Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. The privatisation of Australia’s 22 federal airports has indeed fostered a vibrant and dynamic industry and enabled these airports to provide improved services with minimal call for public investment. The rapid growth in non-aviation development is very welcome to generate the funds needed for future expansion and replacement of aviation infrastructure and improved quality of service at Australian airports.

The funds generated from commercial development at airports will certainly remove what would otherwise be an enormous burden on taxpayers to deliver the essential aviation services that underpin our national economy. But this development has not come without its problems, many of which have been unnecessarily created through the poor implementation of the planning and approvals process by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Local communities, particularly around Essendon, Adelaide and Perth, are very sensitive to some of the commercial development at airports—and rightly so. It is difficult to explain to a local community why on earth they should trust the planning regime for airports when the minister has delivered a decision to place a brickworks in Perth on airport land opposite a residential development.

The problem is not so much with the planning regime but with the poor judgement of the minister in failing to consider surrounding land uses and plans when he makes decisions about commercial development at airports. And he has paid the price for that, having had to amend this bill even before the debate in the House of Representatives was complete. His own colleagues clearly do not trust him with responsible decision making and the exercise of due process. They are reflecting the concerns and frustrations of their constituencies. A few weeks ago Mr Vaile said:

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

If there were historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it came to sensitive airport development, I believe the revised time lines, which would have brought the planning regime into line with state and territory planning processes, may well have been accepted, but the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines is a manifestation of distrust in the implementation of the process.

My colleagues are equally concerned and so are their constituencies. The government’s record on airport development, with the brickworks at Perth and retail developments at Adelaide and Essendon, means that we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reductions in the consultation or approval time lines. This is about distrust of the process and of the will of the minister and the government to have due regard to the concerns of local communities and the land uses and infrastructure plans of local government authorities.

Perhaps the minister, from his experiences with Harbour Town in Adelaide and the DFO at Essendon, has finally learned that he also has to take into account the impact of commercial development on surrounding infrastructure such as roads. I say this because he did reach the right decision a few weeks ago with respect to the proposed Sydney airport retail development. That development would have required somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion worth of road infrastructure investment by the state and adjacent local authorities. Clearly it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it.

I will give the minister a bit of a break here. It is time some of the airport lessee companies also woke up to their responsibilities. It is not acceptable to treat state and local government authorities and local communities with the arrogance and disdain that some have when it comes to airport development. And it is also time that some state and local government authorities demonstrated a capacity to negotiate in good faith with airport developers for reasonable rate equivalent payments and contributions to off-airport infrastructure. Airport developers are too readily seen by some councils as the goose that laid the golden egg. But they must also recognise that the benefits of airport development flow on to their local communities. They provide jobs. And in some cases it may well be reasonable for the state and local government authorities to also contribute to surrounding infrastructure, particularly when they are in receipt of substantial rate equivalent payments.

The Gateway upgrade project in Brisbane is a wonderful example of what can be achieved when infrastructure owners and all levels of government are prepared to work together to get the right outcomes for regional infrastructure. The Brisbane port and airport precinct is not only important for the region; it is of strategic economic importance for the nation. So if we want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports it is time for all parties to lift their game. It is time for the minister to be more mindful of state and local government planning schemes, to consider the impact of developments on off-airport infrastructure and to make sure that airport lessees are meeting their obligations to make rate equivalent payments and contribute to off-airport infrastructure where that is reasonable. It is time for airport lessees to engage properly and fairly with all levels of government and community stakeholders, to propose developments that have due regard and respect for surrounding land uses and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure.

When it comes to planning control itself, it is clearly in the national interest that strategic economic infrastructure such as our major airports remains under Commonwealth control. At the end of the day, I do not believe and the shadow minister, Mr Ferguson, does not believe that state and local government authorities really want ownership of controversial airport decisions. Airport development is a contentious community issue, and both state and local governments remain far more exposed to the electoral pressure of short-term expediency than the Commonwealth. It is the role of the Commonwealth to take a long-term view when it comes to national strategic infrastructure developments such as airports, and it is the level of government best placed to do this. Therefore, it is our view that airport land must remain in Commonwealth ownership and control for the long-term development of airport infrastructure that is vital to the future success of the Australian economy.

Many of the concerns about this bill relate to bad historical experience, with fault on the part of some local government authorities and planning authorities and some airport lessee companies from time to time. However, the minister has the power to ensure good planning outcomes at airports for all parties and must be held to account in this regard. Poor implementation of planning processes has been a problem at state and local government level as well, and changing the jurisdiction would not solve the problem. As I said, airport development is contentious; it is the role of the Commonwealth to take a long-term view on such national strategic infrastructure developments and it is the level of government best placed to do this. But the approvals processes for airport development clearly need improvement. In particular, the airport development consultation guidelines released by the Department of Transport and Regional Services in December last year are very welcome. The guidelines clearly set out the Australian government’s expectation of all the stakeholder groups when it comes to consultation about airport development. They also outline a suggested approach to effective consultation. While they are non-binding, it is our hope that all parties will seek to implement them in the future.

