Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to be able to contribute to the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. In 1914, Claude Grahame-White, the English aviator and first pilot to ever make a night flight, had this to say about aviation:

First Europe, and then the globe, will be linked by flight, and nations so knit together that they will grow to be next-door neighbors… What railways have done for nations, airways will do for the world.

And how correct he was. Aviation has transformed our world, shrinking the way we perceive distance while growing the global economy. Today it supports almost 63 million jobs and generates some $2.7 trillion in global GDP.

Australia is benefiting from the growth in this sector, which contributes in excess of $30 billion every year to the Australian economy and supports more than half a million jobs. Tourism has driven a significant proportion of this growth. Over the last 20 years, international passenger movements have grown at an annual average rate of some 4.5 per cent, while domestic passenger movements have increased by 2.5 per cent.

But aviation is also pushing boundaries and unlocking new opportunities in other ways through advancements in technology. On 24 March this year, QF9 departed Perth for London, the first ever direct flight connecting Australia to Europe. This is a game changer for WA and a glimpse of things to come for Australia. Consequently, it is in this context that we must consider the Airports Amendment Bill 2016, which seeks to amend the Airports Act 1996 to streamline processes for development at and around federally leased airports.

The fact is that our airports are critical pieces of national economic infrastructure. They connect towns and cities across the nation to each other and are our gateway to the rest of the world. But their operations can impact significantly on the social amenity of the communities of which they are a part, which is why developments at our airports must be well planned and communities properly consulted. Already there is much development occurring around the nation's major airports, including the new greenfields airport underway in Western Sydney. In addition, major developments are at different stages of progress in Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth, which are all getting new runways. While we need to ensure that the aviation sector continues to grow, we must also see to it that communities which live in proximity to airports aren't disproportionately affected by this growth.

Labor strongly supports this investment in aviation infrastructure. However, this investment must be underpinned by a social compact between airports and the communities that live around them. Consequently, Labor is proposing two amendments to the Airports Amendment Bill 2016 to ensure that this occurs: firstly, that the monetary trigger threshold for major development plans be reduced to $25 million and, secondly, that the automatic approval of requests for shorter public consultation periods in relation to major development plans be removed.

As mentioned, this bill will streamline processes for development at and around federally leased airports, which Labor largely welcomes. Unlike most other infrastructure, the federal government is the consent authority for major airport development, with states and territories playing a secondary role. This has a number of implications. Firstly, under existing federal legislation, 19 of the 21 federally leased airports are required to prepare a master plan every five years, which is then subject to approval by the federal minister. What that means, literally, is that every five years you have a process whereby development not just over those five years but with a 20-year forward horizon has to be approved by the minister. It means that we have strategic direction for development around airports. It means that communities can have ongoing input into the operation of airports.

This is a critical change, and it arose from the 2009 aviation white paper, undertaken under the former Labor government. This was the first time ever that we had had a strategic plan for aviation with a green-paper and white-paper process in this country. One of the important processes of reforms that came up through that white-paper process is the legislation that we are dealing with here today in terms of moving further amendments. Importantly, the master plan update process does require that community consultation.

Secondly, major developments at airports, including certain projects that currently cost more than $20 million in construction, require federal approval of a major development plan. The 21 airports subject to this legislation are Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Bankstown, Gold Coast, Alice Springs, Camden, Townsville, Tennant Creek, Archerfield, Mount Isa, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth, Essendon, Launceston, Parafield, Jandakot and Moorabbin. Western Sydney Airport is also included. The Airports Amendment Bill 2016 will make a number of changes to the existing approvals process. These include moving eligible airports from a five-year master plan to an eight-year cycle. However, the main gateway airports of Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth will remain on a five-year cycle, as will Western Sydney after representations from Labor, because with the new airport you will need to ensure that there is closer monitoring over its initial years of operation.

