Warren Truss (Wide Bay, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008 makes some technical changes, including changes to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, to ensure the slot management regime at Sydney airport is robust. The framework that has successfully managed aircraft demand at Australia’s busiest airport is provided by the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997. This legislation, as members in this place are no doubt well aware, was implemented by the previous coalition government early in its first term, arising from its 1996 election promise that aircraft movements at Sydney airport should be capped at 80 per hour. It is worth noting that in the long years of the previous Labor government no such effort had been made to manage aircraft demand at Sydney airport. It took a coalition government to do it.

On this point, I note with some amusement that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in his second reading speech made the somewhat bizarre claim that the management scheme operating at Sydney airport is a result of the private member’s bill that he introduced in 1996. We are used to some people on the opposite side attempting to rewrite history and claim the coalition’s initiatives as their own. We have seen this, for example, in the minister’s trumpeting of a media release on 31 March in regard to the so-called open skies agreement with the United States. The opposition certainly acknowledges the benefits of an agreement that permits Australian and US owned airlines to fly freely between the two countries. We particularly welcome the initiative, flowing from that agreement, from the Virgin Blue group to launch daily direct Los Angeles to Sydney flights. It is the first step in opening up a key air route to greater competition. That agreement flowed out of the considerable effort put in by the previous government to liberalise our air services agreement with the United States, and I welcome the fact that the incoming government continued that work and then brought it to fruition.

The minister has been a constant critic of the activities of Sydney airport. I appreciate that his electorate surrounds Sydney airport so he has a right to have an interest in what is essentially a very domestic issue for him. Because he has been such a critic of operations I was naturally a little suspicious when one of the very first pieces of legislation that the government brought into the House was in relation to managing aircraft movements at Sydney airport. So I have looked at the legislation inside out and upside down to see whether this was some kind of a trick to reduce aircraft movements into Sydney or to extend the curfew periods in a way that might advantage the minister’s electorate but disadvantage all other Australians. I have discussed it also with Sydney airport and the airlines, and I guess I am satisfied that this is just a simple piece of legislation correcting an error in definitions and that the impact on airline movements, the airlines, the airport and the people who live near Sydney airport is essentially unchanged. For that reason the opposition will essentially be supporting the legislation.

It is also important to note that this particular legislation arises from the Australian National Audit Office report entitled The implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997. As I said earlier, the act is the framework that regulates the scheduling of aircraft movements at Sydney airport and it has been in operation since the very first years of the previous coalition government. It is fair to say that the arrangements have worked quite well, but a technical deficiency has been identified between the definition used in the slot management system and the one used in the legislation. After 10 years the Auditor-General has uncovered an error, and that certainly needs to be corrected.

There are a number of key issues surrounding Sydney airport, and I am sure they will be the subject of quite a deal of the debate on this legislation. Sydney airport is Australia’s most important international gateway. It has the lion’s share of our international air traffic. It is a popular choice for new airlines coming into Australia and indeed Qantas and other Australian airlines that undertake services to other parts of the world. People from other states are often critical that airlines are choosing to operate in and out of Sydney rather than Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth. I have some sympathy with that criticism. I think that some of the airlines have become Sydney-centric. It is important that they look carefully at the economics of operating services out of other cities, like Melbourne and Brisbane, where there is less congestion and less pressure on the airport and where the opportunities are quite substantial.

Labor have been ducking the hard decisions about Sydney airport. I can hardly believe the number of inquiries and reviews that the government are undertaking. Plainly they cannot make any of the hard decisions. It is quite staggering that, after 11 years in opposition, all the government can do after gaining office is commission a whole stack of reviews. It is a symptom of a government that is devoid of ideas: when in doubt, call a review; when wanting to delay a difficult decision, call a review.

That is why I was not surprised to note the announcement of the minister on 10 April this year of his intention to develop a national aviation policy statement. This will lead to a national aviation policy green paper, to be released at a nebulous date later this year. I note with interest the minister has released an issues paper as a guide to industry in the development of this statement. This issues paper includes, in the second chapter entitled ‘Airport planning and development’, a section called ‘Future airport needs’. In that section is a sentence that refers to the need for ‘additional airport capacity for Sydney in the future’. That is of course code for a second airport for Sydney. They have had 11 years in opposition to think about this difficult policy decision but, once again, faced with a hard decision Labor go for review.

Of course, the contortions of Labor over the need for a second airport in Sydney are well known. In 2004, the member for Batman, in a burst of honesty, admitted that the debate about an additional airport in Sydney had torn the Labor Party apart for decades. I also recall this was the time that Labor proposed that a second airport should be built at Wilton or somewhere south of the Nepean River, an extraordinary proposal that would have resulted in the world’s furthest airport from a CBD—further even than Tokyo’s Narita airport, which is 64 kilometres out of the city. Neither the infrastructure requirements of such a location nor in fact that the site is a major water catchment for the Sydney region was discussed.

