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

leave—I move opposition amendments (15) to (19) on sheet 5237 together:

(15)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 11), after item 87, insert:

87A  After subsection 94(1)

Insert:

     (1A)    The Department must ensure that, before the Minister approves or refuses to approve the plan, an assessment of the plan is made by qualified town planners and comments on the plan by town planners are provided to the Minister.

(16)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 15), after item 88, insert:

88A  After subsection 94(5)

Insert:

     (5A)    If the Minister’s decision is not in accordance with submissions of relevant State or Territory planning agencies or local government authorities, the Minister must provide a statement in writing setting out the reasons for the decision.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 89, page 16 (lines 16 and 17), omit the item, substitute:

89  Subsection 94(6)

Repeal the subsection.

(18)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 17), after item 89, insert:

89A  Subsection 94(6A)

Repeal the subsection.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 90, page 16 (after line 27), after subsection (7B), insert:

      (7C)    The Minister must specify in approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and, if so, having regard to relevant rate-equivalent contributions, whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport-lessee company to negotiate in good faith with relevant State, Territory and/or local government authorities with a view to reaching agreement on appropriate contributions to be made by the airport-lessee company to specific off-airport infrastructure.

Amendment (15) relates to ensuring that the minister receives advice from qualified town planners when making approval decisions about master plans and major development plans. We are aware that the department employs people with such qualifications at the present time; however, we are not aware of any requirement for them to do so. We believe it is important that there be a demonstrable expertise available to the minister in the exercise of his or her responsibilities. It is clear that this amendment would not impose an obligation on the department that it currently does not meet, but it would ensure that the obligation would have to be met in the future. If for some reason this expertise was not available to the minister, we would be concerned about the minister’s ability to be properly advised in relation to the exercise of his or her responsibility. This is what one might, in some circumstances, categorise as a ‘belt and braces’ approach; to not only recognise that expertise is there but also to make sure it is there in the future. It is important that the minister should have this expertise available so that decisions are made with the benefit of the best advice possible.

Amendment (16) introduces a requirement for the minister to provide a written statement of reasons if the minister’s decision is not in accordance with the submissions of relevant state and local government planning authorities. We have put this forward on the basis that there is an onus on the minister—given the responsibility that the Commonwealth takes in relation to the land—for the minister to show why he has not had regard to the concerns or views of local authorities in relation to planning decisions, for example, where it is suggested that the development proposed for the airport will have certain consequences for surrounding areas. If that is the view expressed by a local government authority, it ought to be incumbent upon the minister, now and in the future, to be able to say why those particular concerns were not supported by the minister, rather than simply having no response in relation to those matters. Apart from the fact that these are ordinary courtesies that ought to be extended between the various arms of government, it seems to the opposition if the minister forms a view about a matter which is against that of a state or a local authority, the minister ought to have the strength of argument to be able to express that in a way that can be made public and that can demonstrate that the Commonwealth has taken into account the submissions that have been made and the concerns that have been raised but has a view that it can argue in relation to why those propositions have not been acceded to.

Amendments (17) and (18) remove the so-called ‘deemed approval provision’ whereby a development is automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the appropriate time frames under the act. We concede there is no history of the minister abrogating his responsibilities when it comes to making decisions within appropriate time frames—not in this portfolio. But there is a history in other portfolios of this government, and I refer to Treasurer Costello’s failure to make a decision on the BHP Billiton Pilbara railway; a critical export infrastructure for iron ore. There is a precedent for the government allowing the effluxion of time to determine the outcome of a particular application process. We do not believe that an application for development ought to be deemed to be approved because the minister has chosen not to do anything or the minister has chosen not to meet the time line required under the act. If the minister has stop-the-clock provisions available, just because they are there does not guarantee that a minister in the future will use those provisions. If a decision were considered difficult, a minister might find—just as Mr Costello found in relation to the experience with the Pilbara railway—that it was easier not to make a decision than to make a decision which would offend one side or another. It is not responsible government for that approach to be taken. We do not think it should be a course available to a minister of any political persuasion. In relation to an application for the development of an airport, given that most airports are surrounded by urban development, it is not an option that the minister can simply close his eyes and wish the application would go away and therefore has the application approved by a lapse of time and nothing else. We believe that the deemed approval provisions should not stand.

Amendment (19) requires the minister to specify in approval conditions whether it is considered that the proposal would have an impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the airport lessee company to negotiate appropriate contributions to that infrastructure. Perhaps the minister has finally learnt from the experience of Harbour Town in Adelaide and the Direct Factory Outlet at Essendon that he has to take into account the impact of commercial development on the surrounding infrastructure, such as roads. We say that because the minister did make the right decision this year 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 local authorities

We are of the view that it is totally inappropriate to expect that kind of contribution from government and equally inappropriate to clog up the existing road infrastructure without it. If we want to rebuild community trust in the planning regime for airports, it is time for all the parties in the process to lift their game. Certainly 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.

We say that 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 to and respect for surrounding land uses, and to pay their way when it comes to associated infrastructure. 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 amendment we propose would require the minister, as I said, to specify, in approval conditions, whether it is considered that such a proposal will have an impact and whether it is reasonable for there to be a requirement for the airport lessee company to negotiate appropriate contributions to that infrastructure. We think that amendment certainly could do no harm in terms of any government’s administration of this legislation and may clarify matters which have been the subject of considerable argument between development proponents on the one hand and local and state authorities on the other. It would be a positive from the Commonwealth’s point of view if they adopted that amendment.