Additional changes include that an updated Australian Noise Exposure Forecast will be required in each master plan—that is, you will have out there, in a transparent way in each master plan, a clear update of what the noise impact will be for each of these airports around Australia. All 21 airports will enable that process, which will, of course, need to include the community consultation as well. The legislation proposes to lift the monetary trigger for the requirement for a separate major development plan for certain major projects from $20 million to $35 million. Our amendment that we will move in consideration in detail to reduce that back down to $25 million will receive the support of the government as well. I thank the incoming minister, Minister McCormack, who is certainly more consultative than some of his predecessors. That is a constructive dialogue that has occurred with the new minister. This is essentially a CPI increase from the previous figure of $20 million to $25 million. That is a reasonable change, but I think people want to ensure that that scrutiny isn't reduced. Hence, the figure of $25 million is a sensible resolution, and I think it's a good sign that the minister has been prepared to accept Labor's proposition on that. It will also introduce three-yearly cost indexation thereafter, so that will get around the issue of what the figure should be in the future. The automatic indexation removes the need to come back into the parliament and make amendments to the act. This will, of course, also allow for better definition of cost elements of the trigger.

The monetary trigger, however, already sits alongside subjective alternative triggers for requiring MDPs as well, based on significant environmental or other impacts. If anything of significance is occurring and, regardless of the value, it is going to have a significant environmental impact, the major development plan is automatically triggered regardless of the value of that upgrade of the airport by any particular project which may be under the monetary threshold. This is a sensible reform as well.

The changes will include establishing a decision time frame of 15 days for the minister to consider reduced consultation periods for major development plans. What is in the proposal originally was that a plan would be deemed to be approved if the time frame were not met. This aligns with existing provisions in the act relating to deemed master plan approval after a 50-day period. What we will be proposing in our amendment that we will move in consideration in detail is a process so that the request, rather than being assumed to have been approved, will be assumed to have been refused. What that ensures is that something can't be approved due to omission, or due to a failure to take action, and will ensure the conscious involvement of the minister but also that those processes around the approval of the MDP are kept in place. It will enable the minister to extend, by more than once, the period during which major developments are required to be substantially completed. Failure to comply can lead to civil penalties under existing legislation. For example, when I was the minister there were occurrences whereby a project simply hadn't been completed. What this will do is allow for that period of examination to be extended. Again, a common sense resolution that is about making a practical change to the operation of the act.

It will also allow airport operators to notify the minister if exceptional circumstances mean that a major development cannot proceed. At the moment, if an approval is given for a particular project and it can't proceed, because of circumstances of a failure to receive financing for a project or for another reason, the act provides for civil penalties to be imposed under the existing legislation. This is also a sensible change. According to the government, these changes will relieve inefficient outcomes for the industry while lifting unnecessary and onerous administrative burdens.

Labor has supported the broad consultative mechanisms involving local community engagement, proper assessment of community impacts and reasonable mitigation measures to address these impacts. Generally, the package reduces the burden on approval for development of the affected airports and creates more flexibility around legislative time frames whilst ensuring that the protections for consultation and other measures are not diluted.

We support the amendments. We've put forward the two amendments to the Airport Amendment Bill. We are pleased that the government has seen the virtue of our practical amendments and will be supporting them when they are moved. The first amendment is that a major development plan must be completed in a number of circumstances, including when a monetary trigger is reached. The current monetary trigger of $20 million was determined back in 2007, so a rough guestimate would indicate that increasing the threshold to $25 million is practical. The $25 million essentially reflects the changes in construction costs over that 10-year period. The opposition looked at the ABS construction CPI, which showed that costs have increased by 20 per cent since 2007. Hence, a consistent position of applying basically a 20 per cent increase to that threshold, so a practical figure of $25 million is reasonable.

With the second amendment, the simple fact is that communities do require proper consultation. Currently, the public consultation period associated with draft major development plans, as specified in subsection 92(2A), of the act is 60 business days. However, the minister can approve a shorter period of not less than 15 business days if asked in writing by the airport operator to do so, and as long as they are satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the airport masterplan and does not raise any issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community. The proposed amendment inserts a new subsection 92(2BA), which would provide that if the airport makes a request for a shorter consultation period, and the minister does not make a decision on the request within 15 business days, then the minister is deemed to have approved that shorter period.

Labor couldn't support such an amendment, because it had the potential to undermine the rights of local communities to have their say. In the words of the Bills Digest prepared by the Parliamentary Library:

This amendment seems to raise the possibility that the Minister could simply not decide on the request, and then be deemed to have approved the short period, even if the development is inconsistent with the airport master plan, or raises issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community.

Not for the first time, the people in the Parliamentary Library who do the Bills Digest have got it right. We're very fortunate to be able to benefit as lawmakers from proper advice.

