetheless, tenants have a genuine grievance when their businesses were established on the basis of crown land leases and then the rules are changed.

The rules have not changed in terms of the planning processes involved, as the New South Wales government has indicated. I have been advised, however, that there seem to be mechanisms to allow a lessee some recourse when negotiating leases. In an article in Airports magazine in April 2006, the CEO of Moorabbin Airport said, in a discussion on the nature of airport leases:

… but mechanisms do exist to ensure that if agreement cannot be reached then arbitration and ultimately independent valuation will be used.

Hopefully it will not come to this. I hear the arguments from BAL and the other airport owners about the nature of rents in the past, and there is some justification in those arguments. Notwithstanding that, I urge the airport owners to give consideration to the view that, given the size of the increases, these be gradually introduced over time. In this way, airport owners may go some way toward demonstrating their good faith in operating with the lessees.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia also made a submission to the Senate inquiry. Two of the key points made by the association—and, I note, supported in other submissions—were that AOPA ‘believes that the consultation processes employed by GAAP airport operators to date may be deficient in the area of consideration of dissenting views’. Secondly, AOPA supports proposed item 47, paragraph 79(2)(c), which states:

This item provides that an airport-lessee company must ‘demonstrate’ how the company has had due regard to comments provided by the public in preparing their draft master plan …

There are conflicting views about the use of the word ‘demonstrate’ in item 47, as I noted previously. Bankstown Airport Ltd states in its submission on page 5 that more information needs to be provided on exactly what the term ‘demonstrate’ means. It seems to me that airport management, airport lessees and the community would like to have this term qualified.

I am not against a company turning a fair profit. But let me comment on the impact that these decisions have on my community. If businesses close or move to other airports because of escalating costs, then people in my electorate and surrounding electorates are at risk of losing their jobs. Bankstown Airport is a major employer in the area. The flying schools employ staff and attract clients who purchase commodities on site and at local shopping centres. These schools use fuel supplied by local fuel companies who employ local people. Aircraft servicing in the form of aircraft parts, parts fabrication, avionics servicing and installation, aircraft painting, cleaning, office cleaning, catering, office supplies, IT support, security services and so on are all required. Local people are employed directly and indirectly because of aircraft operations at Bankstown Airport. Concerns have also been raised by AOPA Australia. In a media release on 16 August 2006, AOPA said:

They—

operators—

are being forced off airports with little or no recompense for any improvements or building costs incurred. There is no effort at enhancement or assistance for existing aviation small businesses—instead they are told to pay more and earn less, or leave.

Again I say that I do not object to companies turning a profit, but we must carefully consider the impact of the 120 hectares of land which has been designated for a business, manufacturing and retail park at Bankstown. Where is the money to repair and replace our neighbourhood roads? State government estimates indicate that road traffic in the area could increase by 13,000 vehicles per annum.

I have provided some detail of local community involvement with Bankstown Airport to simply make the point that the airport is clearly a part of the community. That community must be provided with reasonable opportunity to comment on developments at the airport. Further, that comment must be taken seriously. It is only when all the parties operate in good faith that a mutually satisfactory result can be achieved.

In 2004, we saw a consultative process conducted when BAL published its draft master plan. Almost 4,000 submissions were made, including submissions from me; the member for Blaxland; the state member for East Hills, Alan Ashton; and thousands of people in the local area. I am pleased to say that we did get a prohibition on large jet aircraft—that is, 737s, 717s and the like would not be able to land at Bankstown Airport. But things change. I refer to a report in the Daily Telegraph on 22 June 2006 that the airport owners were in discussion with Airbus to introduce the so-called ‘quiet’ A318 aircraft. The member for Blaxland, Mr Michael Hatton, stated at the time that it was important to see the statistics on the levels of noise—and so it is. It could be said that this is the thin end of the wedge when it comes to the so-called 20-year master plan. We have a master plan approved, we have community consultation of a kind and then the rules change. Whether the claims about Airbus are true or not, I use this to provide an illustration of how things can change—even when there was a form of community consultation.

My point is this: given the likely passage of this legislation, it will now be even more incumbent upon airport management to ensure that the consultative process is quality based. This can be an opportunity for both sides to show they are operating in good faith. I draw the attention of the House to the community commitment made by BAL. I quote from their website:

The Bankstown Airport Community Consultative Forum is a community committee established to provide a forum for community to have direct interaction and input into the development and operation of Bankstown Airport through representatives of interested community based organisations.

One of the purposes of that forum is to ‘assist in resolving and prioritising issues based on local knowledge’. I urge Bankstown Airport management to continue to take that commitment seriously.

In the 17 years that I have been the member for Banks, my record—including comments I have made about Bankstown Airport—speaks for itself. I have never been an airport basher. I have always accepted that the airport is there, that it provides jobs and that it is integral to our local community. All that I have insisted upon in my time as the member for Banks is that the residents and the local community be dealt with in an honest, open and transparent fashion, that the airport and those involved with the airport recognise that their actions impact on the local community and that we want the airport owners to be good community citizens. I met with representatives of the airport, and I was impressed with the meeting that I had with them. All I ask is for them to give that consideration to the local community, because I think it is better for the airport to have the local community on side. And most of the local community are on side, because the airport provides jobs and it impacts on the local community.

Consultation and changes need to be considered. Changes were made to the master plan in respect of where helicopters would take off. The initial proposal would have had an adverse impact on residents in Milperra, who had never experienced that aircraft noise before. To the credit of the airport operators, the master plan was changed. Amendments were made, and I was communicated with recently by them in that regard. That is a positive example of a satisfactory conclusion being reached after interaction between the local community and the airport owners. It turned out to be a win-win situation. With some modifications, the airport owners achieved what they wanted and the impact on the community was not as bad.

That sort of thing goes a long way to allaying the fears of the local community. In respect of Sydney airport—and this applies to both sides of politics—when Labor was in power, misinformation was given to the local community. The local community was not informed in an honest fashion of the consequences of some of the decisions. I do not want to go over the old third runway arguments, the lead-up to the third runway, what was promised, what happened and what subsequently changed, but I think those sorts of things do not do anyone any good.

It is important that legislation such as this has the support of both sides of the House, the government and the alternative government, because we should not play politics with airports. These decisions have long-term impacts on local communities and they should not be taken with an eye to politics. For some people, that is in some ways an unrealistic view of the world—because most things do involve a level of politics—but key structural decisions about transport needs and the impact on local communities can be above politics. Those decisions should be based on not only what is best for the companies concerned but also the impact on local communities. I commend the bill to the House.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 I would like to firstly acknowledge members of the Australian Defence Force who are in the gallery this morning to be part of the parliament and to witness the proceedings. I assume they are here as part of the exchange program, and they are very welcome. I hope they find the debate interesting and that they can admire the spirit of bipartisanship we are witnessing here this morning.

I rise to support this bill because, firstly, the Airports Amendment Bill, while not revolutionising the Airports Act 1996, provides some improvements to the act—in particular, the arrangements for airlines that own smaller airports. Secondly, the bill makes changes to airport land use, planning and building controls and environment management provisions. Thirdly, the bill confirms the ACCC’s capacity to monitor and evaluate the quality of airport services and facilities. It is the second point into which I will be going in more detail today.

I believe that the bill before the parliament does in fact offer some sensible changes to the Airports Act. I also believe that airport users will be particularly pleased at changes that are contained in it. In my community of northern Tasmania, the issue of air services, by way of access and quality, is a constant talking point, both for the tourism industry and for the business traveller.

Launceston Airport is serviced by three airlines. Those are QantasLink, Virgin Blue and Jetstar. Last year, Qantas announced that it was scaling back its services, which was met with predictable and understandable concern from the local community. Qantas withdrew its jet service and replaced it with a QantasLink turboprop service, and that of course had immediate ramifications for the concerns in the community that the quality of the travelling experience to Launceston would be adversely affected. I am pleased at least to be able to report to the House that the planes that are arriving in Launceston are reasonably well occupied and that there appears to be a strong case for QantasLink in the future to provide even better services than they presently do.

As the local member, I felt it was my duty to respond to these challenges, and I went on to form the Launceston Air Action Group. We have had some positive and productive talks with all of the airlines that service Launceston, and I hope that those discussions will continue to be fruitful in the future.

But, despite my general support of this amendment bill, I still remain concerned about the discharge of the Australian government’s responsibility to deal with airport land use, planning and building controls so far as it concerns airports which are covered by the act. I say that with thought to my home state of Tasmania—in particular, Hobart International Airport, which is one of the airports that are the subject of controls within the Airports Act.

I would like to take this opportunity this morning to remind the House about the controversy that has been raging for the last 12 to 18 months over the planned Direct Factory Outlet for southern Tasmania. To inform the House further, I would like to remind you that the development is being proposed by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd. If it goes ahead, it will cover an extraordinarily large ground area of 77,000 square metres in retail floor space alone. This is not taking into account exterior hard surfaces or the footprint of the development en masse; what I am referring to is the actual amount of retail floor space upon which customers can wander up and down corridors or mall ways and go into stores: the stores themselves, the internal floor space of 77,000 square metres.

To anybody listening, perhaps that just sounds like another number. Let me just put it into context. Those 77,000 square metres of retail floor space would represent the largest discount factory outlet in Australia, along with its furniture stores, a hardware centre and bulky goods. This would be the largest of its kind in the country, in the capital city of the smallest state. In retail space alone, this represents some 20 acres of shopping. I am advised that that represents about the size of four Australian Rules football fields.

It is not that I oppose the development per se, and it is not that I oppose the entry of a new retail precinct into Tasmania—and some may be wondering why I am concerned about something happening in Hobart, in the south, when I plainly have an electorate well away from that, in the north. But the reality is that it is simply the dimensions of this project that cause me grave concern, not just for the business district in Hobart and surrounding areas but because of the size and the scale of it. I am very deeply concerned about the distortion effect that it will have on small business and the retail sector all across the state. I think it is inconceivable for anybody to put up an argument that a development of this size and scale will not have an adverse impact on businesses in my community of northern Tasmania.

Today I would particularly like to acknowledge the concern which has been expressed by the Launceston Chamber of Commerce in a submission that it lodged with Hobart International Airport in the course of Hobart International Airport’s obligation to consult and to take public comment. The chamber raised issues of planning and how the proposed development simply does not comply with Tasmania’s own Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. That is a state act of parliament which of course, as we all know, does not apply to developments which are proposed on Commonwealth owned land—that is, airports covered under the Airports Act. However, it is a relevant argument to be raising. It is important for us to understand. In the process of a federal government assessment of a development on Commonwealth owned land, we ought to have close regard to how that proposal would be considered if it were on state controlled land, which is just about all land in Tasmania other than Commonwealth. The chamber argues that the development does not fulfil the aims of the National Charter of Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning.

In particular, I think it is important to point out that when other development proposals of this kind have been proposed in Tasmania they have faced many hurdles, which perhaps is not always the case in other states. In particular, there was a proposal for a big box development in the northern midlands area, which is just to the south of Launceston, in a rural community. The application for a rezoning and subsequent approval of the big box development was approved by the Northern Midlands Council. It was taken to appeal and the Resource Planning and Development Commission heard that appeal and took into account the concerns which were being raised, principally from the Launceston City Council, a neighbouring council and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, along with Cityprom Ltd, which represents central Launceston retailers.

Interestingly, the RPDC accepted the view of those people who are arguing against this development, and it did so on a number of bases. Time does not permit me to go into the detail but, in particular, the RPDC was concerned about regional strategy. In the end, it did not regard the Northern Midlands Council as a stand-alone jurisdiction which could be viewed in isolation from its neighbouring council areas. Unfortunately, in Tasmania, as a result of a legacy of our local politics, we have, for a population of less than half a million people, 29 local government areas. That has some positives, but it also has many problems associated with it. One of them is the lack of a regional approach that can result from having neighbouring councils fighting. You are far better to take a regional approach, as much as possible, with small populations.

