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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (32):

(1)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (lines 17-18), omit the item.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 30-31), omit the item.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (line 23), omit “as a business day”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (lines 4-5), omit the item.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 56, page 11 (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 58, page 11 (lines 20-21), omit the item.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 59, page 11 (line 27), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 5-6), omit the item.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 7-8), omit the item.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (lines 27-28), omit the item.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line  4), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 10-11), omit the item.

(14)  Schedule 1, page 15, after item 85 (after line 20) insert

85A  Subsection 93(2)

Omit the subsection, substitute

      “(2)    A draft major development plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by

             (a)    a written statement signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of the persons consulted; and

                  (ii)    summarising the views of persons consulted, and

             (b)    a copy of any document provided by a person consulted.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 16 (line 4), omit “as a business day”.

(16)  Schedule 1, page 16, after item 87 (after line 11),

87A  After subsection 94(1)

Insert

   “(1A)    The Department must ensure that before the Minister approves or refuses to approve the plan an assessment of the plan is made by qualified town planners and comments on the plan by town planners are provided to the Minister.

(17)  Schedule 1, page 16, after item 88 (after line 15) insert

88A  After subsection 94(5)

Insert

     (5A)    If the Minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions of relevant state or territory planning agencies or local government authorities the Minister must provide a statement in writing setting out the reasons for the decision.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 89, page 16 (lines 16-17), omit the item, substitute

89  Subsection 94(6)

Omit the subsection.

(19)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after item 89) (after line 17), insert

89A  Subsection 94(6A)

Omit the subsection.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 90, page 16 (after line 27) add

      (7C)    The Minister must specify in approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure; and, if so, having regard to relevant rate-equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport - lessee company to negotiate in good faith with relevant State, territory and/or local government authorities with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate contributions to be made by the airport-lessee company to specific off-airport infrastructure.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 95, page 17 (lines 15-16), omit the item.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 100, page 18 (lines 1-2), omit the item.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 101, page 18 (line 8), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 103, page 18 (lines 14-15), omit the item.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 112, page 19 (lines 19-20), omit the item.

(26)  Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (lines 17-18), omit the item.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (lines 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (lines 30-31), omit the item.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (line 24), omit “as a business day”.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 136, page 23 (lines 4-5), omit the item.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 141, page 23 (lines 16-17), omit the item.

(32)  Schedule 1, item 147, page 24 (lines 12-13), omit the item.

This is an exceptionally important debate on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. It goes to the operation of key infrastructure vital to the future of Australia, and I am talking about our airports not only in our capital cities but also in key regional centres. For that reason, following detailed consideration of the bill and the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, the opposition are moving amendments which we think are exceptionally important to the future operation of the bill. In moving these amendments I am pleased to acknowledge that the government has agreed this evening to two recommendations of the Senate with respect to changes to the operation of the bill.

Having said that, we have also sought, from an opposition’s perspective, to reach an understanding with the government with respect to the operation of this bill. Unfortunately, we have been unable to negotiate such an outcome to date, but we would be happy to continue to negotiate, our intent obviously being to refine the operation of the bill, because we actually think it is a very important bill in terms of its application on a day-to-day basis.

That aside, the opposition is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines, and I will return to this key issue shortly. I also note the changes proposed by the government with respect to time lines; they unfortunately fall short of what is required by the opposition. I therefore also refer to the fact that, earlier this year, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime 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 time lines proposed, which would have brought the planning regime largely into line with state and territory planning processes—in fact, in some instances they are far more restrictive than existing state and territory processes—might well have been accepted by the opposition.

The problem is that in recent times some of the decisions made have caused major concerns, not only amongst opposition members but also, as is obviously reflected by the fact that the government has been forced to amend its time lines, amongst government members. But the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines, as I have said, is a manifestation of the distrust in the government’s implementation of the process, not only by members of the House but also by substantial numbers of people out there in the Australian community, especially amongst local and state government representatives. My colleagues are equally concerned, and so are their constituents, because we appreciate that the operation of airports is a very sensitive local issue. Just ask any member who has responsibility for an airport in or close to their electorate.

Unfortunately, in recent times the government’s record on airport development has raised serious questions about its lack of proper concern for the needs and welfare of many local people who live around Australia’s key airports. I refer specifically, for example, to the brickworks at Perth and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon. On the basis of those outcomes, we in the opposition are not prepared to accept any reductions in consultation or approval times.

