Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows—

The Bill before us today does not revolutionise the Airports Act but it does provide some minor amendments that will improve some elements of the Act, which is why the Democrats will support the Bill.

The proposed amendments are designed to relax restrictions on airlines owning smaller airports, to institute changes to land use, planning, building controls and environment management provisions, and to confirm the availability of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to monitor and evaluate the quality of airport services and facilities.

These are not controversial changes in and of themselves – with the exception of the changes to the time allowed for public consultation.

I will expand on this later but I note the Government has responded to criticisms of these changes and has introduced amendments to the legislation to alter the original reduction in the time for public consultation.

However this Bill does little to address the major issue that concerns most people - and that is how airport developments affect local residents and the community more broadly.

Airport development will always be a contentious community issue.

It is clearly in the national interest that infrastructure such as airports are subject to proper planning processes.

But this is where the problem arises – and it arises in particular with regard to the non-aviation development on airports.

Since the privatisation of Australia's airports there has been rapid growth in this non-aviation development.

We have seen vast shopping complexes built on airport land. We have seen commercial parking and office developments.

The Sydney airport development proposal contained a substantial cinema complex.

There's even been a recent suggestion by the Brisbane Airport Corporation that their airport be opened up to include online keno, pub-TAB and poker machines. No doubt casinos on airport land will not be far away.

As it stands airport development does not have to meet city or state planning laws – laws which apply to any other development.

It is up to the federal Minister to make the final call on any proposed development.

But this retail and commercial development has enormous implications for off-airport infrastructure such as roads, public transport, electricity and water networks.

It is local and state governments that bear the costs of providing this necessary infrastructure.

There are also consequences for local shops and businesses which may suffer economically because of these developments.

And of course airport noise and breaking of curfews continues to be a problem for local residents. As does the increased traffic congestion that can result from these developments.

Many complaints have been raised about the failure of the federal Minister to consider surrounding land uses and plans when decisions are made about commercial developments at airports.

Local communities in Perth and Adelaide have been unhappy with decisions that have been made, as have the relevant state and local governments.

People understand that airports are important in allowing us to travel around Australia and in and out of Australia – whether it is for work or leisure.

They understand that we need airports to move freight around and that airports provide jobs.

No-one is arguing that we should get rid of airports but they want confidence in the development process.

They want to know that the concerns of the local community are being taken into account and that any development will not have an adverse effect on the broader community.

We need to keep in mind the primary purpose of these pieces of Commonwealth land.

This land is supposed to be predominantly there for aviation purposes – not for commercial enterprises around shopping.

It is interesting to note that in the last year Sydney airport got half of its revenue from retail and shopping and property development.

More than it got from airlines and passengers as passengers.

It is promising that the Federal minister has rejected the enormously out-of-scale proposals that were recently put forward by the Sydney Airport Corporation.

A proposal that generated an enormous level of opposition at all levels.

Of course Sydney airport will not stop submitting future plans that may impact negatively on the community and I have to wonder what decision might be made on those plans in a non-election year.

Airports are part of communities and as such any development—whether aeronautical or non-aviation related—must be evaluated within that context—balancing the needs of the community with the benefits of expansion.

Unfortunately it is the case that Minister has not always been mindful of community concerns or the concerns of state and local governments.

And this legislation does nothing to change the situation.

Airport land is still exempt from local and state planning controls and there is nothing in the legislation to ensure that airport operators contribute to the financing of the infrastructure required to support these developments.

At a minimum the Bill should make it a requirement that in any development the airport lessee has considered the impacts on off-airport infrastructure and negotiated in good faith with state and local governments to contribute to any changes required.

Some airport management does do this. Brisbane Airport has contributed large sums of money to support infrastructure development around the Brisbane Airport.

But as it stands there is no real requirement for them to do so.

It is not enough that the Government is simply requiring in its amendments that the airport lessee let the relevant state and territory and local government authorities know they are submitting a draft master plan before they do so.

For a start there's nothing to say how long before they submit they have to let people know – just the day before?

And I can't see how this meets the Senate Inquiry recommendation to amend the bill to require that the airport lessee companies advise state/territory and local government organisations at the commencement of the public consultation process.

I would also like to comment specifically on the Government's original proposal to slash the time for community consultation and public comment – the time in which people would have to respond to amendments to airport master plans, major and minor development plans and environment strategies found in parts 5 and 6 of the Airports Act.

Originally the Government intended to slash the consultation period currently required from 90 calendar days to 45 working days.

People were rightly outraged by this.

The Minister for Transport and Regional Services conceded that this reduction was a mistake and the Government has now settled on 60 working days.

It is still a reduction but a much less severe one.

If we are serious about involving the community there must be sufficient time for the public to be consulted and to provide feedback on these development proposals.

We should not be reducing the timelines for this to occur, particularly given the complexity of airport planning documents.

Unfortunately the Government has not seen fit to undo all of the reductions in the public consultation times.

There is still a reduction in the consultation period for minor variations to plans and environment strategies. The consultation for this has been reduced from 30 calendar days to 15 business days. Some might argue that this is not a big change but for public groups trying to have their say this can make a big difference.

It is disappointing that we have not seen the Government re-consider this decision.

It is also disappointing that the bill is doubling the threshold for developments not requiring ministerial approval from $10 million to $20 million. Any airport development below $20 million will not need to be accompanied by a major development plan.

The Government has argued that this is to reflect increases in building costs.

The value of construction costs is one of the major considerations for whether a major development plan actually needs to be submitted. So this amendment has the effect of increasing the amount of development that can occur without the need for a major development plan.

It is clear that this severely limits the opportunity for the plans to be exhibited publicly and for the public to comment.

Essentially we are now looking at a situation where we are no longer talking simply about airports but about zones that involve airports, retail and commercial developments. We need to be developing legislation that reflects that reality.