It should be well within a minister's capability to consider within 15 days a request for reduced consultation, and, where that doesn't occur, it certainly isn't appropriate that the request would be deemed approved anyway. I wouldn't suggest that some of the ministers under this government who've had control of infrastructure might have slept through 15 days, but, if you were cynical perhaps, you might come to that conclusion and be concerned that it would be deemed to be approved by not making a decision. That would not be appropriate.

I'm sure that the current minister—and it's been a revolving door; it's got to be said. There have been four of them in the last very short period of time. I've got on with all of them okay, it must be said, and have had reasonable working relations with them. Nonetheless, I do not want to see circumstances whereby decisions are deemed to have been made by not making a decision. That is not a sensible way to legislate.

Of course, this Airports Amendment Bill—you will note, Mr Deputy Speaker—is the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. It's been around for a while. That would indicate perhaps that the people who've had responsibility for it aren't as dynamic as they could have been, given that it is now towards the middle of 2018, so that makes my point, I think. It's good that Minister McCormack has gotten on top of this issue so quickly, it having just sat on the Notice Paper for so long.

I'm very proud of Labor's record when it comes to aviation. We have always sought to balance the needs of the sector with the rights of the community. Aviation is an important economic asset for the nation. In an island continent such as ours, we by definition rely in modern times, in this century, on aviation to connect ourselves with the world, whether that be by Australians travelling to and from the world—we're great travellers—or, importantly, by attracting tourists to come here as well and therefore creating jobs.

The aviation white paper had a range of reforms which this legislation reflects, prohibiting developments incompatible with aviation use on federal airport sites, for a start, unless exceptional circumstances exist. So the priority of airports is aviation. That sounds an obvious thing, but the fact is that, because it was federal land, a whole range of developments that were incompatible with aviation were considered to be supported in a range of airports, particularly the smaller airports, where general aviation is so important.

Secondly, we required federal airports to establish community aviation consultation groups. Before the aviation white paper and legislation, they didn't exist in most airports right around Australia. The interests both of the airports and of the communities around them are served by proper consultation. A range of airports do it better than others, but it is important that that be mandated so that for issues such as aircraft noise and the impact on communities there is an opportunity for communities to have that direct input.

We obligated federal airports to submit more detailed master plans, so no more could you have changes made which, essentially, hadn't been properly scrutinised. We introduced the new major development plan trigger, activated by any development with a significant community impact, regardless of size or cost. Before white paper, that was not a consideration. We established the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. That was an important reform that has meant that communities have somewhere to go that is independent of the ownership of the airports and independent of the government. It's important that they could have confidence that there was an office that was dealing with aircraft noise, which can be an issue not just for major airports but for the many secondary airports, particularly around our capital cities. Of course, we also banned a range of older, noisier aircraft from operating at our airports.

I conclude by saying that Labor strongly supports investment in aviation. We understand the importance of the role that aviation plays in supporting jobs. We're committed to growing the sector. But the simple fact is that this investment must be underpinned by the social compact between airports and the communities that live around them. That's why we'll put forward those amendments to the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. That's why I am pleased that the government, and the minister, in particular, have indicated support for those amendments. I commend the bill to the House with the knowledge that the bill's flaws will be fixed by those amendments that we will move in the consideration in detail stage.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to follow the member for Grayndler on the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. I would like to congratulate him on his recent manifesto, where he said that it is not our job to sow discontent. That is so true. Class warfare, identity politics and sowing discontent in our nation are shameful practices which should be condemned and called out at every opportunity. I congratulate the member for Grayndler for that statement.

I also congratulate him for his other statement—I hope I'm quoting correctly from his manifesto; he may like to interject in case I get it wrong—in which he said, 'we do have to engage constructively with business, large and small'. Absolutely; again, I agree with that 100 per cent. The idea that one side of this parliament wants to come and rip the tax cuts away and add an extra burden on small business is something that everyone in this parliament should stand up and condemn. I congratulate the member for Grayndler on that as he leaves the chamber.

Back on 15 April 2014, the coalition government announced that the site of Sydney's new Western Sydney Airport would be at Badgerys Creek. I can remember being at Peakhurst High School in the 1970s, and our economics teacher, Mr Simpson, who was a fantastic economics teacher, said to the class—I can still recall today: 'There will never be another airport built in Sydney. In the lifetime of anyone in this classroom, there will never be another airport built in Sydney.' Well, it looks as though this is one of the rare occasions on which my high school economics teacher will be proven wrong, because the coalition is going ahead with the construction of this airport in Western Sydney.

