David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (33) together:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 14), after item 40, insert:

40A  Before subsection 79(1)

Insert:

Advice to State or Territory etc.

     (1A)    Before giving the Minister a draft master plan for an airport under section 75, 76 or 78, the airport-lessee company for the airport must advise, in writing, the following persons of its intention to give the Minister the draft master plan:

             (a)    the Minister, of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated, with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (b)    the authority of that State or Territory with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (c)    each local government body with responsibility for an area surrounding the airport.

      (1B)    The draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    a copy of the advice given under subsection (1A); and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company listing the names of those to whom the advice was given.

Note:   The heading to section 79 is altered by adding at the end “and advice to State or Territory etc.”.

40B  Subsection 79(1)

Omit “Before giving the Minister a draft master plan for an airport under section 75, 76 or 78, the airport-lessee company for the airport must”, substitute “After giving the advice under subsection (1A), but before giving the Minister the draft master plan, the company must also”.

Note:   The following heading to subsection 79(1) is inserted “Public comment”.

(2)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (line 18), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (line 31), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 47, page 10 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:

47  Subsection 79(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the preliminary version in accordance with the notice, the draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    copies of those comments; and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of those members of the public; and

                  (ii)    summarising those comments; and

                 (iii)    demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft plan; and

                 (iv)    setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

47A  Paragraph 80(1)(b)

After “consulted”, insert “(other than by giving an advice under subsection 79(1A))”.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (lines 10 to 28), omit the item, substitute:

48  After section 80

Insert:

80A  Minister may request more material for making decision

        (1)    This section applies if an airport-lessee company gives the Minister a draft master plan or a draft variation of a final master plan.

        (2)    If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that he or she does not have enough material to make a proper decision under subsection 81(2) or 84(2), as applicable, the Minister may request the airport-lessee company to provide specified material relevant to making the decision.

Time does not run while further material being sought

        (3)    If the Minister has requested more material under subsection (2) for the purposes of making a decision, a day is not to be counted as a business day for the purposes of subsection 81(5) or 84(3), as applicable, if it is:

             (a)    on or after the day the Minister requested the material; and

             (b)    on or before the day on which the Minister receives the last of the material requested.

(7)    Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 17), after item 56, insert:

56A  Before subsection 84A(1)

Insert:

Advice to State or Territory etc.

     (1A)    Before giving the Minister a draft variation of a final master plan for an airport under subsection 84(1), the airport-lessee company for the airport must advise, in writing, the following persons of its intention to give the Minister the draft variation:

             (a)    the Minister, of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated, with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (b)    the authority of that State or Territory with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (c)    each local government body with responsibility for an area surrounding the airport.

      (1B)    The draft variation submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    a copy of the advice given under subsection (1A); and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company listing the names of those to whom the advice was given.

Note:   The heading to section 84A is altered by inserting “and advice to State or Territory etc.” after “comment”.

56B  Subsection 84A(1)

Omit “Before giving the Minister a draft variation of a final master plan for an airport under subsection 84(1), the airport-lessee company for the airport must”, substitute “After giving the advice under subsection (1A), but before giving the Minister the draft variation, the company must also”.

Note:   The following heading to subsection 84A(1) is inserted “Public comment”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 63, page 12 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item, substitute:

63  Subsection 84A(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the preliminary version in accordance with the notice, the draft variation submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    copies of those comments; and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of those members of the public; and

                  (ii)    summarising those comments; and

                 (iii)    demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft variation; and

                 (iv)    setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

(9)    Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 24), after item 78, insert:

78A  Before subsection 92(1)

Insert:

Advice to State or Territory etc.

     (1A)    Before giving the Minister a draft major development plan, the airport-lessee company concerned must advise, in writing, the following persons of its intention to give the Minister the draft major development plan:

             (a)    the Minister, of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated, with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (b)    the authority of that State or Territory with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (c)    each local government body with responsibility for an area surrounding the airport.

      (1B)    The draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    a copy of the advice given under subsection (1A); and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company listing the names of those to whom the advice was given.

Note:   The heading to section 92 is altered by adding at the end “and advice to State or Territory etc.”.

78B  Subsection 92(1)

Omit “Before giving the Minister a draft major development plan, the airport-lessee company concerned must”, substitute “After giving the advice under subsection (1A), but before giving the Minister the draft major development plan, the company must also”.