From 1969 until 1990 there was an organisation by the name of the Tamar Regional Master Planning Authority. That comprised members elected by the City of Launceston itself and also by neighbouring municipalities. So in that regard, it was a regional body. It developed a master plan for the region, which was finalised in 1990. It was never formally adopted. However, councils which comprise that committee did take away from that organisation its master plan and effectively implemented it in their local communities. While the local councils were still independent of each other, there was this notion of having a regional approach because, by working together, you all become stronger.

Interestingly, the commercial hierarchy, recommended by the TRMPA, based on size and function, essentially recognised that for all of these communities the regional centre was Launceston. Launceston is, if you like, the hub of all of these communities. It then had larger district centres, such as Kings Meadows, and it had smaller district centres, such as Mowbray and Riverside. Scaling down, as you go out from the radius of Launceston, effectively you then get down to large neighbourhood centres, small neighbourhood centres, local stores and rural centres, such as Longford, Perth and Evandale. The local councils, including Northern Midlands—the subject council in this case—Meander Valley and West Tamar all then went away and effectively implemented that plan, at least in intent, in their planning schemes.

Coming back to the RPDC decision, it rejected the rezoning application for the big box centre on the basis that it was contrary to the regional strategy, which was agreed to. Its conclusion was that the amendment provides for:

… uses and development which can be expected to impact adversely on the Northern Tasmanian regional retail hierarchy, and thus be in conflict with planning strategy for the region.

This is a key point because, under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act of the Tasmanian parliament, it recognised that, in all of the approvals, appeals and all of those processes which go through state planning bodies, retail hierarchy and regional strategy are factors to be taken into consideration. This is not a feature of the Airports Act. When the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services receives an application for a major development on Commonwealth owned land at an airport which is subject to the Airports Act, unfortunately these aspects, which are reflected in Tasmanian law, are not a feature of the Airports Act. Given a future opportunity, I would welcome the Australian government introducing such a provision into the Commonwealth act. I think that would be a major improvement.

I think the concerns of those people in this place about developments which they regard as inappropriate, or which they regard as needing some extra assistance in getting approved, would also be satisfied if we could implement within the act a more deliberate function of the minister regarding state planning laws. I do not agree with the argument which is being put up by various state planning ministers that the states ought to take back the role of land use and planning issues for Commonwealth land. That is a ridiculous notion. But I do believe that the Commonwealth government, in determining the future for development on Commonwealth land, ought to have a regard and, even if it is just that, it ought to be a deliberate function of government.

In addressing this point, I would like to bring to the attention of the House some advice I have received with regard to this matter, which gives me some heart. Can the minister take into account planning issues when giving his approval for airport master plans and major development plans? I asked this question specifically with regard to the issue at Hobart. The advice is that it seems that the fact that the legislation specifically states that both major development plans and final master plans need to at least include information regarding how the plans fit in with state planning laws does suggest that the minister may need to keep that in mind when deciding whether or not to approve the plans.

I hope that is so. But it is not deliberately mentioned in the act, so I again put it up as a future proposal. Having said that, I have had meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister in his role as minister administering the Airports Act. A major development plan has still not been put forward by Hobart International Airport. They keep talking about it, they put up their public information and they go through these processes, but, as far as I am aware, no MDP has been put forward. I continue to urge the minister to have regard to the issues of regional strategy and retail hierarchy. I believe the proposed development will have a very adverse effect on the retail businesses in my electorate in northern Tasmania.

I will turn briefly, in the time remaining, to the role of the state government in this matter. I am very angry about the way in which the Tasmanian government has conducted itself with regard to the DFO proposed for the Hobart airport site. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to advise you and my colleagues in the House that Hobart International Airport is 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian government. All shares in the airport are owned by the Tasmanian government. How ironic that the government which is demanding that the Commonwealth give back planning powers to the state governments is putting up this proposal through one of its 100 per cent owned companies.

When the community raised concerns about this proposal with the Tasmanian state government, government ministers and Premier Lennon himself said: ‘Nothing we can do. We can’t control this process because we don’t have any jurisdiction over it.’ That is wrong. While in a legal sense he is certainly right, the Tasmanian government are the owner of this company and, as such, the actual proponent of the proposal. If the Tasmanian government were so minded, they could pull the proposal tomorrow. They could direct their directors to scrap the proposal. They could direct that the proposal be changed. They could direct that the proposal be made to conform with Tasmanian planning laws.

As I have said in the past, there is some room for both the Tasmanian and Australian governments to give some ground on this matter. The fact is that the Tasmanian government has been extremely dishonest in its handling of this matter. It has wanted to sheet the blame away from itself for a proposal that will have an adverse impact on small business and employment in my community. The government has been very duplicitous, and it ought to be condemned for that.

The bill is an improvement. I am very pleased that the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister listened to me and a number of my colleagues when we asked for the consultation period to be increased. I welcome the fact that it is being increased to effectively 12 weeks, at 60 working days. I thank the minister for that, and I understand that an amendment will be forthcoming. (Time expired)

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

I rise to express my deep concern about some important aspects of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006, which affect directly or indirectly the constituents of Lowe and others who are affected by Sydney basin airports, such as Bankstown Airport. The electorate of Lowe is located directly under the northern flight paths of Sydney airport. Residents of Lowe have long suffered from the reckless and irresponsible policies of the Howard government and its surrender to the interests of Macquarie Bank and its affiliates in the elimination of pricing surveillance, thus causing massive rises in airline landing fees and retail fees, including parking.

Prices for aviation landing fees have forced regional airlines out of Sydney airport and into Bankstown Airport. Prices for landing fees have risen hundreds of times higher than the consumer price index, despite the categorical promises made in 2001 by the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services that this would not occur. In particular, prior to the privatisation of Sydney airport, airports were subject to price regulation in the form of price notification and price monitoring by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This price regulation included the regulation of prices notification for aeronautical services and monitoring of aeronautical related services under the Prices Surveillance Act.

Prior to the exploration of the price caps for Sydney airport, in December 2000 the Commonwealth government asked the Productivity Commission to inquire as to whether price regulation was required at privatised airports, and Sydney airport was one of them. The Productivity Commission opted for a light-handed approach in its recommendations and recommended that price caps and prices notification arrangements at Sydney airport should be replaced by a mandatory price monitoring arrangement for a probationary five-year period. The then minister for transport announced on 13 May 2002 that the government had accepted the Productivity Commission’s recommendation that Sydney airport be subject to price monitoring for five years, effective from 1 July 2002.

The minister further announced on 13 May 2002 that the new arrangements would not impact on regional airline operations into and out of Sydney and that regional airlines would continue to be guaranteed reasonable access to Sydney airport under the slot management system and with a prohibition on any increases in aeronautical charges that exceeded the CPI. I note from the ACCC media statement titled ‘ACCC decision on Sydney airport prices of 11 May 2001’ that a decision, too, was made to increase Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd aeronautical revenue in 2000-01 from $93 million to around $183 million—an increase of $90 million or 97 per cent. This compares with the increase sought by SACL of 130 per cent. Since privatisation, aeronautical revenue at Sydney airport has increased to a far higher rate than CPI.

This point is most relevant to today’s bill. The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is but one more item in a litany of acts of betrayal against the people of Sydney in order to pander to the vested interests of Macquarie Bank and its affiliates. Macquarie Bank is not content to make normal operating profits. It must now purchase Qantas itself and thus force the people of Sydney to use Macquarie Bank motorways, Macquarie Bank taxi services, Macquarie Bank airports and now Macquarie Bank airlines.

One underhand purpose of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is found in item 21. Item 21 of the bill allows regulations to be made that would permit airlines to own more than five per cent of an airport-operator company which owns or manages a non-core regulated airport, such as Bankstown Airport. It is more than fortuitous that this bill would enable an airline to own more than five per cent of a non-core airport such as Bankstown Airport. This is so in light of the much publicised moves by Macquarie Bank and its affiliates to purchase Qantas. The duplicity could not be more pronounced or transparent.

I place on the record my total opposition to Bankstown Airport becoming one of the non-core regulated airports subject to the lifting of the five per cent airline ownership cap. Any consortium with an interest in swallowing up Bankstown Airport would do well to keep the corks in the Bollinger on hold. Should regulations be proposed to allow Bankstown Airport to become exempt from the five per cent airline ownership prohibition, I can assure members that I will pursue this matter most vigorously.

It is further noted that another purpose of the bill is to ‘improve the pool of available investment funds’ for relevant airports. To do so, it appears that this bill supplements the existing section 32 by explicitly incorporating into that section the interpretation found in Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 32. In essence, non-aeronautical development in a lease agreement between an airport operator and the Commonwealth will be permissible. Item 16 further provides that such businesses must also be consistent with the master plan.

I note other provisions of this bill, particularly the slashing of time proposed in these provisions in which the public interest stakeholders have to respond to amendments to airport master plans, major and minor development plans and environment strategies found in parts 5 and 6 of the Airports Act. I am appalled at the attempt by the government to justify the savaging and slashing of community consultation periods and public comment periods. Again, quoting from the Bills Digest, I note:

... the Bill also reduces the time allowed for public comment on drafts of Master Plans, Major Development Plans and Environment Strategies. It is currently 90 calendar days and this is being reduced to 45 business days. Disregarding any allowance for any public holidays, this represents a reduction from approximately 13 weeks to 9 weeks for comment.

And further:

... the public comment period for (so-called) minor variations of Master Plans, Major Development Plans and Environment Strategies has been reduced from 30 days to 15 days ...

Mr Deputy Speaker, you are doubtless aware that there has been a revolt about that. How can the community and the public interest possibly be served with the cynical, savage cuts in consultation that are attempted in the original bill? Airport master plans, major development plans and environment strategies are instruments of the utmost complexity. These instruments contain reams of technical data, statistics and complex calculations. We know from experience that an airport lessee company can take over three years of research and preparation for a master plan, major development plan and environment strategy. So I ask the Minister for Transport and Regional Services: how is a member of the public, a local council or a state government supposed to be able to respond adequately within 45 days to a plan that may take upwards of three years to prepare? To demand that members of the public do so is to deny them natural justice.

It is sophistry to suggest that a 45-day consultation period will bring airport consultation times in line with other jurisdictions such as local government. What a load of humbug that is. That is what the government were proposing. One can hardly compare a development application for a two-storey home at the local government level with the preparation of a highly technical master plan or major development plan for Sydney airport. The impact of a two-storey home on the amenity of any neighbourhood is nothing like the impact of new flight paths or a 48,000 square metre shopping centre at Sydney airport. To compare the two is preposterous and dishonest. The only validity of such bastardy and cutbacks in time can be to delimit and effectively annihilate the public interest so that the only researched submission to these plans and strategies is the proponent itself.

Ordinary members of the public, like the people I represent in Sydney’s inner west, should have months, not days, to investigate the many complex issues that will arise, such as noise and traffic, not to mention the potential disastrous impacts on some of the property values in the area. Members of the public, local councils and state governments should have time to obtain detailed expert analysis on technical matters raised in master plans and major development plans. They should have time to challenge the assertions and obfuscation of airport owners such as Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd. Why should the only substantive submission to an airport master plan or major development plan be from the applicant itself? Why should these mini-republics in major cities have carte blanche to do what they want with even greater ease?

Without amendment, the government’s changes will impede and do violence to an already flawed maladministration of Commonwealth law. I am particularly galled, as is the rest of the community, that Airports Act laws could be amended with such reckless indifference towards the public interest. That is what the government were intending. Indeed, as I noted from the Bills Digest, which cites the contribution to the debate by the member for Dawson, the purpose of this bill is to ‘improve the available pool of investment funds’. This so-called ‘improvement’ really translates into the same, tired old anarcho-capitalist mentality of the government in removing all environmental, airport control and pricing regulatory regimes so as to turn all Sydney Basin airports into a money-raking, gouging exercise.

