Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few comments on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. My focus was drawn to this legislation because of the proposed megastore development at Hobart airport, which I have followed with considerable interest because it highlights my concerns about non-aviation developments on airport land. It is very difficult for people who are unfamiliar with Hobart airport to understand what has gone on there. It is worth putting on the record that the proposed development includes 77,000 square metres of new shops and is 50 per cent bigger than the development that was proposed for Sydney airport—all of this in a city with fewer than 250,000 people. That defies logic and it is going to mean that existing shops are forced out of business.

I want to repeat that. We are talking about a retail development for Hobart airport that is 50 per cent bigger than the development that was proposed for Sydney airport. Naturally, people in the city are very concerned, because it is estimated that a quarter of all shopping activity will be sucked from the Hobart city centre if this new $100 million retail development goes ahead. Several objections have been raised by local government—in particular, Clarence Council and Hobart City Council—such that a study was conducted by the Property Council of Australia to look at this issue. It concluded that the massive direct factory outlet, bulky goods store and homemaker centre proposed for Commonwealth land was too large for the city of Hobart. The economic survey was conducted by Gary Pratley, the national planning director of Sydney based consultancy MacroPlan Australia. His report concluded that the adverse economic impacts of the development would be significant. Many shops in the city centre and its suburbs would be forced to close, and trade in Glenorchy, Kingston, Sorell and other regional centres would be decimated.

The proposal to commercialise empty paddocks near Hobart airport which are not subject to the normal state and council planning laws was backed by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd, which is 100 per cent owned by the state government. That was the first major deception. When this proposal was put forward, the people of Hobart had no idea that the land was 100 per cent owned by the state government and that the government was in fact acting for, and with, the developers in relation to this. At the same time, the state government was repeatedly refusing to release the full economic assessment that it received. Eventually it was forced to release, under pressure from the parliament, a short summary, but to this day we still do not have the full economic and social assessment of this development. That is what concerns me about what is going on with this legislation.

Today it has been revealed in one of the national dailies that the Labor premiers have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the federal government hand powers to the states for planning retail malls and other non-aviation developments at airports. The Labor leaders have reportedly told the Prime Minister they are worried about plans being approved under the Airports Act, which lets the federal government rule on proposed developments at 22 privatised airports. The states want the laws revised so that controversial non-aviation proposals on airport land are controlled by state planning laws and policies. It is reported—and I would like the minister to indicate whether this is the case—that the state premiers have written to the Prime Minister saying that the current approval regime for proposed non-aviation related development does not adequately take into account whether a proposed development is consistent with land uses in surrounding areas or the potential impact of a proposed development on existing metropolitan centres, public transport and other state provided infrastructure servicing the airport. That letter goes on to talk about the various activities that are currently being proposed as the nation’s biggest airports take on big expansions ranging from the direct factory outlet proposed for Hobart to golf courses and even brickworks. The premiers fear that non-aviation developments will undermine airfreight and passenger traffic in the longer term, arguing that dedicating core aviation land for non-aviation uses exposes states and territories to risks of lost aviation related economic growth, including tourism, employment and regional access. It is reported that that letter to the Prime Minister was written by the Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, who currently chairs the Council for the Australian Federation, representing the premiers and chief ministers.

In Canberra, airport operators have attempted legal action to prevent a competing discount factory outlet centre from being set up. The ACT government argues that this legal manoeuvring could discourage investment in the territory, but they have no power to stop it. The New South Wales government has argued that airport operators have a history of allocating as little land as they can to aviation activity while expanding the amount of land dedicated to lucrative non-aviation developments such as shops. The government has warned that this means there may not be enough airport land available for future aviation related expansions.

What I am concerned about, in talking about this legislation tonight, is Hobart’s proposed megastore, and I note that Senator O’Brien, in his contribution, did not talk at all about the Hobart megastore development. I suppose that is not surprising as I have discovered that in fact the state government is the proponent of this development, so the other developments around the country have caught his attention but not the one in Hobart. The issue surrounding the one in Hobart is that we have members of the state parliament, including members of the government, going out and saying to the people of Tasmania, ‘This is terrible as it breaches local planning laws and the Commonwealth is imposing its will on Tasmania,’ but then we find the state government itself in there being the proponent of this development, quite happy in fact to evade the state’s planning laws when it comes to a development of this kind. That highlights the big problem here.