It seems that Labor is almost dismissing building an airport at Badgerys Creek and I have to say that I have been disappointed at the way in which the New South Wales state government has not respected the fact that this area has been set aside, essentially, for a second airport for Sydney. It has allowed infrastructure and housing and other developments to be built in a way that seriously compromises the use of this site for its intended purposes in the future. I think that Sydney does need to have effective planning for the additional airport capacity that it will need in the future. I accept that it will not be required for quite some time—probably a couple of decades—but it is almost inevitable that there will be demands for additional airport capacity in Sydney beyond what can be accommodated on the current Kingsford Smith airport site. So I think it is essential that the people of Sydney have confidence about where the airport is going to be built and that then the state and local authorities protect that site and ensure that it can eventually be used as is intended.

I note also that the issues paper observes that the 2009 review of the Sydney airport master plan provides an opportunity to consider current and further capacity issues. So, even after the review leading to a national aviation green paper, Labor is giving itself an option for another review to further consider the second airport. As I said before, I would have thought that after 11 years in opposition Labor would have made up its mind as to what it intended to do on such an essential issue, for Sydney and for Western Sydney, as where Sydney’s second airport should be, and the people of Australia certainly are awaiting with interest this decision.

Another quite extraordinary issue in relation to Sydney airport was revealed in the federal budget earlier this month. The government has decided to provide $14.5 million to a Sydney school to insulate it against aircraft noise arising from Sydney airport. Honourable members will all be aware that there has been an extensive program around Sydney airport and also Adelaide Airport to mitigate noise levels for houses affected by aircraft movements. It has been an expensive program. It has been going on for many years. It has provided insulation for hundreds and hundreds of houses and public buildings. It has been paid for by aircraft users. Every passenger arriving at or departing from Sydney airport, for example, has been meeting a share of that cost. The program was completed last year. The levy had raised sufficient funds to address the needs of all of the buildings which fell within the noise contours identified for insulation. Every one of those houses and public buildings had been insulated, and the full cost had been met.

The Fort Street High School had been running a campaign for a long time for it to be included in the insulation program, but it did not fall within the agreed noise contours. There was no argument, either from the current government or the previous government, that the noise contours chosen were appropriate. They were the international standard. They were the sorts of noise levels above which health authorities and others considered it necessary to have some kind of protection. Buildings that fell below those noise levels were excluded from the program. There was broad bipartisan agreement that that was the appropriate way to go. Similar noise levels were chosen for the program of noise mitigation around the Adelaide Airport. However, the government has decided that it is going to insulate only one building that falls outside that noise criteria.

When the current minister was in his previous role in opposition, he approached me about this issue. As the minister I looked very closely at whether it was possible to find a legitimate way in which the funding could be provided for schools and other public buildings that were outside the noise contour. However, if we were to treat everybody fairly, we would have had to have extended the noise contour to a much lower level. That would have captured thousands of additional houses and public buildings—so much so that the cost of the noise abatement program would have blown out and the levy would have to have been kept in place until 2050 to meet the costs. You could simply not justify, under any kind of international standard or on the grounds that we should have a special arrangement at Sydney that was not going to apply at Adelaide Airport or other airports around the world, extending the program to cover buildings with the noise levels of the Fort Street High School. Yet the Labor government, in its very first budget, has decided that this school is to receive $14.5 million for noise abatement work.

Guess where this school is located: in the electorate of the honourable Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. His own electorate is going to receive a $14.5 million grant to insulate a school. What about the other schools in Sydney and other places that have similar noise levels? What about buildings in Adelaide that have similar noise levels? Are they going to get funding? This looks a lot like a slush fund to me. This looks a lot like a rort to me. This is the minister that spent six months constantly complaining about grants to small country communities. He talked about regional rorts, he accused hundreds of local community organisations and volunteers of being rorters and yet, with his first test, he provides $14.5 million to have noise mitigation activities undertaken at a school in his own electorate. Who is the rorter? Who is the one that is not prepared to have the same standards applied to his electorate as are applied to other electorates around the country? This is quite an extraordinary development. On the very morning in which the minister has backed down on his refusal to fund 86 of the 116 Regional Partnerships projects that had previously been approved by the coalition government, we have the news that he is rorting a scheme so that he can fund the insulation of a school in his own electorate.