This bill yet again further lowers the bar for the chosen few, such as Macquarie Bank and Colonial First State Bank, who own Bankstown Airport Corporation. These banks are allowed to purchase airport leases and airport corporations whilst enjoying windfall after windfall as this government makes amendment after amendment to regulatory laws so as to accommodate these corporations at the expense of my constituents. I do not call these ‘profits’, because these moneys are being obtained at the expense of both the environment and aviation safety.

I turn now to the two social costs from this bill, namely the costs from this bill to the people of Sydney on the environment as well as to the fundamental issue of aviation safety. In environmental terms, this bill continues to persist in the legal fiction that core and non-core airports are operated upon land which is not the subject of state planning, pollution and other environmental laws. This is a major point of controversy for our state government parliamentary colleagues, who support airports such as Sydney and Bankstown airports. I commend my parliamentary colleagues in the New South Wales parliament who have fought vigorously and consistently on the manifest injustice to the resident ratepayers of New South Wales, who must suffer the ignominy of seeing the airport lessee companies exempted from state environmental laws.

I am aware of the litigation that has occurred in the cases of Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd [2005] FCA 32 and Direct Factory Outlets Pty Ltd v Westfield Management Ltd [2005] FCA 34. Item 16 of this bill attempts to overcome the limitations of the existing section 32, which is apparent in the fact that the Federal Court in these cases considered the non-aeronautical development to be not inconsistent with the provisions of section 32. However, this is only part of the story. It is in fine style that this government would wait until commercial imperatives in direct harm occur before being shunted into action. I speak for the broader application of state environmental laws being locked out of application in development generally.

I point out what I consider to be the core constitutional issue of the operation of the Airports Act 1996. I specifically refer to section 112 of the act titled ‘Exclusion of State/Territory Laws’. Members of this House should note that section 112 refers exclusively to part 5 of the Airports Act, dealing only with master plans and major and minor development plans and building activities. Section 112 states:

(1)

It is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State or Territory.

(2)

In particular, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State or Territory relating to:

(a)

land use planning; or

(b)

the regulation of building activities (within the meaning of Division 5).

I turn to clause 122 of the bill, which prescribes a purpose statement of a final environment strategy. I note that one of these purpose statements in the bill is to:

… ensure that all operations at the airport are undertaken in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards …

So what does ‘relevant environmental legislation and standards’ mean? To answer this question, it is necessary to refer to the provision found in section 136 under part 6 of the act titled ‘Environmental management’. It is significant to note the distinctly different, indeed opposite, intention of section 136 of the act to that found in section 112:

(1)

Subject to this section, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Division is not to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State or Territory to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Division.

(2)

The regulations may declare that a specified law of a State or Territory has no effect in relation to a specified airport to the extent to which the law makes provision for and in relation to a matter referred to [certain provisions] ...

I quote sections 112 and 136 to show that the Airports Act 1996 contemplates diametrically opposite legislator’s intentions, depending on whether we are talking about, on the one hand, airport land use, planning and building controls in instruments such as master plans and major development plans or, on the other hand, environmental management found in environmental strategies.

For airport land use instruments, Commonwealth law is to apply to the exclusion of state law, whereas with environmental management, part 6 is not to apply to the exclusion of state laws, including environmental laws. What are we to make of these provisions? A plain reading of section 136 would mean that environmental management is subject to state environmental laws of New South Wales. If so, the issue is whether the minister will make laws consistent with New South Wales environmental law, including its planning and development and pollution laws, concerning the environmental management of airports.

I ask this parliament a question that I have asked on several occasions: has the Minister for Transport and Regional Services thought through the legislation he puts to this House? It is clear to me that this bill, and in particular item 122, contemplates that the purpose of airport environmental strategies is to ensure that airport operations are undertaken in conformance with environmental legislation, including New South Wales state environmental law pursuant to section 136.

This is what the significant grievance throughout the broader community is about—that is, whether state and territory laws apply to their relevant airport lands. Why should Macquarie Bank at Sydney airport or Colonial First State at Bankstown Airport be permitted to develop airport lands as retail outlets, shopping centres and the like, apparently exempt—so we are told—from state planning, environmental and pollution laws, whilst other corporate and Australian families must be subjected to those stringent New South Wales planning, environmental and pollution laws?

I note that the New South Wales legislature has a comprehensive and well-formulated environmental and planning regime developed over decades of refinement. New South Wales planning and development legislation, pollution regimes and other environmental laws are excellent law, administered by professional agencies such as the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, the New South Wales Department of Planning, the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and the New South Wales Department of Local Government. To deny such agencies their natural jurisdictional powers is to do grave violence to the administration of laws. To do so by the stroke of a pen in a provision such as section 112 is equally galling.

I further put to this House today that it is time to revisit this legal fiction that state and territory law has no application on airport lands. I share in the justified outcry from those public interest stakeholders, including, critically, the New South Wales state government and its statutory agencies who are routinely ignored by this arrogant government. I refer to the outrageous example most correctly cited in the Bills Digest concerning the conflict of laws with respect to Canberra airport, which is subject to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, which is a piece of Commonwealth legislation. The effect of clause 112A is that the Canberra airport master plan will override the National Capital Plan. I therefore raise the question as to the applicability of those provisions of the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970, in particular section 4 of that act with regard to whether state environmental law generically applies to Commonwealth land, including airport land. I further question this point in light of the express provisions of sections 112 and 136. There is the additional question of whether these two provisions, in light of the amendments before us here today, impede state and territory laws and whether this impediment, if any, creates an inconsistency of laws, thus triggering the constitutional law found in section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution. Section 109 states:

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

These are all questions that require revisiting. We cannot sit as a parliament making such amendments here today, with the presumption that these land developments in Sydney Basin airports such as Sydney and Bankstown operate with immunity from state planning, pollution and environmental laws. I challenge that presumption here today and seek that this parliament revisit this long mantra of presumption.

I finally move to the issue first flagged by the June 2000 Report on the Inquiry into the Development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation Master Plan by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. This report made eight recommendations, one of which is very pertinent to this bill today:

1.24. That the Airports Act 1996 be amended to specify the relationship a major development plan has to a master plan.

Item 75 of this bill does provide a purpose statement of major development plans. Clause 91(1)(c)(ca) and existing paragraph 91(1)(d) provide ‘whether or not the development is consistent’ with the lease and master plan. I note from the Bills Digest that this wording is at best ambiguous and at worst does not fulfil the Brisbane Airport inquiry’s recommendation 1.24. It is clear that after six years this government is still not prepared to define precisely the relationship between major development plans and the airport master plan; thus, it is still possible for a major development plan to be inconsistent with the master plan. This I consider to be a major flaw of this bill.

I ask the Senate to consider carefully and accept amendments to this bill proposed by the opposition. All residents affected by airports, particularly those that have become mini republics, deserve better than the carte blanche being offered by this bill to those fiefdoms. This is particularly true of Sydney airport and Macquarie Bank.

I have long argued that, as an airport, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport operates very well as a shopping centre and car park. Since I last made that statement it is clear that the Howard government has allowed Sydney airport to expand beyond its ecologically sustainable limits. Development does not come without its fair share of problems, many of which are created as a result of the minister’s apparent disdain for proper planning and approval processes and for the people of Lowe, whom I represent.

Labor’s amendments will ensure that there are no reductions in consultation or approval times. This is particularly important in light of the distrust many have towards the Howard government in relation to this issue that is so critical to my constituents in Lowe and the people of the inner west of Sydney.

The government have form on this. They have not properly implemented the long-term operating plan. We are supposed to be getting only 17 per cent of movements to the north of Sydney airport and we have been getting up to double that over my electorate. Moreover, the government have abandoned any idea that Sydney will ever have a second airport to take pressure off Sydney airport. (Time expired)

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My electorate of Hasluck contains part of the Perth Airport’s operational area and surrounding airport land. In recent years the Westralia Airports Corporation has dropped the ball on airport operations, judging by the regular chaos that exists at the Perth domestic terminal. Access to the terminal on many occasions during the week and on weekends is difficult. Road traffic is highly congested, parking is not available and there are long queues waiting to get through security and to check bags.

Then we see where their focus has been. For the past two years I have had firsthand experience of the problems that can arise under the current act when major developments are proposed on airport land. There is no doubt in my mind that some of these amendments are justified and warranted. Unfortunately, if corporate Australia is not prepared to consider the needs of communities surrounding such facilities on a voluntary, good-neighbour basis, governments need to impose legislation and regulations that ensure that the needs of the community are adequately addressed and their amenity protected.

The current act does not adequately do this. For example, we had on Perth Airport land the West Aviat Golf Club and golf course that had been established over some 24 years by the blood, sweat and tears of its many members—mostly retired or semi-retired members of the local community. The Westralia Airports Corporation served notice on this club to quit this facility with just 28 days notice. That was legal, yes, but consistent with building goodwill in the community or being a good neighbour, no.

The West Aviat Golf Course was a fantastic community facility that blended into the surrounding environment which had become the home of many species of birds, native marsupials and flora—and of course golfers. This facility and its members deserved to be treated better than was initially the case. I am pleased to report that after representations by me, and the hard work of club secretary, 84-year-old Mr Peter Cox, and others, the Westralia Airports Corporation agreed to change the notice period to six months instead of 28 days. If the Westralia Airports Corporation lived up to the claims detailed in their master plan, this would have happened in the first instance.

When I first heard of the proposed brickworks, there was a lot of rumour and misinformation being promoted in the community about the proposed development, which was strongly denied by the proponents. I therefore sought an urgent meeting with BGC and the then CEO of Westralia Airports Corporation and encouraged both parties to effectively engage the community and discuss and confirm their plans. This should be a standard process for any organisation interested in working with and in the community. This did not happen. In February 2006 I tabled in this House a petition opposing the development, signed by 5,000 constituents. In May 2006 I raised specific concerns in a letter to the newly appointed executive chairman of the Westralia Airports Corporation regarding, among other things, claims in their Perth Airport Master plan 2004. I was concerned that the plan outlined key objectives which were not being met. The plan included such objectives as:

... respects and supports current regional and local planning principles and concerns as outlined in the Metropolitan Regional Scheme (MRS) and Town Planning Schemes.

and—

... respects and supports the planning efforts of airport neighbours such as the City of Swan, the City of Belmont, and the Shire of Kalamunda.

There have been a lot of reports in the media that would suggest the corporation has done otherwise.

The plan also sets out a development strategy which recommends development plans based on compatibility with surrounding communities; land uses which complement adjacent communities’ existing and planned land uses which are assigned to the respective precincts; and uses which were assigned with the goal of ensuring that the precincts were compatible with surrounding communities’ development efforts. The development objectives state:

Perth Airport has considered environmental issues in its planning efforts, including:

Neighbouring Communities. The airport will adopt a good neighbour philosophy and consult adjacent communities in its planning process.

The corporation acknowledged the role of local government and noted ‘the importance of the arrangement between Perth Airport and the state in also considering local government requirements to ensure that, as much as possible, there is uniformity and transparency in the working arrangements between all parties’.

Throughout that master plan, Westralia Airports Corporation consistently restated its commitment to appropriate land use which was compatible with airport operations, acceptable to adjacent communities and had consideration of state and local government planning objectives. The building and operation of brickworks on Perth Airport land is, in my view and that of many of my constituents, a breach of this commitment and was certainly pushed through without any community consultation or strategy to inform the community of its plans, other than of course the statutory requirement as provided in the current act. A brickworks is very clearly not compatible with airport operations or compatible with the land uses of the adjacent communities as they are largely residential or industrial—mostly light industrial.