It will be a boost for the local economy. I hear the member for Penrith over there yawning, when she should be absolutely proud and be 100 per cent behind this.

Emma Husar (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lindsay.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lindsay—I apologise. I withdraw. I said 'the member for Penrith'. I'm sorry; I spoke incorrectly. It's the member for Lindsay.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rookie!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay is not a rookie at all. That's not a very nice comment there from the member sitting at the dispatch box. The member at the dispatch box should not make that inference about the member for Lindsay. I know she's trying her best, but you should not call her a rookie. I'm sure the member for Lindsay supports this airport, because she knows about the jobs that it will create in her local electorate and for her constituents. Construction of the airport will add a $3.6 billion infrastructure package and an estimated 8,000 new jobs. I see the two members sitting on the opposite side. A lot of those jobs will be for constituents in your electorates. I am very happy. They should be here supporting this bill 100 per cent, but instead we still hear this ranting and raving, this antibusiness rhetoric that we continually hear, this continual opposition for opposition's sake.

However, as we get on to the construction of a new airport in Western Sydney, there is one concern that I would like to raise. This goes to our commitment under the Paris climate control agreement. Under that, we have to reduce our carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 26 to 28 per cent off 2005 levels by the year 2030. One of the largest emissions sectors of our economy is transport. We know that by 2020 the transport sector will make up something like 18 per cent of our nation's CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions. Of that 18 per cent, according to a paper here on Australia's greenhouse emissions projections for 2017 by the Department of the Environment and Energy, Australia's domestic aviation emissions in 2020 will be nine million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, but by 2030 it will have increased to 12 million tonnes. So we're looking at a 30 per cent increase in the carbon emissions from our domestic aviation, yet under the Paris agreement that we have there has to be a 26 to 28 per cent reduction, not off 2020 levels but off 2005 levels. So, just on rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, if we are going to have every sector do its so-called share in that 26 to 28 per cent reduction, I see that from where we are today, rather than having an increase of a third in our domestic aviation emissions with more flights, more people travelling and more overseas tourists, we're going to have to have something like a 40 per cent decrease.

This is where it gets interesting, because the policy of the mob on the other side, under the Paris agreement, is to have a 45 per cent reduction in emissions. So I put the challenge to those who sit on that side of the chamber: can you tell me what emissions reductions you want in our domestic aviation sector? What do you want?

Opposition members interjecting—

We just heard it there. The opposition want to prevent Australians from travelling. That's what they want to do. They want to prevent Australians from travelling, one of the greatest rights that we have. One of the greatest improvements that we've had is that Australians can travel and visit other areas of our nation, with all the tourism jobs that come with it. The opposition want a 45 per cent reduction. Not only would they be happy to close down our new airport in Western Sydney; but they would have to close down a lot of the internal flights around this nation to meet their absurd, economy-wrecking, job-destroying emissions reductions. It's very timely that the shadow assistant minister for climate change has come into the chamber, because he may be able to inform us what Labor's plan is to reduce emissions in the domestic aviation sector.

We've recently seen a lot of debate in the UK on Heathrow Airport saying they are having a new third runway. Is it any wonder? As we look around the world, they're talking about the number of passengers on international flights being set to double between now and 2030 or 2040. But an interesting comment in the debate on Heathrow was from a gentleman called Leo Murray, director of the campaign group Fellow Travellers. He said:

If Britain moves to a net zero 2050 target to honour the Paris agreement, all domestic flights will need to end pretty much immediately.

I would like to know this: is that the policy of the Australian Labor Party? Do they want more or fewer Australians to fly domestically? The Australian Labor Party want to have a policy of a 45 per cent emissions reduction target over and above what we already have. And we should remember that our Paris target is already, per capita, the most onerous in the world.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A rubbish comparison!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjection from the shadow assistant minister for climate change. Maybe he could inform the House sometime later tonight which nation per capita has a higher emissions reduction target than Australia. Is there any answer? Of course not. He knows it's correct: we have the highest emissions reduction target per capita in the world. The Labor Party say: 'That is not enough. We want to make it even higher. We want that 45 per cent emissions reduction target.' What would that do to domestic aviation? How many people do they want to deny the right to fly in Australia? How do they want to reduce it? This is the debate that we should be having. The Labor Party cannot hide behind these feel-good numbers without explaining what effect they will have on each sector of the economy. I would hope during this debate on aviation and the Western Sydney Airport that the Labor Party take the opportunity to tell the Australian citizens how many people they want to deny the right to fly. That is what their policy will result in.