This will be great for Fort Street High School. I know that they have been campaigning on this issue for a long time. But what about all the other schools on noisy roads or near airports around Australia that will not be funded? What about the other public buildings—the churches, the aged-people’s homes and other such buildings—which would fall within the same noise contour as Fort Street High School? And what about the hundreds, probably thousands, of homes—in which people need to work, sleep and live—that also meet this criteria that will not get the benefit of the insulation program? Only one project has been chosen: Fort Street High School—and it is in the minister’s own electorate. He has a lot of explaining to do as to why he has countenanced and indeed championed this rorting of the insulation program to benefit a school in his own electorate.

The minister’s inconsistency in the way he has addressed the Regional Partnerships issue and the way he has treated a school in his own electorate exposes him to justifiable criticism as to incompetence and double standards. I hope he will provide to the parliament a satisfactory explanation for his behaviour very soon.

There are a range of other significant issues around planning for Sydney airport. As I mentioned earlier, it is an exceptionally important piece of national infrastructure. We certainly need to know that it will be managed effectively and that the owners will be able to pursue investments and construction, particularly of necessary infrastructure, in Sydney with confidence and assurance that it will operate within reasonable parameters.

The opposition supports the amendments that we are dealing with under the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008. The definition of ‘aircraft movement’ in the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 and the definition used by the operational elements created by this scheme—the Slot Management Scheme—and the compliance scheme are different. The former defines aircraft movement as ‘a landing and take-off of an aircraft on a runway’; the latter uses the airline industry standard definition, which considers an aircraft movement to be the time an aircraft moves to and from a gate. This means that a key component of the demand management regime at Sydney airport—the definition of an aircraft movement—is not in harmony under the two schemes. The contradiction and legal uncertainty this creates has been noted as an issue of potential concern by the Audit Office in its March 2007 report.

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008 seeks to rectify this anomaly by changing the definition used in the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act to that used by the airline industry—that is, that an aircraft movement be considered to be the time an aircraft moves to and from a gate. This is a routine and technical amendment in a piece of legislation developed to respond to an Auditor-General’s report. The bill and the Slot Management Scheme were put in place by the previous coalition government. The bill has worked well and we need to ensure that it is legally secure. The opposition supports the bill.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008. Airports are a key part of our economic infrastructure. They provide jobs, they move freight and they underpin our economic growth but they also have an impact on the communities which live around them. They create extra traffic and extra noise, which is why this bill and the act that it amends are so important. This bill comes out of a review by the Audit Office. The report found that elements of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act are unclear and do not operate efficiently or in the way they were intended to operate.

The legislation currently before the House reflects the government’s commitment to addressing the findings of the Audit Office report. It makes a number of changes to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act to address technical issues identified by the Audit Office review. The bill does not change the 80 aircraft movements per hour cap or the curfew regime. These are the cornerstone principles of the act. It removes technical inconsistencies in key terminology, to improve the administration of the cap and the Slot Management Scheme. The bill will strengthen the enforcement of the existing cap and curfew provisions and will empower Airservices Australia to better monitor these provisions. The primary mechanism for achieving these ends is a change in the definition of aircraft movement. Currently, the act defines ‘aircraft movement’ as ‘the movement of an aircraft on and off runways’. However, the Slot Management Scheme and the compliance scheme define ‘aircraft movement’ as ‘the movement of an aircraft from or towards a gate’.

This bill reconciles these competing definitions by replacing the term ‘aircraft movements’ with the more precise phrase ‘gate movement’. The bill also empowers the slot manager to allocate arrival and departure slots consistent with the movement cap. The amendments also make the definition of a slot consistent with the worldwide application of a slot as the scheduled arrival or departure time. In effect, the amendments will subject more movements to the compliance regime than are currently being captured by the act.

This bill highlights the complexities of developing and operating infrastructure facilities like airports in large and congested metropolises. We need to invest in infrastructure, in projects, that meet the needs of today and tomorrow, but we also have to balance this against the needs of those who live near big infrastructure projects. The quality of life of residents who live beside major airports, freight lines, intermodal terminals and other infrastructure cannot be ignored. Sometimes it means curfews; other times it means noise amelioration. It might mean that some projects do not proceed or that they proceed somewhere else.

My electorate is a good example. Blaxland plays an important role in making Sydney work. The northern border is the water pipeline that delivers Sydney’s water from Prospect Reservoir to Potts Hill. The eastern border is the Enfield goods yard, which is currently being developed as an intermodal terminal capable of handling up to 300,000 TEUs a year, and the southern border is Bankstown Airport, the busiest airport in the Southern Hemisphere, with more than 350,000 movements a year, more than 1,000 movements a day—and I will have a little more to say about Bankstown Airport in a moment.