The master plan makes a number of other reassuring-sounding statements such as listing future development opportunities as being business centres, corporate headquarters, manufacturing complexes, entertainment centres and logistics hubs. There is no mention of heavy industry. Industrial use is defined as activities which may involve manufacturing, distribution and assembly. There is no mention of heavy, emission-producing industries such as brickworks. It is my view and the view of many residents that the proposed brickworks are in contravention of the key objectives listed in Perth Airport Master plan 2004. A number of concerned constituents with aviation expertise have raised concerns at the potential aviation risk posed by the brickworks being placed at the end of a runway. I am advised that the brickworks will be directly under the approach path of runway 24 and within the departure envelope for runway 06.

It is also rather astonishing that the Perth Airport Master plan 2004 clearly states:

… Perth’s airport was located at Maylands, which by the late 1930’s had become inadequate because of its restricted size and the presence of flight path obstructions, mainly brickwork chimneys.

Can you believe that? I would have thought the Westralia Airports Corporation would have been willing to learn from the mistakes of the past. Anyone reading the master plan would have been left with the distinct impression that the proposed brickworks did not fit within the scope of their master plan.

Much of what I have had to say today I have said before in this House, and that does demonstrate the need for a clear legislative framework with effective supporting regulations for airport operations and for commercial activities incidental to airport operations. Unless they are based in the legislation or provided for in regulations, master plans are nothing but reassuring words to fool people into thinking they have some level of protection and security in their communities. Unfortunately, under the current act, they do not.

My constituents of Hasluck deserve better than to be saddled with brickworks at Perth Airport. They definitely deserved better from the state Labor government, who once again sat on their collective hands ignoring their own constituents. I speak in particular of Michelle Roberts, state Labor member for Midland and Minister for Housing and Works, Heritage, Indigenous Affairs, Land Information, and Eric Ripper, state Labor member for Belmont, Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development. You might be asking yourself: where were they in all of this? What action did they take? Did they do anything? Did they endeavour to source an alternative site?

Let us take a look at their roles. Minister for housing and works and land information, Michelle Roberts, would have been only too well aware of the extreme shortage of bricks delaying the construction of houses in Western Australia, causing delay and hardship for many new and first home owners. Some houses were taking up to two years to construct. Another brickworks needed? You bet. What representations did she make to the minister for planning and infrastructure to locate a brickworks in appropriately zoned land around Perth? I would have to say not many.

Then we have the highest taxing Treasurer in the history of Western Australia. Not only is he the Treasurer; he is also the minister for state development. BGC directly or indirectly employ some 7,000 people in Western Australia, providing cost-effective housing as both a builder and a manufacturer of building materials. Surely Mr Ripper’s lack of action would have to be considered to be against the best interests of Western Australia and Western Australians. He also failed his constituents who live in areas around the airport in not seeking an alternative site.

The then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Warren Truss, attached some 60 conditions that have to be met prior, during and after the brickworks are constructed and before they are commissioned. These conditions have been imposed as a result of direct representation by many residents and me to the minister and will address many of the concerns raised in those representations. These conditions go to the heart of the environmental issues, public health issues and traffic concerns.

I said at the time that I was disappointed at the decision to place the brickworks on this land. I am still concerned about a number of the issues that relate particularly to the oversight of the conditions and who is responsible. It seems to me that it is actually the Westralia Airports Corporation who have the responsibility for ensuring that the conditions are met. That seems to be somewhat at odds with the fact that they are a direct beneficiary for their tenant and the income that they receive from their tenant in this relationship. Surely we need to be resourcing the Department of Transport and Regional Services much more than they are currently resourced, with a single airport environmental officer at the Perth Airport to make sure that these works are carried out according to the conditions provided by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. We need additional staffing, human resources. It is not good enough that existing staff pick up that extra workload.

The community are entitled to be part of the development process in ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed in the major development plan as they are fully realised. Airports and airport businesses do not operate in isolation from the rest of the community. In early September 2006 I actively sought the support of the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services by proposing the formation of a community consultative committee for the brickworks development at the Perth Airport. The merits of engaging the community in this way are obvious. The proposal was taken up and supported by Minister Truss in a letter to the Westralia Airports Corporation, and subsequently the establishment of the community consultative committee was announced. The committee’s inaugural meeting was held in early December. Mr John Collins of the Hazelmere Progress Association was elected as chairperson and is strongly supported by several members of the community surrounding the airport.

The community consultative committee will work through the issues that were of concern to the community and provide some community oversight so that the proponents of this development comply with the conditional approval for development set by the minister. I was very pleased to hear late last year that the new Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the Hon. Mark Vaile, had released new airport development consultation guidelines, which should be adopted as an integral part of any future developments at leased airports. He rightly pointed out that communities have an expectation that they will be consulted effectively about what are often intensely local issues. However, I would much prefer to see these guidelines introduced as regulations, not merely guidelines, based on the recent experiences of constituents of Hasluck.

I am pleased to see that the government have obviously learned a lot from the Western Australian experience. I am pleased to see that they have strengthened the consultation aspects of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. Currently, virtually the only requirement for the airports corporation to show that they have engaged in community consultation is to tick a box. This amendment requires not only proof of community consultation but also that concerns raised by the community are listed. The people consulted and all the concerns, including what the developer intends to do about the issues raised, have to be listed. One has a deep suspicion that the many submissions and representations made by individuals and community groups on the brickworks development at Perth Airport were by and large ignored by the Westralia Airports Corporation. This amendment requires that all submissions be adequately and effectively addressed.

Initially the public comment period was to be significantly reduced, bringing it into line with legislative requirements in other states and territories in Australia. I was not prepared to support that particular change. I lobbied Minister Vaile hard over a long period on this aspect, along with other colleagues, and I understand that he intends to amend this bill to extend the period of consultation to 60 business days. This is a considerable improvement over the period originally intended of some 45 days. It is a win for our communities and for common sense. Developers have an army of professional people—often consultants with skills, knowledge and competency—employed to work through the details of these major development plans, giving them the ability to meet any time lines. For the average working family, mum or dad, or community group this is not the case, and any reduction in time for response to what are often very complex development plans would have been unreasonable. Businesses, including airport corporations, need to be working with the community, and government should be ensuring equity in these processes and establishing a proper balance between the needs of business and those of the community.

The other amendment that I fully support is the stop-the-clock provision. Under the act the minister can only approve or reject a development proposal within a 90-day period, otherwise the project is deemed to be approved. This amendment allows the minister to seek additional information on airport major development proposals by stopping the clock. In the brickworks decision the minister could only approve or reject the development proposal within a 90-day period or the project was deemed to be approved. This amendment will ensure that additional time can be given to address concerns from the community, health and environmental perspectives. It is important that these amendments are supported, enabling further legislative protection for the community. It may be that these amendments do not go far enough but, by and large, those that I have mentioned are a step in the right direction.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. We are told that the purpose of the bill is to amend the principal act to improve the land use planning system applicable to federal airports. There are two areas of concern here. One is, of course, the principal act and the way it has been used right around the country to plan and to develop airports. Secondly, the question that should be asked is: does this bill work to provide solutions to these problems and to the conflicts that arise? Perhaps it actually contributes to them.

I would like to make a couple of points in response to the contribution of the member for Hasluck. We heard about the Perth brickworks located opposite a residential area in Perth. We heard the member criticise the state ministers and the state Labor government but, at the end of the day, that particular brickworks site was ticked off, signed off on and agreed to by the federal transport minister. The state government had absolutely no say in that final decision regardless of whether it agreed to or disagreed with it. Let us make it quite clear: that final decision, that final tick of approval, lies with the federal transport minister. So the consequences of the decisions made clearly lie on his shoulders.

I would also like to condemn the government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through the approval decisions such as that one relating to the Perth brickworks site, which is located—as I said—opposite a residential area. Another example is the Essendon direct factory outlet, which was proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure. These were signed off on by the federal Liberal government transport minister. As we have seen from this government so many times before, the devil lies in the detail. Indeed, as any member in this place who represents an electorate that has an airport in it or nearby will tell you, airport land use and the systems within which airport lessee companies are told to operate—in the interest of their shareholders, of course—give rise to highly contentious issues. Let me add at this point that the airport operators, and I can only speak about the operators at Adelaide Airport, Adelaide Airport Ltd, try to work within the legislation. The CEO, Phil Baker, and others, ensure that they follow appropriate procedures in the day-to-day operations of Adelaide Airport. I must also add that, when a dispute does arise, they are quite happy to come out and consult with the residents.

I would like to pay due respect to the Adelaide Airport operators because they operate within the legislation that is provided to them. They have shareholders and their No. 1 interest, of course, is to return a profit to those shareholders. But at the same time they are very consultative, and at every request from residents’ associations and residents’ groups around the airport they have always been willing to come out and speak to see if they can resolve particular issues. But they are operating within the legislation that is provided to them, and that legislation is not always favourable to the residents, which is why we have these disputes.

There are a number of issues that I want to raise about the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 that concern how airport developments affect local residents. While the objective of streamlining the processes for businesses and for economic development may be a good thing, we must still remember that airports and their use of land also affect ordinary people—the battlers who live in and around airport land. We can all remember the classic Australian film The Castle. All of us here, I am sure, have seen it. That film serves as a reminder that a person’s house is his or her castle, even if that ‘castle’ is near an airport.

As the member for Hindmarsh, an electorate which Adelaide Airport is squarely situated smack bang in the centre of, I am continually being contacted about how the airport and development on its land affects local residents. I hear a range of complaints on a daily basis: from issues to do with the curfew to issues about developments that take place on airport land. Residents in the Hindmarsh electorate are concerned about not only the development of land around Adelaide Airport but also the excessive noise generated by planes. I have introduced a private member’s bill to this House: the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2007. I have done that because for years residents have had concerns about noise generated by overhead aircraft and airport developments. However, there is nowhere for these residents to turn when a dispute arises—absolutely nowhere. It is time that we had an independent, non-party-political, non-partisan body established to monitor the airport and take into account complaints that are made about noise or disputes that arise out of developments.

My concerns about the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and the introduction of the Airport Development and Aviation Noise Ombudsman Bill 2006 are in the interests of the residents in the electorate of Hindmarsh: residents of suburbs adjacent to the airport, such as Brooklyn Park, Cowandilla, Henley Beach, Lockleys, West Beach, Richmond, Mile End and Glenelg. Many residents from those suburbs have contacted me, anxious about the changes that we are discussing today. They are anxious about the changes to the current regulations that guide the development of airport land. I see local residents as a critical stakeholder. They too should have a say in what takes place in and around their neighbourhoods, regardless of whether it is on Commonwealth or state government land.

This government has ignored the many residents who have lived near the airport for many years. The first concern raised by residents was that the Airports Amendment Bill proposed to slash the consultation period currently required from 90 days to 45 working days. How can that be a good thing, when you propose to slash a period of 90 days for consultation down to 45 days—half the amount of time? The Minister for Transport and Regional Services conceded that this amendment was a mistake, and rightly so. The Australian Financial Review of 14 February 2007 published an article to this effect. The transport minister moved to amend the government’s original proposed consultation time in the Airports Amendment Bill for major development of airport land. Instead of 90 days, or about 13 weeks, it was proposed that the consultation period be 30 days. Following the amendment, the time frame was increased to 60 working days—approximately 12 weeks. It is still a reduction, and we do not agree to the consultation period being cut to 60 days. That is why there is an amendment to be moved to keep the consultation period at 90 days.