We also have the issue of international air travel. We know that domestic air travel is a major part of our emissions profile. I've got some numbers here from 2016. We had 7. 1 million Australians fly domestically for leisure and travel. But 5.3 million Australians actually flew overseas for holidays. For business domestically, it was 2.1 million Australians. But 628,000 Australians flew overseas for business. If you look at the average flight internally in Australia—it might be from Sydney to Melbourne, from Melbourne to Brisbane or from Adelaide to Sydney—it probably averages around an hour and a half. But I would say those international flights would average eight to 12 hours. So our emissions from our international flights will be far, far greater than our emissions from our domestic flights. So, again, I ask members of the Labor Party: if they want to pursue their 45 per cent emissions reduction target—that economy-wrecking, job-destroying emissions reduction target—what is their policy on international aviation? How many Australians will they want to deny the right to fly overseas?

One of the great privileges of being an Australian today is the opportunity that Australians have to travel overseas and see the world and to experience different cultures and different lands. Members of the Labor Party, with their emissions reduction target, want to take that opportunity away from Australians. They should explain their policy in full. How will you reduce your emissions? What are your plans? How many fewer Australians will have the right and the opportunity to travel overseas under your reckless, economy-destroying, 45 per cent emissions reduction target? I bet that we'll hear nothing from them, because if they explain their policies, if they let Australians know the harm that they are going to inflict on them, the rights that they are going to take away from them, the Labor Party will be consigned to electoral history. So they'll fudge it. They'll continue to talk about feel-good numbers and they'll continue to rant and rave, as we have seen.

This is a fantastic opportunity. This bill gives every member of the Labor Party a chance to stand up, either at the dispatch box or at their seat in this House, and explain to the Australian public how many Australians they want to deny the right to fly, domestically and internationally. Because that is exactly what their policy is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews) interjecting—

We hope, Deputy Speaker! I will leave my remarks there to make sure that I give the members sitting on the other side of the House ample opportunity to explain those things to the Australian public.

Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have to be lectured to by the energy minister and the coalition, demanding a whole series of answers from the Labor Party. I don't care. You don't bring your coalition party room approach to the floor of the parliament. You don't tell us what to do, Member for Heathcote!

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will use the correct title.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be a pleasant change, given he misnamed a whole swag of electorates.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will use the correct title or I'll sit him down.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise, Deputy Speaker. The member for Hughes—the man who thundered about—what was the interchange in his area? I can't remember. He used to get very uptight about that interchange.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moorebank.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moorebank, that was it. I was trying to remember the one he used to go on about. He used to feel very uptight about it, and he seems to deny people the right to have their say. The member for Hughes is big on free speech, except when people have alternative views. Then he doesn't want to hear those views. Anyhow, I'm sure the quality of his contributions will improve when he joins the crossbench and we'll see some really good, solid policy development coming out of there. Or is he considered part of the crossbench within the coalition party room and has a great deal of leverage?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will come back to the subject of the bill or I will sit him down.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyhow, talking of freedom of speech, I do reflect on the fact that the member has previously had very strong views about infrastructure developments, just as others are entitled to have the types of views about infrastructure developments that this bill is supposed to allow communities to have, to be able to have some impact on the way in which plans are made. While the member for Hughes during his contribution suggested that the Badgerys Creek airport would have massive job-creating impacts in Western Sydney, the reality is that in my part of Western Sydney it won't have anywhere near the impact. In fact, the coalition hung its hat on the claim that this airport would be needed in Western Sydney to create jobs. They said thousands of jobs would be created for Western Sydney. But it was interesting to note the sheepish admission from the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities a few months ago. We had been saying for ages, 'Put a figure on the number of jobs that will be created in Western Sydney by this.'—because the job figure bounces around like a ping-pong ball. On top of that, there is no firm commitment from them about whether or not the bulk of the jobs would be created.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're still jobs.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection of the minister, who says, 'They're still jobs.' Yes, they are, but they're not jobs for the entire region; they are jobs that will be located largely in one part of Western Sydney. Western Sydney itself, growing at the pace that it is, is way bigger than many of those on the other side even understand or appreciate. I certainly wouldn't expect this minister to appreciate Western Sydney in any great detail whatsoever, other than it being a great talking point for a media release. The reality is this: instead of saying that the lion's share of jobs will be created in our area, all they can get is a 50 per cent target for job creation out of that airport. The bulk of the jobs won't even go to Western Sydney; 50 per cent of the jobs will be going to people outside the region. Can we land—pardon the unintended pun—on an actual jobs figure? The figure bounces around: is it 20,000 or 40,000? If it's 40,000 then 20,000 jobs will be created at this airport. That's it.