From my point of view, having looked at this, the proposed development for Hobart is completely unsustainable. We do not have a population base that can sustain a city CBD, several of the existing shopping centres around the city plus this major development. I do not know how anyone could justify building such a megadevelopment. Then you have the issue of who is going to pay for upgrading the roads and for all of the infrastructure that will have to be there to support this development and the issue that businesses in the development will not have to pay the council rates that other businesses in competing shopping malls in other city areas have to pay. You have a situation where, because they will be evading the state’s planning regulations and the rates that other businesses have to pay, Tasmanian businesses are going to be disadvantaged vis-a-vis the businesses that set up in this proposed megadevelopment, this megastore precedent.

Clarence City Council is saying it has already approved a homemaker centre across the road from the airport proposal, but now an adjacent landowner, the Commonwealth, can arbitrarily and without reference to any planning authority do whatever it likes. You have the situation of unfair competition being set up between local Tasmanian owned businesses, who are paying their rates and living with restrictions under local planning schemes, and these developers coming in under the megastore proposal, who will be evading state planning laws and state taxes in order to get a competitive advantage against the locals. What we are going to see in the case of the Hobart Direct Factory Outlets—or, as it is known, the big box development—is a serious crunch for the viability of businesses in and around Hobart.

One of the things that we have argued for throughout consideration of this development is that the economic and social impact study that was conducted by Essential Economics, at the behest of the developer, be released publicly. Why shouldn’t the community see the social and economic impact statement before making its submissions to the federal government to consider? But at no stage was that social and economic impact statement released. One can only assume that the reason it was not released is it confirms what I am saying: that the size of the development is unsustainable given the Tasmanian population base. It is disgusting that this is going before the federal minister for decision when the community is still being denied the social and economic impact statement that would have informed many of the submissions. Take Hobart City Council and Clarence City Council: neither, even though they oppose the development, has seen the statement of this particular study conducted on behalf of the developer.

Then you have the planning system for these developments whereby submissions from the public are sent to the developer and then the developer summarises those and provides the federal minister with a summary of the objections. You can hardly expect that summary to be a true and adequate reflection of the submissions, especially if they are adverse to the developer’s interests. That is why there was the proposal of the Senate committee that all of the submissions be forwarded and made public so that at least the full range of submissions could be known to the minister, not just a summary of them from the proponent. That is a very significant matter. That is why I will be moving an amendment to this bill that will say:

... It is the intention of the Parliament that State, Territory and local laws or by-laws relating to planning, development and the assessment and payment of rates are to apply to any major airport development of a kind specified in paragraph 89—

et cetera—

unless a development of a kind specified ... is for an aviation purpose.

I am trying to make sure that these developments come under state and local government planning laws and that the rates that are required of local developments apply to these developments, otherwise you are setting up unfair competition; you are giving to these megastores a significant advantage by their being able to set up on Commonwealth land such that they avoid local and state planning schemes. That is what the premiers and chief ministers have reportedly asked of the Commonwealth in their letter to the Prime Minister today—and I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about that letter because I have seen reports of it but have not seen a copy of it.

I ask the minister to comment on this to the parliament, letting us know where the Hobart megastore development is up to in the current planning process. I ask the minister to indicate why the social and economic impact statement as to the megastore development proposed for Hobart has not been made public and whether the minister thinks that is fair. So I would appreciate an update from the minister on where the megastore development is in the current planning process and when we can expect the minister to make a decision on that particular project. Also, I would like to hear from the minister the government’s response to the letter from the state and territory governments today.

Surely he would appreciate that the concerns they have are valid in terms of losing planning control over the aviation land, which, of course, was only ceded to the Commonwealth for aviation purposes. Now that has changed to non-aviation services, which changes the whole nature of it. I am sure that if the states had been aware that it was going to be used for non-aviation purposes when it was first ceded different arrangements would have been entered into, particularly in relation to rates, because rates and charges need to be applied to provide water and transport infrastructure and other services to those areas. It is only appropriate that the costs of providing those services are adequately and fairly shared between all developments and that a discriminatory regime is not set up which favours these large developments simply because there is a loophole in legislation resulting in a change in the use of land around airport sites.