The second issue I go to relates to public consultation submissions received. It is the view of the opposition that, as the Senate committee quite rightly recommended, all public consultation submissions received by the proponents of airport developments should go to the minister as the decision maker—a proposition which is now accepted by the government. Amendment (14) in my schedule of amendments addresses this important issue. I think it is appropriate that the minister receive a copy of all public submissions going to planning proposals for the operation of airports. It would enable the minister and the department to properly consider these issues. That is the practice of a number of airport owners at this point in time, as instanced by the current planning process underway for a second runway at Brisbane Airport, which is a controversial issue in the minds of some people. (Extension of time granted) I am pleased to note the government’s support for this recommendation, because I think it is very reasonable. It is obviously part of the Senate’s consideration of the bill and it is part of the Senate committee’s recommendations, which are important in terms of trying to refine the operation of this bill.

I go to a number of key amendments. Amendment (16) goes to ensuring that the minister receives advice from qualified town planners when making approval decisions about master plans and major development plans. Amendment (17) introduces a requirement for the minister to provide a written statement of the reasons for his decision if the minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions by relevant state and local government planning authorities. Amendments (18) and (19) remove the deemed approval provision whereby a development is automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the appropriate time frames provided under the act.

All these propositions, we believe, are practical. They are also about ensuring, in terms of day-to-day decision making, that the operation of the bill is in line with the intent of the bill, which is that we properly handle sensitive issues going to the operation of airports with respect to both aviation and non-aviation activities at this point in time.

Whilst there is no history of the minister abrogating his responsibilities when it comes to making decisions within the appropriate time lines, there is a history of this in other parts of the government. For example, I specifically refer to the recent failure by the Treasurer when it came to a decision on BHP Billiton’s Pilbara railway which went to the critical operation of export infrastructure in the iron ore sector in north-west Western Australia—an issue which is now subject to ongoing litigation because of the Treasurer’s failure to actually make a definitive decision.

Amendment (20) requires the minister to specify in the approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport lessee company to negotiate appropriate contributions to that infrastructure. This is an issue of huge concern at a local and state government level, as instanced by the difficulties surrounding the operation and development of the DFO at Essendon Airport in Melbourne. There were major infrastructure difficulties that arose from that decision to approve the DFO.

I can only hope that the minister has learnt from his experience with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon Airport that he has to also take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. I say this because I believe the minister reached the right decision earlier this year on the proposed Sydney airport retail development. Perhaps he has learnt from some of the backlash that has occurred as a result of previous decisions, such as the approval of those discount operations at Essendon Airport. The Sydney airport development, interestingly, would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by state and adjacent local authorities. Clearly, it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it.

If we as a community want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports, it is time for all parties to lift their game. There are some instances where the last thing I want to do is hand over planning powers to state and local government representatives, because there are also some concerns in the Australian community about some of the decisions that they make, but I think we are about a balance with respect to a very sensitive and difficult area of planning in Australia—that is, the operation of the airports. I do not think that there is any minister of any political persuasion who will always please the community when making these very tough decisions. The truth of the matter is that everyone wants airports but, as usual, no-one wants them in their backyard.

That is evidenced by the campaign by the Greens to close Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. It is interesting to see that every time you pass through an airport there are representatives of the Greens, yet you come to the parliament and you would think that airports are a plague on the nation. I tell you what: they do not mind racking up their frequent flyer points and using our key infrastructure with respect to the operation of airports. These are very serious issues and I raise them in a very serious manner.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Phillip Barresi (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Batman has the call.

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

It is interesting to see the sensitivities on the other side of the House with respect to the Greens, given the recent preferences deal with the Greens Victoria to give their Liberal Party preferences to the Greens to try to defeat Labor Party candidates. (Extension of time granted)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the member for Batman of the bill before us.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Baldwin interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson is not assisting.

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

I understand the sensitivities, because these very issues can influence planning processes at local and state government level, let alone at a federal government level in the future, because of these dirty little preference deals by Liberal Party representatives around Australia. Having raised these issues, can I say this is actually about building community trust. This is about honesty and integrity with respect to the operation of government and the operation of political parties. They want to be in bed with preference deals—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Batman would help if he came back to the bill.

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

I understand the relevance of these issues to the Airports Amendment Bill. Minority governments make hard political decision making very difficult, so it is a key issue to the outcome of these elections for the capacity for a government to have a clear majority to be able to make these definite decisions.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot understand where that tie-in comes, Member for Batman.

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

It is time for the minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to properly 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 to contribute to off-airport infrastructure where it is reasonable. It should also be acknowledged in that context that, unfortunately, there are also some councils who think that airport owners are an easy target in maximising rate outcomes. The bill is very clear. It is about rate outcomes for non-aviation activities and people should understand that it is about a balance in the application of that principle. Airports should pay their way, but the bill is also about making sure that some surrounding local councils understand that airports are not there, to put it bluntly, to be screwed for local rate outcomes.