This bill is supposed to promote community dialogue and consultation, but this airport still hasn't released the actual flight paths. The minister might want to let us know when the flight paths for this airport are going to be released. This bill says they'll provide greater community consultation, and they can't tell you where the planes will fly. I've heard about a pub with no beer, but never an airport with no planes. They keep talking about all the jobs that this airport will create, but they can only do a 50 per cent job target, and they never tell you the actual flight paths.

Here's the big tip: I bet you any money we won't find the flight paths before an election, will we? No, not at all. They are ramping up the construction and making all the announcements, but they won't properly commit to the maximum number of jobs for Western Sydney and they don't have the guts to tell you where those planes will fly. This is scandalous: $10 billion of public funds are being spent on this airport—roughly $3½ billion on the road network around it then the $5 billion now being assumed by the Commonwealth for driving it—and they won't tell you the flight paths. They'll get so much of this thing built that, when the communities find out how they are affected, it'll be too late. It is the most cynical way to design, implement and manage a project of this size.

This bill, by the way, was introduced in December 2016, and gets debated now, nearly two years later. We are told that the whole master plan concept will improve the way in which they'll consult with and bring people along with them on these developments, right? Rubbish! You can look at current experience: the community is not being treated with any respect on a major development right now. This is all about clamouring to an inner-city and Eastern Suburbs approach to what happens in Western Sydney.

Western Sydney is growing at such a pace. In my part of Western Sydney 150,000 people are moving in. The motorways and trains are crammed. The public hospital infrastructure doesn't keep pace with growth in our area. Hospital waiting lists for surgeries and emergency departments are crammed full. It's not keeping pace with development. The schools on the most backlogged maintenance lists in the state are located in Western Sydney, and we are not developing them. Funds are being cut from universities and from TAFEs.

In my part of Western Sydney 150,000 people are moving in, with another 300,000 moving into the south-west of Sydney, and the answer that is being advocated to fix clogged roads and rail, hospitals that are falling apart or not keeping pace with growth, and schools that don't get the proper funding is to put $10 billion into an airport. If I had ever said to a Western Sydney resident that the solution to all that is to spend $10 billion of public funds to build an airport, and to cynically do it in a way where the full impact of that development is not explained to the public, people would think you had rocks in your head. The reality is: that's exactly what is happening right now, where $10 billion is being put into one project.

That's before we even get to the expenditure on the North South Rail Line connecting the airport into Western Sydney or a western rail line from Penrith, where the member for Lindsay represents, through to the city. We're going to connect up all these people from that airport onto a congested Western Line. I would love for coalition ministers to go out to railway stations in Western Sydney and see rows five deep of people waiting to get on a train. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, I'm sure you would see in Melbourne as well that people want to support public transport, and it is so patronised that trains are packed. I see it when I stand at the stations at Rooty Hill, Doonside and especially Mount Druitt. I think to myself, 'Those people are getting on trains where people from Penrith, Werrington, St Marys were then joined by people in Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill, Doonside before getting to the next major railway station of Blacktown.' They will stand the whole way—for over an hour, in the case of the member for Lindsay's constituents. Then, on top of that, we will connect patrons from the North South Rail Line without thinking if we've cleared the congestion on the Western Line, which the state government knows is a problem as well. None of that consultation takes place, but this bill that we're debating now should fix up a master plan just for an airport—one airport that's being put in there. It is wrong; people are right and they should be getting sick to their back teeth of it.

The other big thing is the M7 motorway that's supposed to connect up. Mind you, no-one ever thought for a moment that, instead of building a North South Rail Line, they could use the easement on the M7, which is vacant right now. They could put in busways, a scalable response to meeting transport needs. They could convert those easements that are there—Transurban knows they are there; the government knows they are there—into bus lanes that would allow for buses to ferry people north-south. We're going to build a rail line, but we never thought of using an alternative. That will be wasted.

