Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Australia’s 22 federally leased airports are pieces of national significant infrastructure, and it is clearly in the nationally interest that these airports remain under long-term Commonwealth control. The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 gives effect to the Australian government’s desire that airports meet the expectations of the local community and that the services that they provide are delivered effectively, efficiently and equitably. It is important that our airports not only offer key gateways to people coming to Australia and act as an effective facilitator of the movement of people in and out of our country but also they need to be good community citizens. The Commonwealth has built into its airports framework a number of obligations: that airports pay rate-equivalent fees to their local governments, that they harmonise to the greatest extent possible their planning regimes with the local and state governments and that they consult with their state and local government planning authorities and their community on major planning issues.

Most Australian airports have been good citizens in their community and the local public are proud of the contribution that the airports are making. The government has consistently stated that it will continue to control planning and development on the leased airports sites which are on Commonwealth land. I welcome the opposition’s affirmation in the other place that planning control would be retained by the Commonwealth government. The government recognises that there is a need for some improvements in the consultation process and the involvement of state and territory governments in ensuring that, when new developments are proposed, there is an appropriate level of consultation. The privatisation of our airports has fostered a vibrant industry that has enabled airports to grow as commercial businesses, with minimal government intervention. The network provided by the leased federal airports regulated under the Airports Act forms the backbone of the country’s aviation and transport infrastructure.

The bill, which has been under discussion, preserves and enhances the open and transparent regulatory regime for land use planning and the protection of the environment and control of airport building activity provided for by the Airports Act. However, the government acknowledges that a number of concerns have been raised during the debate on this bill, particularly by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport following its inquiry into the bill. The committee supported the passage of the bill, with two amendments, namely, that the airport lessee companies, or ALCs, be required to provide notice to relevant state and local government organisations when key planning documents are released for public comment and that ALCs be required to provide copies of all public submissions when lodging these documents for approval under the Airports Act 1996.

The government supports these two key recommendations and the amendments will give effect to those recommendations. These changes, which require the airport operator to advise local planning authorities of proposed development on airports and to provide the Minister for Transport and Regional Services with copies of all public comments, will add greater transparency to the airport planning process. I commend the amendments to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

The letter goes on to suggest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the opposition spokesman, the member for Batman, for his comments on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and his indication that the opposition is broadly supportive of what is proposed. I also commend him on his contribution. I agree wholeheartedly with many of the things that he said. I think we have moved to a stage where there is a degree of acknowledgement that the quite outstanding airport facilities we now have in Australia could never have been provided if the taxpayers were asked to pick up the bill on each occasion. The political reality is that to go through a budget process every time there is a proposal to spend what sometimes amounts to billions of dollars on new airport infrastructure would be unachievable. The private sector is driving investment and delivering to Australia an excellent suite of airports. They are not all perfect. They all have ambitions to expand and will need to expand if world growth in aviation meets expectations. For that reason, the harnessing of private sector capital has been very worth while.

There are sensitivities about how much should be charged and who should be allowed to operate the airports. We will have to work through those issues with goodwill. But I agree entirely with the opposition spokesman—and I made this comment in my own opening remarks—that airports need to be good neighbours and citizens. They are major employers. Sydney airport is one of the biggest employers in Sydney. It is very important to the state of New South Wales as a gateway, as an employer and as a driver of economic activity. The local community and the state and federal governments all need to be supportive of the general activities of the airport and acknowledge that, in most cases, the airport was there first and other development has occurred around it. Indeed, some of that development is attracted to the neighbourhood because the airport is there.

There are sometimes conflicts which need to be addressed, and it is beyond doubt that the involvement of the private sector in the airports has led to a broader range of investment on many of the airport sites. There is enormous potential to use large sites—Melbourne and Brisbane in particular—as an economic gateway or new port. For that reason, those sites are critical to the development of the cities they serve. But they do need to work constructively with their local communities, and there are examples of very good practice in that regard. It is interesting that all of the developments proposed for Melbourne Airport have, I think, not raised a single objection between them. That is an example of not only good planning but also good community consultation processes. The community consultation process in Brisbane, with one exception, has been pretty good as well and has helped lead to mutually acceptable developments.

I acknowledge, however, that many of these are controversial. The opposition spokesman has referred to one and there are others elsewhere. But he also rightly refers to the fact that some of the criticism by the state and local government is a bit odd in that they complain about the time that is available for public consultation. South Australia is a good example. The South Australian Premier has written a letter on behalf of the premiers complaining about the processes. In South Australia, only 15 days are available for public consultation, yet he is complaining that there are only 60 days at the federal level. Indeed, the time frames that will be put in place for airport developments will be the longest of any jurisdiction. So, for that reason, I do not think it is unreasonable.

The states want a bigger role in planning. I am not sure that they have earnt that role. New South Wales’s record in planning the Cross City Tunnel does not win them too many brownie points. What the Queensland government have been doing in relation to the Traveston Dam hardly gives them any credentials to complain. Brian Burke’s planning processes hardly give Western Australia any right to complain. Nonetheless, I think it is appropriate that states have a role in the process. As the opposition spokesman acknowledged, the current act does provide for local government and state government views to be taken into account.

It has to be said that the states sometimes did not take up the opportunities that were available; they ignored the process. It is pretty hard to complain that they were not consulted when they refused to respond or provide any kind of submission, or instead, as was the case in New South Wales with the big shopping centre development, did it all through the media with appalling scare campaigns. (Extension of time granted) There were all sorts of issues associated with that shopping centre which led to it not proceeding. But the suggestion that it was going to add tens of billions of dollars to the road needs of the region and some of the other scare tactics that were run were a little bit beyond the pale. Nonetheless, I think the right result occurred in that instance.

The states need to have a role and local government need to have a role, but they need to exercise the privileges that they have in that process responsibly. As a former minister, and I am sure the current minister will have the same view—and I have said this publicly at airport conferences and the like—I believe the airports need to recognise that they are a part of the community, they need to be responsible citizens and they need to go the extra mile to engage their communities. They have to not only listen to what the committee has to say but respond in a decent and appropriate way. The community might not always be right, and sometimes there may be overriding issues that have to be taken into account, but they have to not only listen to the community but respond to their concerns and do so in a constructive way wherever they can.

I emphasise again that I do not think any Commonwealth government is ever going to cede planning responsibilities over these important national facilities to state governments or local governments. Bear in mind that the states do not subject their planning processes to local government rules—the states themselves override local government rules—so it is a bit rich for them to suggest that the Commonwealth should submit themselves to laws that they will not submit themselves to. Whilst I do not accept that the states have a strong legal position, I think there is a strong moral argument that they need to be effectively involved. This legislation is designed to do that. With the proper encouragement from governments at all levels, there will be a higher level of public consultation and genuine involvement in the future. Not always will every community be happy with the outcome, but there needs to be a recognition at airport level that, if you want to have these kinds of developments, you have to engage the community and have them broadly satisfied that the best decisions are being made in the end.

Question agreed to.