Running right through the middle of the electorate is the proposed southern Sydney freight line, an important project that will increase the amount of freight that is moved in Sydney by rail but one that comes at a price: it will have a big effect on the quality of life of residents in my electorate who live along the line and it will also divide the town of Cabramatta. Our responsibility is to minimise the impact that this project will have on the local community. This means noise walls for residents where none are currently proposed, it means trees in front of noise walls so that they do not become graffiti targets—because you cannot graffiti trees—and it means a compensation fund for the town of Cabramatta.

Cabramatta is a resilient little town. It has been through a lot. We have an obligation to minimise the impact that this freight line will have on the town. That is why I have asked the government to provide funds for additional car parking. Cabramatta desperately needs more parking and has done for years, and this is something positive that this infrastructure project can bring to Cabramatta. That is why, a couple of weeks ago, I led a delegation to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts on behalf of Fairfield City Council and the Cabramatta Chamber of Commerce to discuss these issues.

The clash between the needs of the economy and local residents is one of the important issues canvassed in the issues paper that was released by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government last month entitled ‘Towards a national aviation policy statement’. It is the first step in developing the first ever aviation white paper. As the issues paper points out:

A key challenge at major airports is to integrate planning for the development of the airport site with consideration of the impacts outside the airport.

This is what we have not done well, at least not in Sydney. One of the great infrastructure challenges in Sydney is managing the growth of the airport and Port Botany. They are together a very important economic precinct. Together they contribute billions of dollars to our economy.

In the next decade, both will expand dramatically. The airport alone contributes around $13.6 billion in economic activity each year. That is about two per cent of the entire Australian economy. Passenger movements are expected to increase from 32 million today to 68 million in 2023. The port handles $50 billion worth of trade every year and employs 17,000 people. In the next 10 years, it is expected to double the number of containers it moves, from currently 1.8 million to more than three million TEUs, bringing with it an estimated $16 billion in additional revenue. Making Sydney work means making this important precinct work. It is our economic gateway to the world. So it is critical that surrounding and connecting infrastructure can support this growth.

The southern Sydney freight line that I mentioned a moment ago, supported by a constellation of intermodal terminals, is part of this solution. We also need to increase the capacity of the surrounding road network. In my second speech in this place, I spoke about the need to duplicate the M5 East tunnel, a tunnel that connects the airport, Port Botany and Western Sydney. It is very congested. A lot of people in Sydney—a lot of people from my electorate—sit in traffic on the M5 motorway and in the M5 East tunnel every day commuting to and from work. So I am very glad to see that the duplication of the M5 East tunnel is one of the top priority infrastructure projects that have been fast-tracked by the budget. It is an example of the difference that a federal Labor government makes. Duplicating the M5 East will make the port and the airport work more efficiently. It is also good news for my community. It will make Bankstown a more attractive place to live and to invest in. It is the sort of project that the Howard government should have delivered or helped deliver using the $6 billion that they received when they sold Sydney airport, but they did not.

Another example in my electorate is Bankstown Airport, sold in 2003. Together with Camden and Hoxton Park airports, the government raked in $211 million. Again, nothing was reinvested in the local community. In both cases, the federal government approved master plans for the development and expansion of these important precincts but nothing was spent on the infrastructure needed to support the development of these important precincts. The government were happy to take the money and approve the development plans but they did not spend a cent to make them work. I think that is, by any measure, irresponsible.

Bankstown Airport is the main general aviation airport for the Sydney region. As I mentioned earlier, it is one of the busiest airports in the world. The threat of more movements and in particular large passenger aircraft is one that is not welcomed by my local community. But the master plan, approved by the former government, allows it to occur. All it requires is the lengthening and the strengthening of the runway. But, because this work would cost more than $20 million, under the master plan it constitutes a major development and therefore requires federal government approval. So my local community was pretty relieved and extremely grateful when the minister for infrastructure ruled out any expansion of the airport only a few weeks ago. He recognised that Bankstown Airport is not a suitable site for expansion, located as it is in a densely populated suburb. It is another good example of the difference a Labor government makes.

Bankstown Airport is a great place to create local jobs, but it is a bad place for large passenger aircraft. The airport has a lot of potential as a major employment zone. More than 6,000 people already work there every day. Non-aviation development will see that rise to 20,000 jobs by 2031—and we need the jobs. According to the census, Blaxland already has the second highest unemployment in Australia. The New South Wales government’s metropolitan plan predicts an extra 43,000 new people will set up home in Bankstown in the next 15 years. Over the same period, the number of local jobs is expected to grow by just 14,000.

I think the airport is a great opportunity to create lots of high-skilled, well-paid jobs close to home. But with this, like any development, comes the need for supporting infrastructure. Last week Bankstown Airport and Bankstown City Council signed a memorandum of understanding committing both parties to working together on future developments. It is a great initiative and I congratulate both the council and the airport on it. It is one of the ways that we can improve cooperation between the airports and different levels of government on considered land use planning.