The M7 is already getting congested. I commend the then Howard government on working with the state government to make that reality—it is a great roadway—but it is already starting to get congested because of growth in Western Sydney. We haven't even thought about the next big roadway, the M9, which has to run parallel to the M7. Where's the funding going to come from for that? When you put $10 billion into one federal project and then ask for more, it's very hard to do it because other states—and I notice the member for Holt is here and that the deputy speaker is from Melbourne—get a little bit itchy when you take $10 billion for one project and then want to ask for more.

This is the dilemma that we have in Western Sydney. We know that all these other projects that need vital infrastructure support will now be competing not only against one big project but also against the other states and territories. We have 500,000-plus people moving into the region. The western part of Sydney will soon dwarf the eastern part in population numbers, but none of the decisions for Western Sydney actually get driven by Western Sydney people; it's all in the east. There are deals that could help parts of our area—these much-vaunted city deals that get announced—but the biggest council in Western Sydney does not have a city deal. Why? It is because it had the temerity to disagree with the federal government about the airport and so it has been blacklisted and not included as part of the city deal announcement. All these other councils get to go in, but the biggest council is left off it. Why? As I said, it is because it dared have an opposing view to this government. The biggest council with the largest population sector and the largest amount of development occurring is left off and not provided funding. It will get no federal funds to think in the long-term about how to do development in a way that will support growth in that part of Western Sydney. Again, eastern Sydney people—or people outside of Western Sydney—are calling the shots on what's happening. When we get this bill through, do you reckon I have any faith whatsoever that it'll actually deliver what it promises, which is supposedly better consultation? No, because I've seen what 'consultation' is; consultation is eastern and northern Sydney people calling the shots, as it has always been.

As I often say when it comes to Western Sydney, 'The things we need, we never get; the stuff we never ask for gets forced on us.' This bill is just a facade to support more of that behaviour, because, if Western Sydney started jacking up through the master plans and all the stuff that goes on that masks itself as consultation, we'd be ignored. No-one ever asked for this airport in our part of Western Sydney. They wanted serious jobs and serious infrastructure to deal with the things that we know are going to be long-term problems. But it will be too late. I'm happy to be proven wrong. If all my concerns about this airport turn out to be wrong, I'm happy to wear egg on my face. If I am right, I'll be interested to see if the people who argued for this airport will still be here. No, they will not, and we will have spent $10 billion on a facility and all the other infrastructure needs will have been neglected and people will have been left to suffer crowded roadways and crowded public transport, hospitals that don't meet their needs and schools that aren't being invested in.

So, yes, good luck with this bill genuinely tapping into community sentiment. I very much doubt it will. Like much of the stuff this government does, it's all facade and no form.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to talk about Western Sydney Airport, but I am going to talk about why the Airports Amendment Bill 2016 has a lot of importance. It's actually got a lot of importance when it comes to access to airports. We spend so much time thinking about flight routes and flight paths in our cities, but there's a reason aeroplanes have to fly over cities: they have to land at those airports.

A lot of those airports play a very critical role for the people I represent when it comes to their health. Across the electorate of Mallee, the range of Air Ambulance helicopters is somewhat limited. That's just a physical limitation because of fuel. If you were flying from Essendon Airport you could get to Bendigo, but you certainly couldn't make it to Mildura without having to refuel and come back. So, because helicopter range is a limiting factor for health delivery in Victoria, we have to have fixed-wing aircraft that they need to land on an airstrip. Air Ambulance run a King Air B200. The Flying Doctor Service are running the Pilatus PC-12. Essentially, the King Airs are coming in and out of Essendon Airport, and I have been concerned that Essendon Airport, whilst it's a very strategic airport for us, has allowed more and more development. We need to be very careful that, when we think about the master plans for airports, we ensure they keep their primary focus—which is to ensure that they are available for aircraft to land in and land in safely.

To give an idea of the scale of the flights, we would have four aircraft a day coming out of Mildura, taking someone who might have a premature baby to a hospital in Melbourne, taking a victim of a car crash, taking a person who might have had a heart attack. That's four flights a day coming out of one town. Out of the township of Horsham we have three a day flying down to Melbourne, and out of the township of Swan Hill there are three a day on average.