Note:   The following heading to subsection 92(1) is inserted “Public comment”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (line 28), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line 4), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (line 11), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 85, page 15 (lines 19 and 20), omit the item, substitute:

85  Subsection 92(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the draft version in accordance with the notice, the draft plan submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    copies of those comments; and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of those members of the public; and

                  (ii)    summarising those comments; and

                 (iii)    demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft plan; and

                 (iv)    setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

85A  Paragraph 93(1)(b)

After “consulted”, insert “(other than by giving an advice under subsection 92(1A))”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 15 (line 21) to page 16 (line 9), omit the item, substitute:

86  After section 93

Insert:

93A  Minister may request more material for making decision

        (1)    This section applies if an airport-lessee company gives the Minister a draft major development plan or a draft variation of a major development plan.

        (2)    If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that he or she does not have enough material to make a proper decision under subsection 94(2) or 95(2), as applicable, the Minister may request the airport-lessee company to provide specified material relevant to making the decision.

Time does not run while further material being sought

        (3)    If the Minister has requested more material under subsection (2) for the purposes of making a decision, a day is not to be counted as a business day for the purposes of subsection 94(6) or 95(3), as applicable, if it is:

             (a)    on or after the day the Minister requested the material; and

             (b)    on or before the day on which the Minister receives the last of the material requested.

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

89A  At the end of subsection 94(7)

Add:

Note:   For examples of conditions imposed under this subsection, see section 94A.

(16)  Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 31), after item 91, insert:

91A  After section 94

Insert:

94A  Examples of conditions

                 Without limiting subsection 94(7), the following conditions may be imposed under that subsection:

             (a)    a condition relating to the ongoing operation of a development to which a major development plan relates;

             (b)    a condition requiring the preparation, submission for approval by a specified person, and implementation, of a plan for managing the impact, on an airport and an area surrounding an airport, of a development to which a major development plan relates.

(17)  Schedule 1, items 97 and 98, page 17 (lines 20 to 28), omit the items, substitute:

97  Before subsection 95A(1)

Insert:

Application of section

     (1A)    This section applies if the Minister has, under paragraph 95(2)(c), required a draft variation of a major development plan for an airport to be subject to public comment under this section.

Advice to State or Territory etc.

      (1B)    Before resubmitting the draft variation to the Minister, the airport-lessee company for the airport must advise, in writing, the following persons of its intention to resubmit the draft variation to the Minister:

             (a)    the Minister, of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated, with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (b)    the authority of that State or Territory with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (c)    each local government body with responsibility for an area surrounding the airport.

      (1C)    The draft variation resubmitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    a copy of the advice given under subsection (1B); and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company listing the names of those covered by subsection (1B) to whom the advice was given.

Note:   The heading to section 95A is altered by inserting “and advice to State or Territory etc.” after “comment”.

98  Subsection 95A(1)

Omit “Before giving the Minister a draft variation of a major development plan for an airport under subsection 95(1), the airport-lessee company for the airport must”, substitute “After giving the advice under subsection (1B), but before resubmitting the draft variation to the Minister, the company must also”.

Note:   The following heading to subsection 95A(1) is inserted “Public comment”.

(18)  Schedule 1, items 105 and 106, page 18 (lines 23 to 26), omit the items, substitute:

105  Subsection 95A(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1B)) have given written comments about the preliminary version in accordance with the notice, the draft variation resubmitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    copies of those comments; and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of those members of the public; and

                  (ii)    summarising those comments; and

                 (iii)    demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft variation; and

                 (iv)    setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 120, page 20 (lines 19 to 24), omit the item, substitute:

120  At the end of Division 6 of Part 5

Add:

112A  Exclusion of Part III of Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act

        (1)    Part III of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 does not apply in relation to Canberra Airport.

        (2)    In particular, despite section 10 of that Act, Canberra Airport is not a Designated Area for the purposes of that Act.

(20)  Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 14), after item 125, insert:

125A  Before subsection 124(1)

Insert:

Advice to State or Territory etc.