The second concern raised by residents was the doubling of the threshold for developments not requiring ministerial approval from $10 million to $20 million. Let us go back for a moment to the consultation period. The present Airports Act 1996 requires that an airport lessee company have its draft master plan open to community consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister. The consultation process is valuable for all those who have a stake in airport development. Whether it be the airport company itself, tenants of parcels of airport land, carriers, businesses or residents, they all have an interest in how airport land is used. We cannot afford to have a one-sided process that could shut out any of these stakeholders, whether by design or otherwise.

My concern as the local member and as a resident who even before my parliamentary days was very active in airport issues is that consultation is not a straightforward process. It is not a matter of simply ticking boxes. Stakeholder consultation in any land use matter can be incredibly complex. For airports, the complexity is something that we can try to simplify. But ultimately, due to the very nature of the airport land use itself and the ongoing lack of impact assessments on surrounding areas, road and traffic management, land uses and the like, the myriad of issues cannot be compressed into a nutshell. It is positive to see that the Airports Amendment Bill provides that there must be evidence provided that community consultation has taken place.

I have worked to ensure that community consultation is an integral part of the development process. But for consultation to be meaningful—as I said earlier, it is not just a tick the box process—stakeholders must have a reasonable opportunity to go through the matters that will affect them. Much of this is not included in the master plan and is left for others to deal with after the fact. Any grounds for recourse will be lost if there is no consultation before the development at the airport goes ahead, as there is currently no body such as an ombudsman—an independent, impartial body—that residents can approach with their concerns. That is why the introduction of an airport ombudsman—a proposal in a bill which I presented to this House not so long ago—is so crucial and is becoming even more crucial with the introduction of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006.

As I have mentioned, it is an unavoidable function of airport development that master plans give rise to such a wide range of complex issues and that, therefore, they will necessarily take time to process. While we do not want red tape to be unnecessarily burdensome for anyone, community consultation should be encouraged. As I said earlier, community consultation can only be a good thing. There is nothing negative in community consultation. The more of it there is the better off we all are.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 also proposes that the threshold for a major airport development be increased. The consequence of a development being a major airport development is that a further level of vetting applies. It cannot proceed without ministerial approval—without the minister giving that tick mentioned earlier. Under the current Airports Act 1996, the major airport development threshold is $10 million—that is, constructions that would cost more than $10 million would be subjected to ministerial approval. The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to double that to $20 million.

We all know that any regulatory threshold can be manipulated for land use. We have seen carefully planned strategies used in the past to work around the threshold above which ministerial approval is required. There has been much ambiguity as to what exactly counts towards the existing construction cost threshold of $10 million. Is it the cost of building the structure? Does it include costs associated with fit-outs? What about the expenses that are necessarily incidental to construction but not necessarily relating to the bricks and mortar? Does it include stage 2 and stage 3 of the same development? These are the questions that have to be asked and that we have to grapple with.

The proposed amendment clarifies that construction includes carrying out all associated building activities but, to minimise the impact of the amendment, for holding developers with planning and cost assessments to at least account for their proposals in the future. The bill simply continues the perceived irrelevance of this provision by doubling the amount on the basis of increased material and construction costs. It has been a deliberate abuse of the act to provide costings. In this amendment, the motive of those flouting the rules is seen by the public to be rewarded, and the minister is still protected from having to make a decision. Anyone without vested interests would surely struggle to see how local residents would benefit from having the threshold doubled.

As the local representative, I have done and will continue to do my best to ensure that the views and concerns of local residents in my electorate affected by Adelaide Airport get due recognition and responses. With the act as it is, they have no rights. Their concerns are ignored by the government and, at the end of the day, they are just paid lip-service and then put in their place. We have seen that over and over again with a range of developments at airports all around the country.

One broad concern that still arises despite the amendment, which purports to make things easier, is that there will be no independent way to resolve any land use disputes that might arise between residents and airports—again, no independent body for residents to have their voices heard in an impartial way. As local residents and resident organisations have taken up the fight against impositions against their domestic interests, I stand ready to continue to support them as I have in the past, even after the government ignores the fundamental problems inherent in airport development rules and passes an amendment bill that only adds salt to their wounds.

I wish to acknowledge the hard, thankless and obviously voluntary work of resident organisations, including those of Glenelg, Lockleys South, West Beach, Henley, Grange and Netley, the Adelaide Airport Action Group, and those of Brooklyn Park, Richmond and Cowandilla. All these residents groups were put in place because they were unhappy with what was happening either through aviation activities at the airport or development of land at the airport. All these people and residents groups that I have just mentioned had input into and submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on this particular bill.

As members of a democratic society Australians expect to be able to have their views heard, particularly when their homes—as I said earlier, their castles—are at stake. Community consultation is not particularly onerous for lessee companies or developers, and I hope that the committee process for this bill concludes on the realisation that we must do what we can to give all stakeholders a voice, including the residents. We are trying to give the community groups and residents a voice. I was originally approached by individuals within Hindmarsh frustrated with and concerned about the lack of accountability for aviation noise and land development. Again, I have been contacted by residents worried about the development at Adelaide Airport. I received a huge response from the Hindmarsh community when I initially put forward the proposal for an airport ombudsman. I know there is support for an ombudsman within Hindmarsh, and this support has only intensified with the introduction of the Airports Amendment Bill 2006.

Big business and the members of the Senate inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 should not ignore the cries of residents near the airport calling for more rigorous consultation processes and their voices to be heard. At present the master plan is virtually worthless anyway. Even after substantial consultation, the incorporation of community views into the zoning of airport land for appropriate usage and the draft plan—the result of so much company and voluntary time—is approved, residents are back at square one. The only way a resident can rest assured that a parcel of airport land will not be used for a particularly dreaded purpose, contrary to the master plan, is if something else is built on it. If it is vacant land at the airport, anything could end up there—and probably will. One virtually has to resort to blind hope that the land will be used for something positive, necessary and pleasant, even if clearly against the master plan.

We have seen in a number of states, in relation to multiple airports, conflict descend upon stakeholders that has almost led to a constitutional challenge. The power being exercised by this government in relation to airports and the use of airport land has been mishandled so acutely that airport interests and local government interests have been at war, lobbying legal challenges and opinions over no-man’s-land from their respective bunkers. The fact that opinions on the status of any parcel of airport land and consequent implications for surrounding authorities can be at such variance, that the government can remain silent, inactive, irrelevant, and that relations between parties can sink into such hostility, makes a pretty clear case against the government responsible for the administration of this act and the role that they see themselves as playing in its implementation, which is, of course, effectively zero; none.

This is a peculiar example of how one government—in this case the federal government—can engineer a situation that causes hostilities to break out between its agent, the airport lessee company and state or local authorities. For what purpose this is, I do not know—money, presumably. I have called the airport lessee companies the federal government’s agents because they are clearly doing exactly what the government wants them to do. Otherwise the federal government would intervene or substantially amend the act to prevent them from doing what they may disagree with, not just aid and abet the current dynamic.

As I said earlier, I do not blame the lessee companies and the operators of airports; they are doing their job. They are doing what their shareholders want them to do and they are doing what the act says they should do. They are doing it in ways the act—and thereby the government—says they should be able to do it. The government is in charge because the minister ticks off the developments whether the minister, the local residents, the Australian public or the Labor Party like it or not. Consequently, the minister is responsible for the demoralisation of the local residents, the enmity between stakeholders and the deterioration of the entire area within which the airports are located. The opposition will be moving detailed amendments to this bill in the consideration in detail stage of this debate. If rejected, a federal Labor Party will revisit these key issues in a broader review of the legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. As we know, the purpose of this bill is to loosen restrictions on airlines owning smaller airports; make various changes to airport land use, planning and building controls, and environmental management provisions; and make changes confirming the ACCC’s ability to monitor and evaluate the quality of airport services and facilities.

In light of that, the primary amendments proposed in this bill comprise the following points: (1) reaffirming the parliament’s intention to provide for non-aeronautic development at airports consistent with the airport’s lease and current master plan; (2) providing, through regulation, for commercial investment at non-core regulated airports—that is, general aviation airports; (3) excluding Canberra airport from the operation of the National Capital Plan; (4) implementing recommendations 1, 2 and, in part, 6 arising from the June 2000 Senate committee inquiry into the Brisbane Airport master plan; (5) refining the land use planning and development regimes by reducing statutory public comments and assessment periods; ensuring that the public have ready access to associated documents in electronic form, free of charge, to assist them in providing comment on land use proposals; improving the quality of information provided in airport planning documents; and raising the dollar threshold requiring major development plans to be submitted from $10 million to $20 million; (6) requiring airport master plans to depict the most current aircraft noise forecasts; and (7) providing for greater flexibility with regard to day-to-day on-airport activities, including vehicle control et cetera.

I listened with interest earlier in the day when the opposition spokesman on transport, the member for Batman, had a fair bit to say about this issue, and he made a lot of sense. He seems to be the sensible one in this debate. The rest on the other side seem to be diverging onto their own ideological local airport agendas. Let us remind ourselves about the genesis of the Airports Act 1996. It was, in fact, the Australian Labor Party in 1995 that moved that privatisation of the airports take place. I remind the parliament that, in opposition, the Australian Labor Party continue to make a big thing about privatisation and, shock, horror, what a dreadful thing it is. I remind them that they privatised the Commonwealth Bank, they privatised Qantas and they privatised such things as the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. They were in the business of privatising the airports; and, as we know, Mr Blount was brought out to privatise Telstra, but they will not admit to that.

In 1996, when the Howard government took office, Labor continued their agenda of 99-year leases of 22 airports around Australia. In 1997, the first phase of these lease sales took place. Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth were the first three involved in this operation. Unbelievably, one of the reasons that problems have arisen from this operation of the lease sale is that most of the bidders paid too much for the airports—in their eagerness to get hold of a Commonwealth asset in this time frame. As a result, it has forced a number of further downstream issues which we are confronting today. One of them is land use and planning issues involving airports.

Today I am going to speak a little bit about the Western Australian situation, particularly the Perth Airport and Jandakot Airport. As some members might know, I used to represent the seat of Swan, and Perth Airport was one of the major issues. Interestingly, the Labor Party used to make much of the Perth Airport until the current member took the seat, and we do not hear much about Perth Airport these days. It has gone very quiet, and why wouldn’t it? The issues that were being used at that time for conflict were a beat-up. Such things as noise issues were well and truly in the forecasts. The same noise contours are being experienced today, and the forecast for such things as the extension of runway 0624 and the parallel runway are still the same in the master plan as they were then.

Other issues have arisen in and around the airport, particularly the issue of land use and planning. When I was the member for Swan, a group in the area began an agitation group called RAGE—or Retailers Against Government Enterprise. It was led by a local businessman, Wally Daly, who happens to own the Super Value store in Belvedere Street, Belmont. He enlisted the support of a leviathan public figure at that time, Bill Mitchell, to lead the charge. RAGE was successful in seeing that a retail complex did not go ahead on Horrie Miller Drive, and for good reason. At that stage, and I was very supportive of this action, the retail in that area—they had done their demographic surveys—was going to hurt many of the businesses in the catchment area. As an aside, RAGE won an award for being one of the most effective lobby operations that year. They were quite pleased about their success and also about their recognition as a lobby group.

Other issues arose when I was the member for Swan, and one was the proposal to put a hot mix plant on airport land. I remember going to public meetings and standing on the back of a truck. Michelle Roberts, the member for Midland or whatever her seat was called, was also standing on the back of a truck, beating up about all these terrible things that were going to happen. And there were the same people who are currently involved in the issue over the approval of the brickworks. The hot mix plant on the airport land is quite an entitled use. It is well placed; it is right out of the way.

I heard the member for Hindmarsh talking about this brickworks’ operations being near residential housing. He obviously has not been into or around Perth Airport. It is a long way from any residential housing. In fact, it is mainly semi-rural lots that surround that particular area, as well as a cemetery, a dogs home and a major dual carriageway. To say that it is near residential housing is quite fatuous and incorrect. Having represented that area, I know it well. All I can say is that those same activists were involved in the issue of the siting of the brickworks.