The Labor Party has a proud history of nation building. It has a history of building better cities under Keating and Hawke and of sewering major cities under Whitlam. Consider the contrast. When the last government vacated the field, federal involvement in infrastructure ended at the city edges. They were happy to sell the airports but relied on the states to fund the infrastructure needed. It just does not make sense when you think about how important our cities are to our economic prosperity.

Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Four out of five Australians live in one of our major cities. They are the engine rooms of our economy. Capital cities contribute about 78 per cent of the nation’s economic growth. They would produce even more if our road and rail networks were more efficient. Traffic congestion already costs us $63 million a day. That is $16 billion a year. That is the equivalent of Australia’s total iron ore export. That is $16 billion wasted because we have not invested enough in our roads, our freight lines, our airports, ports and logistics. The Business Council of Australia has predicted that this figure will rise to $30 billion by 2020.

Traffic congestion also has a human cost. One in 10 working parents spends longer commuting than with their children. We need good infrastructure to ease congestion in our cities, and that means a federal government prepared to get their hands dirty and help out. That is why I am particularly glad to see the creation of a major cities unit within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, backed up by the $20 billion Building Australia Fund, with the first funds to go to projects like the duplication of the M5 East tunnel in Sydney, something that will make the airport work better and make Sydney work better. This bill and the coming aviation white paper are an important part of this—a chance to build sustainable cities and a chance to make a positive difference to the lives of the Australians that live in them. I commend the bill to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008, as has already been indicated by an earlier speaker. The purpose of this bill is to make administrative changes to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act, which was introduced in the first term of the former coalition government to fulfil an election commitment of the Howard government made prior to the 1996 election. If we cast our minds back to that time we note that, while there were many issues upon which the Howard government was elected in 1996, this was certainly one that was very salient in Sydney at that time. The whole point of the former Prime Minister’s pledge was that there would be genuine noise sharing in Sydney, which was not possible previously with the two runway operations ripping up and down the north-south axis, flying directly over my electorate of Cook.

In essence, this bill will make technical amendments to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act such as to clarify definitions and ensure consistency between the Slot Management Scheme, the statutory compliance scheme and the act itself. The act is an important regulatory instrument, as it gives legal standing to the long-held policy whereby the number of aircraft movements at Sydney airport is limited to a maximum of 80 per hour. Adherence to this limit is achieved through the implementation of a slot management system. Both the slot management system and the statutory compliance regime were developed and approved by the former government and operate to achieve the objectives behind the demand management act.

The background to this current bill before the House is a report undertaken by the Australian National Audit Office into the implementation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act. The Audit Office report found that there were several inconsistencies in the interpretation of definitions in the act and the subordinate instruments. This bill seeks to rectify any inconsistencies with the legislation.

Other changes proposed by the bill include a new section that gives the minister additional powers to make variations and amendments to the compliance scheme where exceptional circumstances warrant such action to be taken. The explanatory memorandum provided with the bill gives examples of these exceptional circumstances where the powers could be used, and they include events such as major changes to the operations of an airline that are beyond the airline’s control and that impact upon the airline’s on-time performance for a period of time.

The last significant variation to the compliance scheme was the period following September 2001 and the collapse of Ansett Australia. These events had a major impact on the Australian aviation industry and warranted the variations granted. Instances where the minister issues a determination to vary the compliance scheme in effect become legislative instruments without disallowance provisions and must be tabled in the Australian parliament.

The amendments that are concerned within this bill currently before the House will be supported by the opposition. We recognise that the changes will bring about improvements to the operation of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act and are proposed to address concerns that were raised by the Australian National Audit Office in its recent review of the legislation.

My electorate of Cook has a strong connection with Sydney’s Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, KSA. Aircraft fly directly over the Sutherland shire, in particular over the village of Kurnell, the birthplace of modern Australia, as well as over Bundeena in the Royal National Park, the oldest national park in Australia, and over the beachside suburbs around North Cronulla and Wanda. A very large number of people who work at the airport live in the Sutherland shire in my electorate of Cook, and the single largest number of Qantas employees live in Cook than in any other electorate in the country—and I take this opportunity to place on record my strong support for that airline and the work it does throughout Australia. In my time as Managing Director of Tourism Australia, we could always rely on Qantas for promotions overseas. When there were disasters in other places and Australians were in trouble, Qantas was always there to help out.