This bill is about a balance. It is about making sure that we can make the hard decisions, guaranteeing the operation of these airports. They are the key to our economic future. They are so important for a variety of activities, not just for the tourist industry but also for the movement of business and for attracting investment from overseas. Our requirement is to make sure that we operate them in an efficient way whilst also going out of our way to protect the local interests of people living in and around airports.

Therefore, it is an appropriate time for airport lessees to engage properly—and some are better than others—and to deal fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land users and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. They actually get the benefit of these huge investments which also have a huge impact on surrounding communities. They reap the financial benefits for being allowed to have not only the aviation but also more than ever the non-aviation activities. It is also therefore expected that they make a contribution—as is going to happen, for example, with the Brisbane Airport development—to the infrastructure that is required to enable the operation of the airport in a highly efficient way. In some cases it might also be reasonable for state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate-equivalent payments and potential economic and tax benefits through the operation of those state and local government authorities.

As I said in my contribution in the second reading debate, airports are very important for the future of Australia and we have to make sure that we take the community with us. Airports generate funds and economic activities for the nation, but we have to make sure that the poor implementation of the planning and approval processes by the government in some instances to date, which has created huge suspicion amongst some sections of the Australian community with what is a difficult bill to implement, is addressed. The Airports Amendment Bill is a difficult bill, as I have said in this debate. We all want airports and we all want the benefits from aviation, but no-one wants an airport in their backyard. The truth is that airports are here to stay. We as a nation need them. Let us make sure that we operate the planning processes in a proper and consultative way. There will be tough decisions, but let us make sure that we go out of our way to consider all the associated issues in making these tough decisions. I commend my amendments, moved on behalf of the opposition, to the House.

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 enthusiastically support the detailed amendments just moved by the member for Batman, the shadow minister for transport and roads, without which the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 would be left resembling a Macquarie Bank manifesto for achieving greater operating profits for the directors and shareholders at the expense of the public interest and the local community, particularly the people I represent in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney’s inner west. Constituents in my electorate of Lowe have suffered for too long and will continue to suffer for many years to come from the reckless, irresponsible and negligent aviation policies of the Howard government. Members of the government now have an opportunity to do the right thing by my constituents by supporting the shadow minister’s amendments rather than pandering to the interests of the big end of town and its affiliates. I applaud the shadow minister, who, unlike the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, has shown serious concern that airport stakeholders may not have sufficient time to respond to amendments to airport master plans, major and minor development plans and environment strategies. That is why the ALP is proposing the amendments to retain existing approval and consultation time frames.

Members of the public currently have 90 calendar days to assess and make comments on master plans, major development plans and environment strategies. Members should realise that these are instruments which contain reams of technical data, statistics and complex calculations—yet the government proposes to slash to just 45 days the time available for ordinary Australians to assess them. This slash to consultation period times is unforgivable and ought to be rejected out of hand. Members of the government can do so by putting pride aside, joining with us and supporting the member for Batman’s amendments.

It should also be noted that members of the public currently have 30 days to assess and make comments on minor variations to master plans and environment strategies. The government proposes to slash this to 15 days, despite the data being no less technical. The slash to this consultation period is equally unforgivable and it, too, ought to be rejected out of hand.

I am surprised that there has been so little condemnation by government members of the savage and totally unjustified slashing of community consultation periods. Why should the only substantive submission to an airport master plan or major development plan be from the applicant itself? How is the public interest served by the savage cuts in consultation periods? How is a member of the public, a local council, a state government or one of my constituents in Lowe supposed to respond within days to a complex plan which could destroy the amenity of a neighbourhood, not to mention the potential devastating impact on property values of the government’s promotion of the massive expansion of airports for the benefit of the likes of Macquarie Bank? How can we legitimately expect these stakeholders to respond within days to a plan that may have taken upwards of three years to prepare? We cannot, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

I now turn to the government’s proposed amendments to section 81(5), section 84(3), section 94(6) and section 95(3), all of which have the effect of slashing the amount of time available to a minister to approve or refuse master plans and major development plans, or amendments to them, from 90 days to 50 days. A minister’s inability to assess the reams of technical data and complex calculations within the slashed assessment period will result in a ‘deemed approval’. Why is the government giving carte blanche to these ‘mini republics’ to do what they want, when they want, and with greater ease? It is hard to imagine local councils adopting a policy of ‘deemed approval’, rather than ‘deemed refusal’, for a two-storey home if it cannot be comprehensively assessed within time. How, then, can members of the government seriously allow this to happen for new flight paths over people’s homes or for a 48,000-square metre shopping centre at Sydney Airport? These proposals are bordering on the preposterous and the absurd. Members opposite would do well to support our amendments and do away with the unjustified slashing of ministerial assessment times and the legal fiction that ministerial silence amounts to consent.