We know that there are a huge amount of issues around Perth Airport. I refer, for example, to Munday Swamp. It was considered that there might have been a rare, short-necked turtle there. They have never found the turtle. They then said that, while they could not find a turtle there, they had found some skeletons of turtles and that it would be an ideal place in which to reintroduce turtles. Again, it is a long bow to draw. I understand that the current management of Perth Airport have dealt well with this issue.

There was the issue of remnant native bushland on the Perth Airport site. If you look at aerial photographs, you will see that most of it has been degraded by being chopped up by people in hotrods and on motorbikes and motocross bikes; they have degraded the whole site. There was also the issue of native title. That issue has now been dealt with, I understand, in most respects, and the matter has gone forward.

Anyone with a half-decent understanding of this issue would know that Perth Airport has a buffer zone that is far larger than that of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. Why, right in the centre of Perth, should there be this absolutely vacant space around the airport which could be well used under a proper land use proposal? In Perth at the moment, there is a critical shortage of industrial land. If you have read any transcripts recently about the interference of the celebrated powerbrokers of the Labor Party in and around Perth, you will understand that the issue of land use has been very critical to their success. Some of these land use issues have involved the farthest perimeter around the airport, and the surrounding councils. For example, the City of Belmont lost a third of its area when the land was taken from it in order to locate Perth Airport at its current location. That has led to an issue about the payment of rates. That issue is still outstanding. I understand that the City of Belmont and the owners of Perth Airport are continually negotiating on that matter. The owners have paid their rates this year and they are continuing to work with the CEO of the City of Belmont about the annual payment of rates, and services. These are some of the issues involved in land use around airports.

My colleague the member for Hasluck—and he is entitled to his point of view; he represents that area now, and he represents it very well—was opposed to the siting of brickworks on this land. He is quite entitled to lead the community charge on this issue. But in my opinion this is an entirely suitable use of Perth Airport land. He fails to understand—because I know the same people he was dealing with, the activists in that area—that their agenda was not pure. In fact, those agitating against the brickworks were being financed by Boral to run their campaign. I will not say anything further on that because it is the subject of legal action. There will be a lot more said about what the agenda was in trying to stop the Perth brickworks going ahead.

We do know that the company that wanted to build the brickworks tried to find many sites around the Perth metropolitan area but because that company and its owner, Mr Len Buckridge, were deemed to be enemies of the state by the state Labor Party, they were unable to find suitable land on which to build this facility. It would be potentially the cleanest brickworks that this country has seen, when compared to the Boral operation in the Swan Valley—which, I might add, was given a licence to continue emissions over and above the EPA requirements by the then state environment minister, Judy Edwards. It was an absolute disgrace—it was exposed that she had given them a concession to spew into the atmosphere huge amounts of pollutants outside their licence requirements. At the same time they were working in conjunction with their business partners, the Boral group, to try and knock off this development.

Where could anyone locate their business if the state government was not supportive? Furthermore, Mr Buckridge had tried to buy some land. Believe it or not, Alannah MacTiernan had sold him a parcel of land for $5 million, but Geoff Gallop made her reverse the decision. This was all outlined in the paper in Western Australia. This was the status of his ability to do business in Western Australia. And what happened? The Labor Party continually tried to screw him down because he was deemed to be an enemy of the state because he has not fallen into line with the unions in Western Australia. We know what control the unions have, particularly through their factional allies.

It is interesting to note that one of the most voracious voices in the parliament against the member for Hasluck is Senator Glenn Sterle. He has been given his riding instructions, as we know, by the Labor Party in order to try to do what he can to effect this argument. Unfortunately, he is an absolute disgrace. He is the person who took Senator Cook’s place. It is a disgrace that he could be mentioned in the same breath as Senator Cook. They knocked Senator Cook off at preselection and did not even give him the decency of being allowed to retire due to ill health. They knocked him off and they put this apparatchik of the union, sponsored by Kevin Reynolds, into the Senate. All I can say is that if anyone talks on the phone to Brian Burke and his acolytes, it would be Senator Glenn Sterle, because we know they put him in there through the preselection process. So we know how all of this happened. People need to know some of the background to this matter.

In the time available to me I wish to raise briefly the issue of Jandakot Airport. Jandakot Airport is located in the electorate of Fremantle. There was a proposal to relocate the airport to an area in my electorate called North Dandalup. This has caused much community angst because, even though Jandakot Airport is in the Fremantle electorate, many of the circuit training planes fly over my electorate of Canning and Canning Vale and surrounding areas. There was a proposal by the owners—a group called Ascot Capital—to shift the airport. When the community of North Dandalup inadvertently discovered this in the Australian newspaper they became very active in fighting against it. I can understand their doing so, as I can understand people in Canning Vale wanting to fight against it. They did not want this disruption to their lives and their land use.

What they did not realise in this whole argument was that there was never a formal proposal put to state, federal or local governments. At a public meeting a rather interesting character who is being put up against me as the Labor candidate in the forthcoming election thought he would get some traction on the issue. The community realised that the proposal was something that they needed to work against collectively. I was able to point out to them that the proposal had no legs because it did not satisfy the criteria of both Minister Vaile and Minister Truss, as minister and former ministers for transport. It did not have the support of the local community, it did not have the support of the aviation community, it did not have the support of local government and it did not have the support of state government. Therefore, I was able to read to that meeting a letter by Minister Vaile outlining that, because it did not satisfy these criteria, it would not be approved—even though there was not a formal proposal. It was actually a letter responding to people such as the Air Force association located at Jandakot and saying that this was the minister’s view—that it did not satisfy the criteria. As I said at that meeting, it is a dead duck as an issue. Mrs Marrion Elliott, you wanted to hear me say this in the House: this issue is a dead duck and it will not go ahead because it does not satisfy those criteria.

What will happen now is that the Jandakot Airport owners will do what is being done at most airports around Australia—that is, they will examine the opportunity for land use in the buffer zone of the Jandakot Airport. That includes aviation related industries and non-aviation related industries. As a result we will see quite a growth in non-aviation related use of land at Jandakot Airport. This will not only bring jobs to the area but also do much in terms of enhancing trade for the owners of the small businesses at Jandakot Airport.

I would have liked to have had more time to speak to the specifics of the bill, as I said at the beginning of my speech, but I do agree—I go back to the member for Batman—that planning control of federal airport land should stay in the hands of the federal government. The fact is that we are the honest brokers in this debate. The partisan interests of state and local governments cannot be allowed to take over a national strategic asset like federal airports. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that Melbourne Airport is located in my own electorate of Calwell, I am particularly keen to speak to the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 that is currently before the House. It is of direct relevance to my constituents and to my overall community.

The bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the Airports Act 1996. The Airports Act 1996 was originally introduced to help facilitate the sale of leasehold interests in some 22 airports operated by the Federal Airports Corporation, with the first phase of airport lease sales occurring in 1997 in Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. The act covers issues such as the leasing and management of airports; restrictions on the ownership of airport operator companies; land use, planning and building controls; environmental management; control of non-airport activities; and access to airports.

In the time that has passed since its introduction, a series of disputes over the development and expansion of certain airports in Australia have emerged, especially in relation to the expansion of retail, commercial and other non-aviation developments on airport land; as well as increased levels of aircraft noise following expanded or varied aircraft operations; and disputes over the fees charged by airport lease owners for airport use.

Perhaps the most controversial of these is the development of large-scale retail and commercial property on airport land, with most opposition to this traditionally coming from local councils, local businesses and local residents. As it stands, the development of retail and commercial properties on airport land does not come under the jurisdiction of local development and planning laws. Rather, responsibility for their planning approval rests with the Commonwealth minister for transport. Currently under the 1996 act, an airport lessee company must produce a draft master plan for any proposed development of airport land, and it must ensure that that draft master plan is open to public comment and consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister for approval.

I intend to return to some of the changes to the consultation processes surrounding draft master plans and ministerial approvals that are being proposed under this new bill later in my speech. Before that, it is important to note that because retail and commercial developments built on airport land are exempt from local planning laws and formal approval rights that otherwise apply outside the airport, local councils are largely rendered powerless to monitor or modify such developments, especially in light of the possible impact they may have on local traffic, local businesses and also the amenities of the local community.

This was pointed out by a number of local councils in submissions they made to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. Indeed, in its submission to the inquiry, the shopping centre council called for all land not required for aeronautical development to be made available for normal commercial development in the interests of fair competition. At the very least, the range of submissions that was made to the Senate inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 gives a strong indication of the many different competing interests that are at play when it comes to the development of airport land. The importance of preserving an adequate public consultation process when it comes to proposals for airport land development must be seen in this context, as offering a way to balance these interests and to allay the fears of those parties most likely to be affected by any new developments.

Whilst Essendon Airport does not fall within the boundaries of my electorate of Calwell, the traffic congestion that followed when a DFO, or direct factory outlet, was first opened at the Essendon Airport site points to a series of other problems that we need to be aware of, especially in terms of how airport developments can affect the surrounding local community. When the DFO outlet first opened at Essendon Airport, it created an enormous amount of traffic and a good deal of chaos, to say the least. The volume of traffic which the retail store generated far exceeded anything that the surrounding roads and approach routes could cope with, and the problem was only compounded by the fact that DFO management had failed to notify the relevant authorities regarding the centre’s opening and the enormous influx of people and cars that this was likely to create. As an example, this reinforces the key importance of consultations aimed at keeping local councils, state and territory governments and local communities in the loop on these issues when they happen and particularly if they are going to have a fundamental impact on the routine daily business of the local community and on the local traffic.

We need to be mindful, however, not to make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The development of commercial and retail properties on airport land also generates jobs for the local community. Commercial developments on airport land can bring with them a series of positives for the local community that we would not want to dismiss or ignore.

Many of the amendments that the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 introduces to the Airports Act 1996 directly relate to the existing framework that is used to regulate airport site development and long-term planning. In line with decisions handed down by the Federal Court in the case of Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation and Direct Factory Outlets Pty Ltd v Westfield Management Ltd, the 2006 bill allows for airport lessees to undertake non-aeronautical development as long as it is consistent with the relevant airport master plan. The 2006 bill also includes a purpose statement aimed at ensuring that airport master plans have a strategic focus, that public information is made available about intentions, and that there is land use compatibility.

Clause 77 of the new bill further requires that if a proposed major development may affect future flight paths, the master plan must set out what that effect is, though it falls short of specifically outlining exactly how such an effect must be shown. The 2006 bill also requires Australian noise exposure forecasts and flight paths to be included in airport master plans. In the event that noise forecasts change, it requires that a new master plan be developed. In relation to noise exposure forecasts, the bill also allows for noise forecasts to extend beyond the current limit of 20-year planning horizons. Other important changes include those contained under item 21 of the 2006 bill, which undo some of the restrictions currently provided for under section 44 of the existing 1996 act that prohibits airlines from owning more than five per cent of a company which owns the lease interest of an airport or manages the airport.

In particular, clause 21 allows for specific exemptions to be made in the case of non-core regulated airports, which essentially means smaller regional airports rather than major metropolitan airports. In non-core regulated airports, airlines will now be able to own more than a five per cent stake in any company that serves as the operator or manager of the airport. This is intended primarily to attract more money and investment into some of Australia’s regional airports, though I note that, as it stands, the 2006 bill puts no ceiling on the percentage of ownership that is permissible.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 also proposes a number of additional changes relating to the consultation procedures currently provided for under the 1996 act. As I have already mentioned, under the existing act an airport lessee company must have its draft master plan open to community consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister for approval. The 2006 bill reduces that consultation period to 60 days. Originally—many of my colleagues have noted this already—the government had sought to have it reduced to 45 days. Under this bill, draft master plans, major development plans and environment strategies will be available for public viewing and comment for a reduced period of 60 days.