Since being elected as the member for Cook in November last year, I have spent considerable time in Kurnell, and more recently in Bundeena, listening to residents’ concerns. As I stated earlier, Kurnell was the landing place for Lieutenant James Cook during his exploration of the east coast of Australia in 1770—recently, on 29 April, we once again commemorated and celebrated that landing. A large proportion of the Kurnell Peninsula has been set aside as a national park. It is an absolutely magic spot with recreational open space, providing the opportunity for residents not only of the Sutherland shire but of Sydney to come and visit that most significant of landmarks in this country, the landing site of Cook. I am sad to say, though, that these beautiful areas within the national park are in stark contrast to other areas of Kurnell that have been neglected and degraded by noxious industry and extractive sandmining. This poor track record continues with the New South Wales government’s decision to construct a desalination plant and a pipeline across Botany Bay.

The residents of Kurnell have been forced to live with the burden of aircraft noise day and night, from 6 am to 11 pm and beyond the curfew. That is right: after 11 pm mail and freight planes—one recently went down off the national park, and the mail floated up on the beaches early that morning—fly over residents in the Sutherland shire, particularly over Kurnell and Bundeena. These planes all arrive and depart over Botany Bay. While the departures can skirt around the Kurnell village by tracking out through the Heads over the sandhills, arrivals must fly over the village of Kurnell. We have just heard how Bankstown is being shut down. I am concerned that future growth in Sydney airport will be accommodated through more out-of-curfew operations. In 2007, there were 2,995 take-offs from and 3,328 landings into Sydney airport between 11 pm and 6 am—that is, more than 6,000 movements that residents in these areas were forced to deal with in what should be a silent period. The technological developments in the aerospace sector have seen rapid development with new low-noise jet aircraft. I oppose any increase in airport operations that would occur within the curfew period.

The coalition parties have had a strong track record as far as the Sydney airport curfew is concerned. The Howard government delivered increased fines for breaches of the Sydney airport curfew. In March 2000, the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, announced that the maximum penalties for breaches of the curfew would increase from $110,000 to $550,000. At the same time, the penalty for individuals who breached the curfew also increased to $110,000. The decision to increase the penalties for breaches of the curfew was made to ensure that residents living close to the airport have peace and quiet, particularly at night. While introducing the legislation, the former minister said:

The Sydney Airport Curfew Act is fundamental to the management of the airport’s noise. Sydney is Australia’s busiest jet airport, and the surrounding suburbs are overflown by large numbers of aircraft during the day. However, the night-time is the most sensitive time for noise and the government is committed to ensuring that the community is protected as far as possible from disturbance during this period.

Until the penalties were increased, airlines calculated whether it was worth paying the penalties as opposed to the costs of having the aircraft sit overnight and providing accommodation for the passengers in Sydney hotels. The result was that some airlines made the decision that it was worth taking off without the necessary clearances being given. With the increased penalties for contravention of the curfew, the residents of suburbs surrounding the airport have one less thing to worry about.

The residents of Kurnell, however, are concerned about the number of planes that overfly their suburb. Kurnell takes more than its fair share of aircraft movements and noise. It is a fact that 55 per cent of all aircraft movements from the airport happen to be over Kurnell. In Kurnell there are about 700 households affected by aircraft noise.

The amount of aircraft noise that affects a suburb is determined by the Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan. This document enshrines the principle of noise sharing, whereby flight paths are rotated to provide relief and respite for residents living in the most affected suburbs. A basic principle of the Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport involves maximum use of flight paths over water and non-residential areas. But let us be clear about this: flights over water mean flights over Kurnell. When we are talking about trying to keep flights away from other parts of Sydney, we are intentionally causing flights to go over 700 homes in Kurnell, as well as the suburbs of Wanda, North Cronulla and Bundeena.

The Sydney Airport Long Term Operating Plan provides the densely populated residential areas to the north-west and the east of the airport with periods of respite. Within the plan, there are 10 modes available to be utilised by the air controllers. The mode that is in use at any point in time depends upon factors such as time of day and the prevailing environmental conditions. Each of the 10 modes consists of different combinations of runway operations that result in a shared noise burden between the suburbs surrounding the airport.

When modes 4, 5, 10 and 14A are in operation, departing aircraft movements are sent out over Botany Bay. Some go around Kurnell and others take short cuts and fly over the village. When modes 7, 8 and 9 are in operation, arriving aircraft fly directly over the village before landing over Botany Bay. The difference between an aircraft that is taking off and an aircraft that is landing is that landing aircraft do so at a much lower altitude than one that is taking off. This exacerbates the noise disturbance to residents in their homes trying to watch TV, read or have a conversation over the back fence with their neighbour.