For those who don't know, I am a pilot myself. I own a good 177RG Cessna, one of the best light sport aircraft ever built—a nice Cessna with a Lycoming 200 horsepower fuel-injected engine, retractable gear and a constant-speed prop. It gets along at about 150 knots. When I am flying that plane, I am constantly coming across air ambulances flying across my electorate. So I see just how important this is. What we don't want is to get to a stage where we allow growth that doesn't match up with our national interests—growth that inhibits the opportunities to be landing at Essendon. In that case, air ambulances would have to go Moorabbin Airport, and I don't think that would be an acceptable outcome for the people of Victoria. The difference in congestion and distance you would have with getting land transport from the air ambulance in Moorabbin through to a hospital in central Melbourne could sometimes be the difference between life and death.

I commend the government for having a very proactive role in this and for saying that, when there is a master plan, they are going to have a good look at it to ensure that it maintains national and strategic interests. I say to the people who complain about aeroplanes flying over their heads: keep in mind that some of these aeroplanes are flying people whose life depends on it, and that country Australians do need to have access to city airports and that those slots do need to be available.

I will also point out that in contrast to Sydney one of the things that has become a commercial advantage about Melbourne is that we don't have restricted landing hours. The planes can come in and out at different times. This has facilitated, in a significant way, the opportunity for agricultural and horticultural products to make their way out of Melbourne. The open skies policy, which the Australian government has, has been very beneficial.

Out of my patch every night there would be a semitrailer load of asparagus that's trucked down to Melbourne Airport that's put in the belly of an A380 or a 777 and is largely sent to the UAE, and from there it makes its way into the markets. When I met with the CEO of Emirates airlines a while ago, one of the reasons they were flying, at that stage, out of Adelaide—even though they didn't have enough passenger movements, because they couldn't get enough passengers to fill the plane—was that they could get the plane to its maximum take-off weight on the back of agricultural products in the belly of those planes.

In contrast, the 24-hour access that's available in Melbourne has created more opportunity for exports of our nation and the restrictions on Sydney Airport have actually limited that. I find it quite interesting that we have people who put their hand on their heart and believe in having an open market where we have our ports open, such as our seaports, but they want to put restrictions on our airports, which also take our export goods as a nation. This is one of the reasons why Western Sydney plays a very critical role: it will allow us to have an additional spot for us to take our products to the markets.

One of the things that's also a concern to me, as a person who lives in a regional area, is even getting into Sydney—getting those slots for regional aircraft into Sydney Airport—has become more and more difficult, and has been sometimes some of the restrictions for opening up routes for servicing country Australians' access into our capital cities. That's another reason why it is good to see the government building a second airport in Sydney. It isn't just an issue for the people who live in Sydney; it's also an issue for the national competitiveness, and for the people who live in regional areas.

I will talk about the importance of general aviation and having general aviation access into airports such as Parafield, which I've flown into; into airports such as the Gold Coast, which I've flown into and will be flying into in a couple of weeks; and into airports such as Jandakot and Archerfield. The general aviation sector services not just business travellers but regional Australians that need to fly into those cities. One of the great challenges we've got if we are going to have safe, open and good air services for many years to come is that we need to be encouraging the general aviation sector, so that we have more pilots. Everyone who flies a big plane starts off in a little plane. I know it might sound like rocket science, but you usually start off in little Tecnam or maybe a 152 Cessna. Then you progress from there. Then you move your way up. The dream is to finish up flying the A380 Airbus, the A350 Airbus, the 777 or the Bart 787—'If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going', for those who believe in good American aircraft.

It does concern me that the general aviation sector is being forced out of too many of our airports and that restrictions around ASIC cards have made life difficult for a lot of general aviation pilots, who have legitimate reasons, to be landing at the airports. We need to ensure that ownership of general aviation aircraft is affordable and that medicals are fair and reasonable. I think if we're not careful we'll get to a stage where we will be limiting our capacity to open up the opportunities for aviation, because we can't find enough pilots.

I commend this bill to the House. This is wise. We do need to have very strong and considered oversight when it comes to airports. They provide links for regional Australia for our agricultural products, our safety and our general aviation. This bill is going a long way towards that. I hope and trust that our government will continue to stand by general aviation so we can have a vibrant, prosperous regional Australia for many years to come.