This amendment introduced by the government is one that Labor has strong concerns about. I certainly do. We will seek to address them. When it comes to the development of airport land, the local residents who live close to our regional and metropolitan airports remain one of the most important stakeholders in this process. We must continue to put them front and centre in this process.

Public consultations provide local residents with an opportunity to voice their own concerns and to put forward their own recommendations in response to proposed airport land developments, changes to flight paths and so on. Reducing the time line for public comment on airport master plans, major development projects and environment strategies is thus bound to put local communities, as well as local councils and other interested parties, at a significant disadvantage, even though the bill tries to compensate for this by putting more onus on the airport lessee company to demonstrate that it has had due regard to public comments in revising its original draft master plan when it submits that plan to the minister for approval.

In determining what counts as a major airport development, the 2006 bill also increases the threshold from $10 million to $20 million. This means that any airport development below $20 million does not need to be accompanied by a major development plan. It also allows the minister to determine that the combined cost of consecutive or concurrent projects or extensions can be included when the minister is deciding whether the cost of a proposal exceeds this threshold for major development projects. Importantly, the 2006 bill also sets out a purpose statement for a final environment strategy to ensure all operations are carried out in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards.

Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this bill during its consideration in detail. Should those amendments be defeated, Labor will in government revisit these amendments in the context of a broader review of legislation to reduce the impact on local communities. There are a number of ways in which this bill can be improved, especially in terms of getting it right when it comes to balancing the needs and interests of the different parties affected by airport developments. Australia’s airports form a crucial link in Australia’s national infrastructure. I believe that they should remain within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and thus that it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to get the balance right.

The current provision that a development proposal be automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the required 10- or 11-week time frame provided for under the act weakens the bill. There should be an onus of responsibility placed on airport lessee companies so that it is up to them to advise local and state governments about the commencement of public consultations regarding draft master plans. It should become a requirement that all public submissions and public recommendations regarding a draft master plan be forwarded to the minister in conjunction with the draft master plan. It is reasonable to expect the minister to provide a statement of reasons should he or she override these recommendations when approving a draft master plan.

In relation to the implications that airport retail and commercial developments may have for local infrastructure, the bill should contain a requirement for the minister to specify in his or her approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessee to negotiate in good faith with state and/or local government authorities to reach agreement for appropriate contributions to specific changes in off-airport infrastructure.

In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between Melbourne Airport and my local community in Calwell. Melbourne Airport was built many years ago in what was a non-residential area and, although a large community has since sprung up around it over the years, there is still enough of a buffer zone to ensure that the expansion of the airport and its future needs do not conflict in any serious way with the local communities, their amenities and—most importantly—their lifestyle. I am happy to say that there exists a strong working relationship between the management of Melbourne Airport and the local community, including local council and local members of state and federal parliaments. There is a shared recognition that regular consultation is seminal to maintaining this strong relationship, and I want to make sure that this bill aids that relationship and does not hamper or obstruct it in any way

I want to take this opportunity to commend the senior management at Melbourne Airport on the approach that they continue to take on issues that are of relevance to the overall development of the airport and particularly on the approach that they take in relating to the local community. All involved know how important Melbourne Airport is to our community, especially as a major employer. We all recognise how maintaining a good working relationship is in everyone’s interest. Proximity to the Melbourne Airport is increasingly a plus, and a major selling tool for developing industry and infrastructure in my federal seat of Calwell. Many of the major travel and logistics companies have sought to locate in my seat of Calwell, primarily because of the direct access to the Melbourne Airport. So in addition to the employment that the airport provides for my constituents, the infrastructure that is built around it continues to provide jobs.

Yesterday, Jesuit Social Services presented a report that proclaimed Broadmeadows and Campbellfield, which are in my electorate, as highly disadvantaged areas. Although we often talk about the low unemployment rate in this country, the reality is that, in parts of Broadmeadows and Campbellfield, unemployment—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And underemployment.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and underemployment—especially among young people—remains very high. Therefore, any opportunity to attract business and industry that provide jobs for our local people and help our local economy is very welcomed. It is in that context that I want to emphasise the symbiotic relationship between Melbourne Airport and the federal seat of Calwell and the relationship between the airport and the community. There is a need to keep that fine balance so there is no conflict. That is why I am interested in this particular bill and in making sure that the Commonwealth, when it makes decisions on activities in and around major airports, does so in the interests of not only the commercial applicants but also the local community.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is an important bill. This is the first time that we have had major changes to the Airports Act 1996, which was a Labor government act. It is an important bill because it makes some significant changes to the operation of that act. But in some ways it just does not go far enough. Since 1996, we have suffered—you might not have, Mr Deputy Speaker Barresi, but I have and everybody on the Labor side has—11 years of government by the coalition.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has been tough.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gorton is exactly right. It has been hard, but we have to endure these things. In that 11 years, we have discovered that the operation of the Airports Act has a number of fundamental failings and flaws. Whenever you put something new into place—whenever you hazard that the Commonwealth should do things that they have not done before—you have to expect that it will need tweaking, twisting and changing. But the tweaking, twisting and changing that is involved here ain’t enough. I can say that because of the experience that I have had with the development master plans that have been put forward for Bankstown Airport, which is the busiest general aviation airport in Australia. I will come to that shortly; I just want to deal with the general context here.

There are now 22 privatised airports around Australia. What drove the incorporation of the Airports Act in 1996 was a recognition by the Labor government that they had to do something better than what they had done before when the Federal Airports Corporation ran those government owned airports. They would have to do something better in terms of getting more money in to develop the airports and improve the existing aviation infrastructure and passenger services than what would come out of the normal budget process. So they had a bit of a debate. Part of the debate was whether they would flog off those airports in toto, in perpetuity. Luckily, the decision was made that that was not a good use of Commonwealth resources and that instead there should be a lease of those airports and that the lease should be subject to a specific range of lease provisions and that that would be incorporated into the Airports Act. There was to be protection for the public at large, for the people who lived around the airports and for local councils and state governments that would be impacted by the infrastructure changes at the airports. There had to be a master plan in process, and the master plan was to cover 20 years.

I think Rip Van Winkle went to sleep for 20 years and then woke up. The master plan basically says: ‘Start here. Okay, Rip, go off to sleep now. Twenty years down the track you will wake up and this is the what the world will look like.’ But that master plan is subject to the community having a look at it. There is a 90-day community consultation period. The people who have bought the lease actually run the whole of that consultation process. They take in comments from the community, from councils, from state governments, from individuals in the community, from interest groups. They take those comments in, finalise their master plan and put it to the minister. The minister has the power to either tick or cross, to say yes or no. He can accept or reject.

We know that Minister Anderson rejected Coolangatta airport’s plans for the extension of their runway at least twice if not three times. The fact that the seat of Richmond was held by Larry Anthony and they did not want the extension of that runway to impact on that seat might have had some direct bearing on that. But we know you can just knock it back, and that is what he as the minister did. We also know that, in the interstices between the plan being put up to the minister and when we get a final result, there can be discussion—and in fact there is—between the minister’s office and those people who are the proponents. But no-one outside the minister’s office and the people who have bought the lease know what is involved in those discussions. They cannot have any more say in relation to it. The only say they have been allowed to have is an input to the people who actually own the lease and have a vested interest in getting their master plan up.

Whatever the point and purpose of the 1996 act was, I think there are still fundamental problems, because I have seen it in the operation. I was told at the time: ‘Don’t worry, because we go through the public planning process. You will be able to have your say. People in the community will be able to have their say,’ and we did—very forcefully. The one thing that I ensured got up was that it should be written in blood into this master plan that large jet aircraft would not be flying into Bankstown Airport. Why was that important? I was told by the owners: ‘Don’t worry about that, Michael. What are you worried about? We have got no real intention of doing that. We would actually have to get rid of the current runways and extend the runway.’ They did want to extend the runway by 200 metres. I said that it was not good, that it would have an impact on the people in Condell Park. We would have to widen it from 30 metres to 40 metres and we would have to strengthen it. They said: ‘Don’t worry, because we are going to build buildings right around the runway. Gee, we would have to knock those buildings down to go ahead with it.’ You could put 737s straight into and out of Bankstown if you did that.

Guess what? On 13 December 2000 the federal government wanted to do just that. They came up with this genius of a plan where they decided that Bankstown Airport would be an overflow airport for Kingsford Smith, because they did not want to build another one at Badgerys Creek or anywhere else. So it was an overflow airport. I told them at the time that they were just completely insane. You cannot run Bankstown and Kingsford Smith coevally given the distance between them and the fact that the paths of the aircraft run across each other. It took this government at least five months—it may have been longer—to come to realise what I had told them on the very first day that they announced it. They were stark raving mad—it couldn’t be done.

In the end there was a release from Minister Tuckey, who was helping out Minister Anderson. They said, ‘Oh, we’re not going to do it anymore.’ Well, that was not good enough: ‘We are not going to do it any more, we don’t intend to do it.’ I wanted it written in blood in the master plan that the category Cs would be the absolute limit, that we would not be having 747s—they would be too big. You could have 737s, 737Bs; you could have a whole range of aircraft flying into Bankstown. I was also against regular passenger transport going into Bankstown, but this government allowed 12 flights a day—that is just the start, the first kick in the door, nothing has happened yet. That is despite the fact that there was an attempt to set up yet another airline that was going to run in the back blocks from Melbourne through to Sydney and then to Brisbane by a guy who was running around with racing cars and so on—an ill-considered move but one that in the future more could happen with.

There is a specific provision within this bill which is of concern not necessarily to the Labor Party but to me, because under that provision there is a possibility that Bankstown could be declared a non-core airport, and the limit of five per cent in terms of airline ownership could be lifted. That could happen by regulation as a result of the changes to these acts. I am totally, utterly and completely against such a change, and the shadow minister in his contribution has indicated that we will act in order to stop that should they do it. You have to regulate, and regulate hard, in this area.

I discovered through this process that to have the act written in that way, allowing a lessee in the master plan a period of 90 days to take everybody’s comments in, but to then take no notice whatsoever of those comments at all—not even to have to reply to the comments or justify the stance they are taking—is an abrogation of the Commonwealth’s responsibility. It is the case today that, after these amendments go through, that situation will still pertain. More work will have to be done by an incoming Labor government to really amend this legislation to make it more robust.

The prospect of getting a large block of land in the middle of Sydney, the geographical heart of Sydney, by the people who bought Bankstown Airport and Camden Airport and Hoxton airport as a job lot—they got a phenomenal deal—is a great commercial enterprise. Had Bankstown council had its head screwed on, it would have bought it. The cost of buying those three entities will be paid for when Hoxton Park is sold. It is right next to the M7. It will be sold for residential and industrial development. The very cost of buying all three will be amortised completely through the sale of Hoxton Park, and it is in the legislation that five years after the master plan is approved, bang, that happens. So you pay your money and you get it all back. Terrific.

What else to do you do with this? What do you do with the flights? They have to go back to Bankstown, some more go to Camden, or they go out to Wedderburn—the smaller ones. When you look at the practical experience of it, Bankstown Airport is really an industrial-commercial-retail zone with an attached airstrip. That is it; that is what we have got. It is an attached airstrip. What does not drive the new airport owners centrally is the need to run general aviation in Sydney. We do not have enough general aviation airports in Sydney.

When the RAAF finally leaves Richmond we may have an opportunity to really expand general aviation provisions in Sydney. If this government wanted to start at Badgerys Creek or elsewhere to build up general aviation—given that Schofields, one of our major training facilities at Bankstown, was knocked off; it still does the core of the training work done in Australia—we could expand and make a great deal more if the central focus was on airports and running airports.