The residents of Kurnell and Bundeena tell me that the aircraft taking off do not always follow the designated flight paths and continue to fly over the suburb rather than tracking out over water. I note that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is here. I commend the minister for establishing the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And expanding its membership, too!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And expanding its membership to include a proper representation of the shire. Maybe one day our state member will be included, but we are very pleased to have the Sutherland Shire Council represented and very pleased that the minister responded to our advocacy on that position. Nevertheless, we are concerned that these planes are not sticking to their flight path. Research is being undertaken—and this is an issue we need to raise—to make sure that planes coming in and over Bundeena are following the proper flight path. The Sydney Airport Community Forum should be a very good outlet to ensure that the minister, the department, the airport and the airlines—everyone involved in this forum—can understand that they need to stick to the rules. I am sure I would have the full support of the minister for transport in ensuring that that the airlines and the airport stick to the rules, so that all of our residents, including those in the electorate of the minister for transport, will have protection when these rules are followed.

There was no aircraft noise insulation available to the residents of Kurnell. They were told they did not qualify because the noise was just not loud enough. Several years ago there was a levy collected from all airline passengers and the funds raised were allocated to the aircraft noise insulation project. This very worthwhile project only applied to areas where the noise was 30 ANEF and above. All of the affected residents at Kurnell, about 700 families in total, are just outside the 30-ANEF contour but fall within the 25- and 30-ANEF contours. Insulation was provided to the Kurnell Public School, which sits under that flight path, because it did fit within the lower standard for noise, the 25-ANEF contour. I would like to express my concern for the residents of Kurnell. I fear that additional growth at Sydney airport will bring more aircraft noise.

The government’s budget contains a $9 increase in the passenger movement charge, which used to be called the departure tax. This decision is expected to recover an additional $459 million for the government, and much of this increase will be put towards recovering the cost of additional aviation security measures. However, I believe that some of this extra revenue could be allocated to providing noise insulation to the worst affected areas, Kurnell included. In this year’s budget, $14½ million worth of funding has been allocated, we note, for aircraft noise insulation at Fort Street High School. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government would know about that and would support that initiative. He would also know that, despite the fact of this school not falling within the 25-ANEF contour, the school is still going to get the funding.

The current rule says you have to be between 25 and 30 in order to attract that funding. Kurnell Public School fell within that framework and it got the funding for that noise insulation. The argument being put forward by the residents of Kurnell is that if it is good enough for the parents and kids of Fort Street High School to have their school covered—because it is recognised that there is significant noise falling on Fort Street High School’s students—then why isn’t it good enough for the residents of Kurnell, whose homes sit in a noise contour which is worse than that of Fort Street High School, to also receive that same insulation for their homes? At the very least, why isn’t it possible for us to sit down and consider other ways by which we might be able to provide some sort of support to ensure that this insulation can go into these homes? I know these are issues that the minister would be aware of and that we would like to pursue through the process of the Sydney Airport Community Forum—and we look forward to that conversation.

In March 2004 the former coalition government approved a new master plan for Sydney airport. The approval was contingent upon Sydney airport giving the then minister for transport an assurance that curfews would not change. The minister said at that time:

Of critical importance in my approval was the fact that—

Sydney airport—

strongly committed to its obligations to the Government’s ongoing noise amelioration measures. These include the curfew, movement cap and noise sharing under the Long Term Operating Plan and all of them are here to stay.

The issues that I have raised today in relation to Kurnell are many. I also raise those issues in relation to other parts of my electorate, in particular the significant complaints that I am receiving from Bundeena, which is in a royal national park. They go to the matter of the need to look at the whole issue of noise insulation and how the airport is impacting on the surrounding suburbs due to the changing commercial conditions that are impacting upon that airport and the push for greater business. We have talked about the significant flights increase and the large number of freight flights that are now flying within the period from 11 pm to 6 am. We are looking to see that is recognised and to make sure that the increase in those flights does not provide any burden on the residents who are living under those flight paths.

There is much material here to provide for a very positive discussion with the government. There is much material here for which I think there is a great deal of sympathy, particularly from those members on the other side who have electorates which sit under these flight paths. Having dealt with the politics of noise in previous times, I do sense that there may well be a new sense of cooperation in dealing with these issues.

In concluding I make a particular plea for the recognition of Kurnell in this sense. Kurnell is the modern birthplace of our nation. Frankly, this is a site which has not received the recognition from either side of politics that it deserves. The behaviour of the state government towards Kurnell with repeated industrial activity—most significantly and most recently represented by the desalination plant and the digging of a 45-metre-wide trench across Botany Bay, to lay the desalination pipeline—only adds insult to injury.