I turn finally to the member for Batman’s amendments to ensure that major airport development plans are subjected to assessment by town planning professionals rather than simply bureaucrats within the Department of Transport and Regional Services. Why should Macquarie Bank at Sydney Airport or Colonial First State at Bankstown Airport be permitted to develop airport lands as retail outlets without any exposure to planning and environmental professionals? There are many town planners with a comprehensive and well-founded knowledge of worldwide planning regimes which have been developed and refined over decades. They know what works and what does not—not bureaucrats in the federal Department of Transport and Regional Services. (Time expired)

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are the amendments seconded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I too would like to support the opposition’s detailed amendments as moved by the member for Batman. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and some of the amendments because, as I have said many times in this place, my electorate has the Adelaide Airport smack bang in the middle of it. It affects 15,000 to 25,000 people living around the airport. This bill is very important to my electorate.

I would like to start off by speaking of the proposed amendment to section 85A subsection 93(2), which reads:

(2)

A draft major development plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by

(a)

a written statement signed on behalf of the company:

(i)

listing the names of the persons consulted; and

(ii)

summarising the views of persons consulted, and

(b)

a copy of any document provided by a person consulted.

A written statement signed on behalf of the company would be from the Adelaide Airport in my case in Adelaide, South Australia. That would have to list the names of persons consulted. Currently no listing has to be done. It also requires that we summarise the views of those people who have been consulted and make copies of any documents provided by those persons. Persons in my electorate would mainly be residents who live around the airport. I think the minister needs to know what these people are going through or what the effects on their lives will be before developments take place. I think that, if the minister is not getting that information, he is getting only half the information and is not getting what is going on in the area and the consequences for the immediate suburbs around the airports which will affect those residents.

I think it is unfortunate that we are here tonight speaking of a decade of Australian aviation which has resulted, by one means or another, in an almost sardonic attitude shown by those affected by the act with which this amendment bill is concerned. We have had a history of minimal conditions placed upon the proposals of developments and activities at the airports which has allowed the practice to develop where the master plan is originally developed, the master plan implementation is the second stage and then there are amendments. Some people in my electorate will swear that the master plan should be dumped in the wastepaper basket as soon as it comes back from the minister’s desk, for all it is worth.

A situation has developed whereby the government outsources virtually all functions pertaining to airport development to the very businesses the act is supposed to regulate. Multimillion-dollar companies have been given responsibility for: ensuring the community is consulted over their plans; incorporating substantial objections and amendments; policing the observance of their own master plan; and assessing amendments to the master plan irrespective of what those amendments are or what anyone thinks of them. So ensuring that the minister sees what has happened in the consultation discussions can only be a good thing.

The very recent case of the proposal for some development in the middle of Sydney airport being turned down by the government has been one of the only things that I have ever seen be turned down. I am not aware of any airport lessee company around the nation having any of their claims rejected by this government apart from this recent one. An airport lessee company’s consultative committee may meet with the representatives of community groups. They may meet with people without any inside information or expert knowledge. Some of these companies may even meet with their shareholders, but to what end? The current system that we have in place puts the community at the disposal of the airport lessee companies. It puts the general public in a position of reliance on the very organisation they are notionally going to disagree with, the company that is their notional adversary. Will an airport lessee company say, ‘Sure, we agree to kill off this multimillion-dollar project because you don’t like it,’ even if it does not contravene the master plan? The notion that the government can rely on airport lessee companies to do the right thing, consult, take everyone’s opinions into consideration throughout the airport’s development over a couple decades because they were asked to by this act we are going to amend is naive in the extreme. The people in the community have no faith in these companies; they have no faith that their comments will not be misrepresented or discounted.

Government amendments will not help if the airport can misrepresent or underplay the substance of comments and discard the relevance or importance of those people submitting. It is ridiculous for a party with such financial bias to be given full rein in collating, interpreting and assessing substance of comments and then be expected to say to the government that they have viewed community comments with total objectivity and a not-for-profit sense of community responsibility. Persons who make comments should receive copies of airport lessee companies’ responses to comments as submitted by the company to the minister. Subsequent to any determination, they should also be informed of any determination of the minister pertaining to their comments. All such documents should be on the public record—comments, airport lessee company submissions and ministerial responses. My question for the minister is: what evidence can be hoped for by any person in the community who has made a comment that (1) the airport lessee company has considered it and (2) the airport lessee company accurately represented it in their submissions to the minister?

That is what this amendment is all about. It is about showing the minister who has been consulted, what those people have said and what the outcomes have been. These are only good things. The more consultation we have, the better for those residents who live in and around the airport in my electorate. Therefore, I commend and support the opposition’s amendments to this bill.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not agree to the amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Martin Ferguson’s) be agreed to.