Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to 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”.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Allison’s speech.

Leave granted.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 is essentially about maintaining the status quo as far as some of our most important airports are concerned. Airports are amongst the most important assets in our cities and regional centres. The people who planned them recognised that, as they are a strategic and hazardous land use, they need to be surrounded by broad buffer zones to protect people in adjacent areas. However, a side effect of these large buffer areas is that in many cases airports have become de facto nature reserves. This is particularly because large areas of our capital cities have been cleared of their native vegetation and these areas have not been. I am going to talk particularly about the impacts this proposal may have on Perth Airport.

Perth Airport bushland is a very important area of bushland. It is highly biodiverse and one of the largest areas of uncleared bushland left in the metropolitan area, particularly in the part of the city in which it is located. A large part of it has been listed under the WA Bush Forever plan. That looks at all the different areas of native vegetation left in Perth and lists the most important so that they are protected. Unfortunately, the state government is not a long way through that list in terms of protecting it; however, it is slowly working its way through to protect those areas of bushland.

It holds all the remains of the once vast Five Mile Swamp, one of the last habitats for the much endangered Western Swamp Tortoise. While fragmented, it also holds some valuable Indigenous heritage sites. This area is an extremely important bit of bushland that is slowly being whittled away. As I said, it is one of the largest tracts of fairly intact remnant vegetation on the Swan coastal plain. Around 85 per cent of our coastal wetlands have been lost, hence the importance also of the Five Mile Swamp.

Because urban growth has accelerated in recent years, there are now unprecedented demands to develop these buffer zones around airports, leading to a proliferation of proposals for incompatible land uses. In Hobart and Sydney it is large-scale retail development, and in Perth there are a number of proposals to develop the Perth Airport. The objective of the Westralia Airports Corporation, according to the plan, is ‘the development of industrial non-aeronautical land uses on a large land parcel identified as part of precinct 3A’. So there are a number of proposals planned for this area that are of the industrial, non-aeronautical variety.

Stage 1 of this development is a 20-hectare brickworks, one of the largest in the state. There are probably more projects coming down the line that we do not know about yet. If past developments are any indication, there will be a number of them, probably including some sort of retail development as well. The whole concept of an airport buffer zone is being eaten away by incremental developments of this kind. Privatising the airports over time has accelerated the trend. We have created a situation where private airport operators are holding long-term leases over large tracts of valuable Commonwealth land—in many cases, very valuable native bushland. The government is enabling and encouraging further commercial development of this land.

All of this is happening outside state government planning and environmental and heritage approval processes. This government has developed an ad hoc process for signing off on these developments, and the bill we are debating is part of this strategy. There are a number of clauses in this bill which make it easier for this kind of ad hoc development to proceed more rapidly. After the furore which greeted the government approval of the brickworks in 2006, it is telling that this bill narrows the amount of time for public submissions from approximately 13 weeks to 9 weeks. The justification for this is beautifully captured in the second reading speech of 30 November 2006 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services:

The changes to the public consultation periods are consistent with the government’s commitment to reduce regulatory burdens on business, mirror the streamlining processes embraced by other jurisdictions and recognise the maturing of both the airports in preparing these documents and the public in assessing them.

I am sure the community at large really appreciate that their maturity is being used to shorten and curtail public consultation processes. We have shortened public consultation processes because the public now has a mature attitude toward assessing these projects. There are a large number of people in the eastern suburbs of Perth who have been campaigning against the brickworks, trying to have it located in a properly regulated industrial zone. I am sure they will be very heartened and surprised to hear that their maturity is being given as a justification for making it harder to properly scrutinise projects of this type.

Item 72 doubles the threshold for what will be subject to a major development plan to $20 million. Raising the bar in this way means a $15 million project which would have been subject to an admittedly minimal obligation to prepare a major development plan will now be exempt from doing so. Item 77 provides that if a proposed development could potentially impact on a flight path there should be some detail of what the impacts would be. Surely any development that has an impact on a flight path should be disqualified by definition. Are these airports or not? Some development may impact on a flight path, so you had better list what that impact might be.

The bill does not make the kinds of major changes to the Airports Act which would be necessary if the Commonwealth were serious about taking over control of such large and strategically important parcels of land. Instead it appears to smooth the way for ever larger numbers of poorly integrated and incompatible projects shoehorned into buffer zones which were never intended for this use or to be developed in this manner.

Last August I submitted a fairly detailed list of questions on notice about the brickworks to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.

Debate interrupted.