As to what we are concerned about and want to see, I would ask the minister to ensure, as there may be some further discussion of future airports for Sydney, that the idea of a second airport at Kurnell is never discussed and that the option is forever ruled out. I place on record my personal objection to it, just as the former member for Cook did. The former member for Cook was very successful in ensuring that it did not take place. He argued the case within his government to ensure that it did not happen. But I am asking the minister for transport and infrastructure to say today that it will never be an agenda item for his government, that there will never be consideration of a second airport at Kurnell. It is a simple matter to rule it out. Enough destruction has been done to Kurnell. Enough lack of recognition and respect has been paid to Cook’s landing site at Kurnell, and it is time to make sure that this is matter is never on the agenda again.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank members for their contribution to the debate on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008. This bill is practical and will help the management of Sydney airport, which is a critical piece of Australia’s economic infrastructure. I acknowledge and appreciate there is bipartisan support for this legislation.

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2008 will introduce a differentiation into the act between aircraft movements on the runway and aircraft movements at the gate. The differentiation is significant because the slot management scheme is based on gate movements and the movement limit applies to runway movements. Operators allocated slots for movements that result in an aircraft operating in the curfew period will now be subject to the compliance provisions of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997. The bill will formalise a requirement for the slot manager to have regard to the likely aircraft movement times on the runway when allocating slots and to ensure the allocation of the slots is consistent with the movement cap. The bill will also allow the minister to vary the operation of the compliance scheme during exceptional circumstances. The collapse of Ansett and the September 11 attacks are examples of exceptional circumstances.

The exercise of the power to modify the operation of the scheme will be subject to the registration, tabling and sunset requirements of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The objectives of the act remain the same—that is, to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the community by enforcing a limit of 80 aircraft movements per hour and providing for the orderly and efficient operation of flights into and out of Sydney airport through a slot management regime that keeps Sydney in step with international scheduling practice. The act will continue to guarantee access to new entrant airlines and operators of New South Wales regional slots through the protected regional and Ansett slots. These protections will remain in place and are not affected by the provisions of the bill.

During the debate there were a number of issues raised which do require addressing. The member for Cook congratulated the government on establishing the Sydney Airport Community Forum, of which he has been appointed as a member. I thank him for that. It is important that airports operate in harmony, to the extent that it is possible, with their local communities, and it is important that the community have direct input into the impact of aircraft noise and other issues associated with the operations of airports. The Sydney Airport Community Forum allows just that. I have also agreed to the request from Sutherland Shire Council to expand the membership of that forum by one to include the Mayor of Sutherland Shire.

In terms of the operations of that forum, I think that Vic Smith, as the chair, has shown due diligence, and I understand there will be another meeting of the forum in the next week. They will have an important consultation role, particularly with regard to the RESA works which will be taking place at the airport. I do note that, under the previous government, the forum was completely politically biased; there was no representation from anyone to the immediate north of the airport, the area most adversely affected by aircraft noise—no local government representatives, no community representatives, no state government representatives and no federal government representatives either. In fact, you had to cross the Parramatta River to the north side of Sydney before you found substantial representation from the communities. As minister, I have chosen not to do that but to make sure it is a real forum that represents all affected people around the airport. I thank the member for Cook for his participation in that forum, and I hope people will participate in a constructive fashion.

The member for Cook raised the issue of the noise amelioration program that took place through the acquisition and insulation of homes in Sydenham in my electorate. He called for an expansion of that program and spoke of the aircraft noise levy. Of course, the previous government stopped collecting the aircraft noise levy for insulation. That was an act of the Howard government done on the quiet without any fanfare or media release. They just stopped that and gave up on assisting residents and communities around the airport.

I understand that the Leader of the National Party raised the issue of the installation of Fort Street High School. This was a commitment made by the Labor Party and the then shadow minister for transport, Lindsay Tanner, at the 1998 election. It was a commitment made by the Labor Party and the then shadow transport minister, Martin Ferguson, at the 2001 election. It was a commitment made by the Labor Party at the 2004 election and, immediately prior to the 2007 election, Martin Ferguson again visited Fort Street High School to give a commitment to insulate that school against aircraft noise. I note that Newington College, at Stanmore, was insulated a decade ago at a cost to the government of some $15.5 million. The school has heritage buildings, which are particularly costly to insulate. But the government makes no apology for ensuring that not just this commitment but every one of our election commitments are met.

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Bradfield, when he was chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, and the member for North Sydney, when he was chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum prior to the member for Bradfield, both supported the insulation of Fort Street High School. But that was a position that the then government refused to implement. As member for Grayndler, I invited the member for Wide Bay to come to my electorate to see firsthand the circumstances of those students, but he refused to do so. I give credit to the member for Lyne, the member for North Sydney and the member for Bradfield, who were each prepared to come to the inner west of Sydney to see the impact of aircraft noise. I am surprised by the negative statements made by the member for Wide Bay, and once again we have an unclear statement from the member for Cook on whether the opposition supports this or opposes it. Similarly, it is not clear where the opposition stands on a whole range of measures that were included in the budget—the fuel tax, means testing, the luxury car tax, the Medicare levy and alcopops. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.