     (1A)    Before giving the Minister a draft environment strategy for an airport under section 120, 121 or 123, the airport-lessee company for the airport must advise, in writing, the following persons of its intention to give the Minister the draft environment strategy:

             (a)    the Minister, of the State or Territory in which the airport is situated, with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (b)    the authority of that State or Territory with responsibility for town planning or use of land;

             (c)    each local government body with responsibility for an area surrounding the airport.

      (1B)    The draft environment strategy submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    a copy of the advice given under subsection (1A); and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company listing the names of those to whom the advice was given.

Note:   The heading to section 124 is altered by adding at the end “and advice to State or Territory etc.”.

125B  Subsection 124(1)

Omit “Before giving the Minister a draft environment strategy for an airport under section 120, 121 or 123, the airport-lessee company for the airport must”, substitute “After giving the advice under subsection (1A), but before giving the Minister the draft environment strategy, the company must also”.

Note:   The following heading to subsection 124(1) is inserted “Public comment”.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (line 18), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (line 24), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (line 31), omit “45”, substitute “60”.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 132, page 22 (lines 8 and 9), omit the item, substitute:

132  Subsection 124(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

        (2)    If members of the public (including persons covered by subsection (1A)) have given written comments about the preliminary version in accordance with the notice, the draft strategy submitted to the Minister must be accompanied by:

             (a)    copies of those comments; and

             (b)    a written certificate signed on behalf of the company:

                   (i)    listing the names of those members of the public; and

                  (ii)    summarising those comments; and

                 (iii)    demonstrating that the company has had due regard to those comments in preparing the draft strategy; and

                 (iv)    setting out such other information (if any) about those comments as is specified in the regulations.

132A  Paragraph 125(1)(b)

After “consulted”, insert “(other than by giving an advice under subsection 124(1A))”.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (lines 10 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

133  After section 125

Insert:

125A  Minister may request more material for making decision

        (1)    This section applies if an airport-lessee company gives the Minister a draft environment strategy or a draft variation of a final environment strategy.

        (2)    If the Minister believes on reasonable grounds that he or she does not have enough material to make a proper decision under subsection 126(2) or 129(2), as applicable, the Minister may request the airport-lessee company to provide specified material relevant to making the decision.

Time does not run while further material being sought

        (3)    If the Minister has requested more material under subsection (2) for the purposes of making a decision, a day is not to be counted as a business day for the purposes of subsection 126(5) or 129(3), as applicable, if it is:

             (a)    on or after the day the Minister requested the material; and

             (b)    on or before the day on which the Minister receives the last of the material requested.

(26)  Schedule 1, page 28 (before line 29), before item 170, insert:

169A  Section 4 (at the end of the definition of Designated Area)

Add:

Note:   Canberra Airport is not a Designated Area: see section 112A of the Airports Act 1996.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 170, page 29 (line 2), omit “The Plan does not apply to”, substitute “This Part does not apply in relation to”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 171, page 30 (line 17), omit “41”, substitute “40A”.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 171, page 30 (line 26), omit “57”, substitute “56A”.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 173, page 31 (line 28), omit “79”, substitute “78A”.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 173, page 32 (lines 3 and 4), omit “, 105 and 106”, substitute “and 105”.

(32)  Schedule 1, item 173, page 32 (line 7), after “items”, insert “97 and”.

(33)  Schedule 1, item 174, page 33 (line 14), omit “126”, substitute “125A”.

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 27 March 2007.

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

I am happy provided it is understood that we would not want all the amendments put together, because our position will differ in relation to some of the amendments. They can either be dealt with separately or we would ask for them to be put in two blocks, and I will describe those in my contribution. On that basis, we are not objecting to them being dealt with together provided that is understood.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chair, I have no problems with that. I am happy for the honourable senator to speak to blocks of amendments. He may speak to them in any way that he likes. I am happy to re-put the amendments in terms of the blocks that he would require if that assists him. I would not imagine that there would be any difficulty in speaking to all of them in any shape or form that he would require.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will proceed with them together, by leave, and then we will vote on them in separate batches. We will proceed to deal with government amendments (1) to (33).

