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

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 5178 together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 16), after item 118, insert:

118A At the end of subsection 112(1)

Add “unless section 112A applies”.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 16), after item 118, insert:

118B  At the end of subsection 112(2)

Add “; unless section 112A applies”.

(3)    Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 18), after item 119, insert:

119CA After section 112

Insert:

112AA  Preservation of State, Territory and local planning laws for non-aviation developments

        (1)    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(1)(e) or paragraph 89(1)(o), unless a development of a kind specified in paragraph 89(1)(o) is for an aviation purpose.

        (2)    This section operates notwithstanding any other section in this Act.

As has been indicated earlier in the debate, these amendments seek to restore to state, territory and local governments control over planning for non-aviation developments on airport land. This relates to the planning, development and assessment of these airport developments.

As has also been indicated, the Greens supported the opposition amendments requiring ministerial approval to be contingent upon having appropriate town planners involved in the process. This is absolutely critical because these huge developments have considerable impact. They have impact on surrounding areas and we have to be sure that they are consistent with land uses in those areas. We have to look at the potential impact of the proposed developments on existing metropolitan centres.

In the case of the one being proposed for Hobart, we have already had a report done saying that 30 per cent of business will be drained from the Eastlands Shopping Centre by the development that is being proposed for Hobart. But, as I indicated earlier, because the social and economic impact assessment has never been released—and will never be released, by the sound of it—we will have to wait, unfortunately, until after the project is up and running to find that out. That will be an indictment of everybody concerned.

We also need to know, though, what the impact of these developments will be on public transport and other state-provided infrastructure servicing the airport. As has been indicated earlier, the transport system is critically important. That is why getting the town planners involved is absolutely central to a discussion like this. I hate to think what is going to happen in terms of the roads and transport infrastructure in Hobart if this development at the Hobart airport proceeds. And who will bear the costs? Since the state government is the proponent, when and if we have the transport and traffic problems we anticipate because of this development, it will be interesting to see whether the state Premier accepts responsibility for having been behind such a development in the first place without having done appropriate assessments.

As I mentioned earlier, the minister is saying that the problem with this amendment is that it is hard to distinguish between aviation and non-aviation developments. Well, of the three that are there, the proposal for a golf course is clearly not an aviation development, brickworks are not an aviation development, and Direct Factory Outlets is not an aviation development. So in my view—whilst obviously hangars and so on are aviation developments, and there may be some grey areas when it comes to freight and freight arrangements with the airport—with most of these developments it is completely obvious that they are non-aviation developments, that they are being developed on this Commonwealth land because they are seen as lucrative from the point of view of the major developers and that they evade local and state planning laws. We are hearing from the minister that they want to make these decisions quickly and—