I do not blame the lessees for saying: ‘This is a magnificent commercial prospect. We can put retail, commercial, industrial and light industrial into this and make a motza.’ They have been given that opportunity; that is what the lease allows them to do. But what is only partially addressed here by this bill is the impact of that on the local council area and on the state government responsibilities. And the impact is significant.

When the act was thought up and put into operation over the past 10-plus years, I do not think anyone in the minister’s office really envisaged—and they should have—just what impact there would be. They said: ‘Good idea. We’re going to flog off 22 airports. We’ll get the biggest amount of money we can. We’ll then let them just have a go in terms of what they want to develop on that land.’ There is no provision whatsoever for local councils to control land development on the airport. I do not necessarily think there should be.

However, there should be conformity in planning and planning powers, not only with local council provisions but also with state government provisions, which really control what the local councils can do. But I have a situation with the development of this master plan at Bankstown Airport, where the local council, through their mayors—the current one and the previous one—have run campaigns on the basis that Bankstown council should have complete control of what happens in planning at Bankstown Airport. They can do it because they know they will never get it. But we do not have a strong enough underlining of the fact that the federal government owns this land and is responsible for it.

Do we have town planners in the minister for transport’s office? I think the answer is no. Should we have them? The answer is yes. We should have town planners who everyone dealing with this situation will know can give direct advice to the minister’s office. So when a lessee rolls up with his 20-year development master plan that has to be a reviewed every five years, people who are competent in the area can say: ‘Minister, there’s a problem here. If you look at the impact of this massive development at Bankstown Airport, there will be a great deal more truck activity, a great deal more commercial activity. The sensible way to do things is to provide an internal road.’

But guess what? Greater activity has to come out in one way or the other. So it comes onto either Henry Lawson Drive or Milperra Road. There is much greater ingress and egress, and much greater transport impact. Who is going to pay the cost of that? At the moment no-one is. The lessees do not want to cough up and say, ‘We’ll fix these’—in this case, two state roads. They will say: ‘We won’t pay a couple of hundred million dollars in order to make sure those lanes are expanded and we can get our traffic out. That’s somebody else’s problem.’ This bill does not fix it. It should, because, 10 years on, this is the opportunity to tweak and change and make it more robust as a result of experience. Airports are not just about getting planes in and out of the air, they are not just about the infrastructure that is directly aviation related; the non-aviation purposes of airports also have a fundamental impact.

The biggest impact with regard to this is on the local community. State governments are not going to rush to put in tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to provide the infrastructure. Somebody has got to pay; this has to be worked out. The master planning process should be a conjoint one, with the Commonwealth in control of it and fully driving it. It should not be controlled by the lessee, and that is exactly what we have got now. The lessee must conform to what the state and local provisions are, and the Commonwealth has to write it. Why? Because we did not sell these airports; we are leasing them. We are still liable, fundamentally. If you receive the money, you take the responsibility.

This bill does a few bits and pieces to make changes. I will tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker: it does not fix the master planning problem for any one of those 22 airports Australia-wide. You can have your say, you can have a yak, for 90 days or so, but the lessee does not have to take a single bit of notice of any of it. They could do a side deal with the minister’s office and say: ‘We’ll flick.’ What happened in our case? The 737s were banned. The class C and up were banned. They said: ‘Trust us. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we won’t really do it.’ Well, I do not, and that is why I ensured that that got up, but I could not stop the extension of the runway and I could not stop the regular passenger services, because the minister decided that was okay.

That is a coalition minister who on 13 December 2000 wanted to turn us into Sydney’s second airport. Can you trust the minister in those circumstances? I have to tell you: no. Could you do so in the future? No. Do we need to have major, significant change here so that the community can have a say and that say can be represented in what the outcomes are? Otherwise we have just got to cop it. We have to cop massive development that is unconstrained because whatever the person who has bought it wants to do, they do it. One tick and you are away: 20 years later—the Rip Van Winkle effect—what have we got here? What do we do with this? Who is going to pay for all that increase? What about all that extra impact on those local roads?

I do not want 20 years or more of local campaigns with state councils or groups coming and saying, ‘We want to run this and we want to fix it.’ I want a Commonwealth government which, when it takes the money, takes the responsibility. I want a Commonwealth minister for transport who says: ‘We will regulate. We will legislate these industrial-commercial-retail zones with attached airstrips’—because that is what they have turned into. Even though it is an airports act, fundamentally there is massive development in the heart of Sydney. And it is great—good for jobs, a good impact in terms of the amount of money rolling through the community. It is not great if you are a local council and you are not getting enough return or you do not see that it is adequate. That is why the shadow minister in his argument has said, quite rightly, you need to compensate the locals properly. There should be a proper rate of return. That is why the councils argue for these sorts of things. What do they get back? Zero—maybe a meeting with the previous minister. But the fundamental reality is that nothing really changes in this area, because the quantum of complaints is not properly dealt with.

I welcome the fact that we have got some change after 10 years, but in terms of the practicalities of the way in which this operates we need an overhaul of this system that takes into account the fact that if you are going to flog something you do not give control of the process to the lessee in perpetuity—for the 20 years of the lease plus. What are they on? A 99-year lease, aren’t they? So you just say to the lessee: ‘After 20 years we’ll have a bit of a look at what you’re up to. You can put it in your new master plan. We’ll have 90 days with a “stop the clock” provision and then that’s okay.’ (Time expired)

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services, Housing, Youth and Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to support the member for Batman’s second reading amendment to the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. He has moved:

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through approval decisions such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.

While neither of those developments is in my electorate or my city, I have got a lot of sympathy for the sentiments expressed in this amendment, because we have had a recent battle at Sydney airport about the proposed retail precinct that the airport wanted to build there on airport land. It was a disaster of a proposal, and it has been stopped by the minister. I will speak a little bit more about that later.

This bill, amongst other provisions, allows airport lessees to undertake non-aeronautical development as long as it is consistent with the master plan. It requires Australian noise exposure forecasts and flight paths to be included in master plans and to be developed beyond the 20-year planning horizon. It reduces the time for public comment on proposed development plans and requires the airport lessee to demonstrate how it has consulted with local communities.

We think that there are some weaknesses in this bill but we also understand that airports are essential infrastructure in our cities and also support the tourism industry and other industries. I would like to speak a little bit about how the most recent non-aeronautical development proposal around Sydney airport was campaigned on and how we encouraged the minister to reject that proposal.

Obviously any sort of large development in the middle of one of Australia’s biggest cities is going to be controversial, but the development that was proposed for Sydney airport was particularly controversial for a number of reasons. It was controversial for its size. It was controversial also because there was an absolute unwillingness on the part of the airport to consider their responsibility to surrounding communities or to consider their responsibility for the infrastructure demands that would be made by the development. What they were interested in was making a buck—well, there is no crime in that—but there was a complete lack of confidence in people whose communities surround the airport that the proposal was well thought through even in terms of the future development of the airport site. What the federal government has to establish when there is a non-aeronautical development like the proposal put forward by Sydney Airport Corporation is not only whether it is appropriate for the expansion plans of the airport but also what kind of effect it is going to have on the communities living around the airport.

Sydney Airport Corporation put forward a draft development proposal to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services for a massive retail complex. The original draft plan included a substantial cinema complex, and I was very happy to see that defeated after an incredible community campaign led by residents in my area and in the neighbouring seats of Kingsford Smith, Wentworth, Lowe and Grayndler. I must say that the state members of parliament in that area, in particular Kristina Keneally, the member for Heffron, were also very active in seeing that proposal rejected. I hope the fact that this is an election year had nothing to do with the decision to reject that proposal, because I am sure that Sydney Airport Corporation will be back with further proposals. It is worth noting the scale of the proposal they last made. They were talking about an outlet centre of 24,000 square metres, a homemaker centre of 10,000 square metres, food courts of 1,900 square metres, an independent discount store of 12,500 and almost 2½ thousand extra car spaces.

The first thing to say about that is that it is pretty hard to see how it is necessary to have such an enormous new shopping centre when you have Eastlakes just down the road and the SupaCentre five minutes drive away. It is not as though Sydney is short on shops. The other thing we were really very concerned about was the amount of extra infrastructure that would have been required just for people to come and go from this shopping centre. We are talking about $2.7 billion worth of extra roadworks between now and 2024 if that development proposal had gone ahead. Who pays for that $2.7 billion worth of roadworks? It is not the Sydney Airport Corporation, the people who are making all the money out of the retail complex, and it is not the federal government, which gives it the go-ahead; it is in fact the state government that have to pay that $2½ billion, even though they have no say over the size, the scale or the type of the development or whether it should go there in the first place.

I noticed that Brisbane Airport have made voluntary contributions—in fact, quite large ones—to the infrastructure around Brisbane Airport, including hundreds of millions of dollars to roadworks around Brisbane Airport. It is the right thing to do. If you are interested in growing a business like the Brisbane Airport you have to understand that your growth impacts on local communities and that you have a responsibility to the local communities to mitigate some of the most difficult effects for those people.

There is another area that is of enormous concern. It is not just the impacts on the neighbouring residents of the infrastructure and all the extra traffic in and out of the shopping centre when they are already dealing with an awful lot of traffic in that area because of the airport and because of the container terminal down the road at Port Botany. And it is not simply the fact that there are probably plenty of shops in the eastern suburbs of Sydney and not necessarily a demand for a new shopping centre when there is one just down the road. There are also the very serious concerns about what it means to have a massive complex attracting thousands of visitors every day located smack bang in the middle of an airport precinct. Is it necessarily the smartest thing in the world when we are in an international environment of increasing terrorist threat to have people coming and going from airport precincts, hanging around airports when they do not need to be there, and having huge developments with thousands of visitors coming and going right up against the fence of an airport? It is difficult to explain why you would want to increase the risk to the people who are doing their shopping and also increase the threat of a security breach at the airport by having such a massive development in an airport zone.

One of the areas of concern has been a lack of access to a merit appeal process when it comes to development applications on airport sites. I am very pleased that the minister for transport made the right decision in relation to the development proposed at Sydney airport. But we want to be confident that the right decision is made each time and that, if the right decision is not made, there is a decent appeal process in place that people can use. We also, I think, would be much happier with these sorts of developments if we were confident that when non-aeronautical development was taking place on airport land and massive new infrastructure was required to support it—new roads to the airport, expanded roads to the airport, extra public transport, even upgrades of electricity and water networks to the airport—that there was some developer contribution in the way that there is a developer contribution expected of other developments which are opening up new landholdings and so on. We expect them to contribute because we know that they are going to make money out of the new development that they are proposing. It makes sense, in this instance when we are talking about a need for an extra $2.7 billion worth of roadworks alone, that developers should contribute to some of that money. You should not have the external costs passed straight to the taxpayers of New South Wales when all the profits sit with the developer of the airport complex.

I want to finish by saying that airport noise and breaking of curfews continues to be a major issue around Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. I have had constituents from all over my electorate write to me—from Rosebery, from Paddington and from Haymarket—talking about experiences they have had of curfews being broken. A resident from Rosebery complained on behalf of many of his neighbours of the constant noise they are experiencing. A constituent from Paddington told me that one morning planes were flying overhead between six in the morning and 8.30 am every five minutes. After making a complaint to the aircraft noise complaints line, she was told that this was because was some work was being done on the runways. They were unable to tell her when this very intense flyover pattern was going to finish. Another constituent, whose complaint was covered in the Southern Courier and Inner West Courier recently, said that the curfew was being broken regularly. The constituent said that five aircraft a day are breaking the early morning curfew at Sydney airport. Of course, it is not unusual; it has happened before, but it is certainly something that we need to continue to be aware of.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, it being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.