The member for Hindmarsh in the other place is to be congratulated for his proposal by way of a private member’s bill for the appointment of an ombudsman. The member for Hindmarsh knows only too well about conflict between the greater public good that airports provide and the inconvenience that comes with them for some residents. The residents he represents have experienced significant disruption to their lives as a result of noise. They know the airport is there to stay, but they want to be able to show someone other than those with a vested interest that from a resident’s perspective there is still a lot to be done to achieve better airport planning. They want to be able to direct their concerns through an independent umpire. They can access an ombudsman to hear their concerns regarding the Defence Force, immigration or taxation—even the postal industry. There are complaints bodies to receive representations regarding banking, financial services, telecommunications, energy and insurance. But, when it comes to airports and the impact they have on the community, there is no independent umpire. I might also say that had this government been more active in paying attention over the last decade to the conflicts that have arisen between new airport lessee companies and their neighbours—businesses, residents and local government authorities—the Australian public might have more confidence in the airport planning regime and we would not be where we are today.

That brings me to some of the other issues that need to be raised this evening with respect to this bill. Firstly, I note the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report which was tabled some little time ago. The opposition fully supports the two recommendations in it and will be moving amendments during consideration in the committee stage to give effect to those recommendations. They will, firstly, add the requirement that airport lessee companies advise state and territory and local government organisations of the commencement of public consultation processes so that they have full awareness and the opportunity to comment and be engaged early in the process rather than simply reading about it in the newspaper. Secondly, they will provide for all public consultation submissions received by the airport lessee company to be forwarded to the minister as the decision maker, together with the written statement already required. There are a number of other amendments, however, that the opposition will propose to improve the integrity of airport planning and the approval process. Should those amendments be defeated, the Labor Party will, in government, revisit these amendments in the context of a broader review of legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

Having said that, might I also say that airports not only are key parts of the nation’s economic infrastructure but are unique in that there is only one per capital city. We cannot build more of them because the community simply will not allow it. They are the social, tourism, business, government and trade gateways to our regions. I suppose the exception to that proposition is Avalon in Victoria; it is perhaps an emerging rather than an established multi-user airport at the moment. But these airports connect us with each other, with the rest of Australia and with the rest of the world.

I also remind the Senate that it was a federal Labor government that privatised airports, and for very good reasons. The community simply could not afford to keep pace with the investment needed to maintain and grow our airports. That is now being done by the private sector—and it is a good thing that it is—but investment in the airport facilities and services that business and the community at large expect and demand will not continue if we undermine the regulatory regime that is the foundation for the viability of airport businesses and their expansion. So our review of legislation will focus not only on local community impacts of airports but on the greater public good that they bring and on continuing to provide the investment certainty that airport owners need to grow these vital infrastructure assets for the 21st century and beyond.

In the meantime, I will outline the additional amendments the opposition will be moving. Firstly, while we note the comments of the Senate committee with respect to the deemed approval provision, the need for investment certainty by airports, the view that the deemed approval places some pressure on the minister and the department to meet their obligations under the act in a timely manner and the fact that this provision has never been used remain of concern to us.

I remind the Senate of Mr Costello’s nondecision of 22 May last year when, at midnight, the National Competition Council’s recommendation to declare BHP Billiton’s Newman railway under the Trade Practices Act was deemed rejected. That was the right outcome but it came only because the Treasurer was too gutless to make a decision. No-one would argue against an effective and efficient access regime for rail haulage for all Pilbara iron ore producers, but the National Competition Council’s recommendation failed to protect the initial investment of BHP Billiton and its billion dollar export industry. In effect, it favoured access seekers over the operations of existing owners who have borne the risk of investment, who maintain the infrastructure and who operate a sophisticated logistics chain to supply their export markets. Instead of doing the right thing and clearly articulating the national interest, Peter Costello went missing in action. As a result, there remains no investment certainty for BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto in the Pilbara. The parties are now embroiled in legal disputation and the future investment in Australia’s export supply chains is at serious risk as a result. Deeming provisions can and do go wrong and this is an issue we want addressed in this legislation.

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

The third issue relates to the provision of an explicit statement of reasons if the minister decides not to adopt the recommendations contained in submissions from state or territory planning agencies and local government authorities. While I understand that the minister’s decision is already reviewable through the administrative appeals process and that aggrieved parties have the right to obtain a statement of reasons from the minister, I can see no reason why this should not be an explicit requirement of the minister in the decision-making process. This is about providing the community and state and local government authorities with more confidence in the process and requiring better accountability of the minister. I remind the Senate that, but for recent decisions like the Perth brickworks, we might not have been here asking for this today. The fact is that there is a history of disregard for due planning processes and due consideration of the concerns of communities and local governments.

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

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

There are two other issues which will not be addressed through amendment but which I would like to place on the record. Firstly, the opposition would not like to see Bankstown Airport become one of the non-core regulated airports subject to the lifting of the five per cent airline ownership cap, and we will be addressing this issue should regulations be introduced in this regard. Secondly, we have some concerns about the accreditation by CASA of parties other than Airservices Australia and the Australian Defence Force to provide airspace and fire and rescue services at Australian airports. I note that, to date, these provisions apply only to Townsville Airport and the accredited service provider, Delta. We will be addressing this issue on a case-by-case basis should additional airports or service providers be added to the schedule by way of regulation.

We will be supporting this bill but, as I have outlined, we will be moving a number of amendments during consideration in committee and I hope that the government will give careful consideration to those amendments in the interests of restoring the integrity of the airport planning regime, improving community confidence in it and providing for greater accountability on the part of the minister when it comes to airport development decisions. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

        “but the Senate condemns the Government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through planning approval decisions, such as that relating to the Perth brickworks site, located opposite a residential area, and the Essendon direct factory outlet, proposed without regard to the impact on local road infrastructure”.