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

The second reading debate contained some matters that I did not have a chance to address, so I would like to put a brief comment on the record now. I did say that it is the opposition’s view that the Commonwealth should retain control of the planning and development of airport land. We should note, however, that we support recommendation (d) of Premier Rann’s letter to the Prime Minister dated 5 March 2007. Recommendation (d) states that if non-aviation development control remains with the Australian government ‘it should provide clarification as to how it will enforce conditions of development approval placed on airport lessee companies’ and what role state and territory governments are expected to play in relation to these conditions. In addition, amendments should be made to the Airports Act 1996 to require the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to formally consult the state, territory and local governments concerning a master plan or any development application and to take into consideration the state, territory and local government planning policies governing the region in which the airport is located when making an approval decision.

The shadow minister for transport has advised me that he would be happy to work with the premiers to implement this recommendation when Labor is in government. But he does not support the handing over of planning responsibility to states and territories. Non-aviation development is a very important part of aviation operations and is a critical source of funding for future aviation development. This has relieved what could have been a big burden on taxpayers in the future. Airports are strategic national infrastructure items, and airport development is contentious by its very nature. The right level of government to deal with airport planning is the federal government, and Labor, in government, will continue to support that principle.

In relation to this block of amendments, we are pleased that the government has taken up recommendations 1 and 2 of the Senate committee report on the bill and Labor support those amendments moved by the government which have that effect. It is certainly worth while to directly notify state and local government authorities of the commencement of consultation processes and to ensure that the minister receives actual submissions on proposals rather than just the summary provided by the airport lessee. That is an improvement which the opposition will be supporting. However, we do not support any shortening of consultation or approval time lines. The government has brought that on itself through its failure to properly administer the Airports Act and engender community confidence in its administration. There was no missing the contribution from Senator Sterle about the Perth brickworks. That particular project is an example of this government’s poor processes and disregard for community concerns. So we will not be supporting the shortening of consultation or approval time lines in any form.

We have no objection to other minor amendments being put forward by the government relating to requests for more information, examples of conditions that may be set and the exclusion of Canberra airport from the National Capital Plan. We will therefore be supporting the amendments which have that effect in the legislation. That is our response in summary.

In the debate we will be asking that the amendments be put into two blocks and that, to shorten contributions, the smaller of the two blocks be items in the government Airports Amendment Bill schedule of amendments—the document that I have does not have a number on it but apparently it is the only one—those being amendments (2), (3), (4), (10), (11), (12), (21), (22) and (23) as one block and the rest as the other block.

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

I rise to comment on the government’s amendments. I too am pleased that the government has noted the concerns of many senators—particularly of those on the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport as a result of its hearings—over what was a ridiculous process. You had the situation where the community’s feedback via submissions to any development were taken by the developer, summarised by the developer and then given to the federal minister for decision without the original comments going to the minister. As no developer was going to summarise the objections to their development in the manner of the person who put them forward, what you had was a distorted reflection going to the federal minister of the extent of public opposition to or concerns about any development. It is a big improvement that now not only the developer’s summary of the objections and submissions will go to the federal minister but also all of the submissions in their original form will go to the minister so he can make a judgement for himself or herself as to the adequacy of the assessment of those submissions.

While  I am really pleased that the government has done that, I am really disappointed that the government has not taken on board the recommendation of the non-government senators saying:

The non-government Senators consider that the public consultation process will be much improved if airport-lessee companies, as part of the public comment process, make available to the general public copies of assessments undertaken to assess the social, environment and economic impacts of the development.

This is particularly pertinent to the Hobart ‘big box’ development because we have a situation where a social and economic impact statement for that development was not made public. To this day it has still not been made public. As a result of pressure in the state parliament, a brief summary was eventually released which said it is not expected to lead to significant adverse economic impact on other retail centres in the surrounding area—and that came from the developer.

I simply cannot understand how that could be logical when they are proposing a retail development, 77,000 square metres of new shops, in a city with fewer than 250,000 people. How is this possible? Of course it is going to have an impact on other retail centres. In fact, many people are saying that it will effectively make the CBD the dead heart of Hobart because it is going to put so much pressure on local retail businesses and other retail businesses in other shopping centres around the city. How can such a huge development be seen as not having an adverse impact? We have not had the benefit of the impact assessment. That is wrong. People are invited to make submissions on a development, and a key document, the social and economic impact statement for that development, is kept secret. It is my view that it was kept secret because any proper analysis would determine that it is going to have an adverse economic impact. I think it is wrong.

I would be interested to know from the minister why the Commonwealth does not think it is appropriate that the community have access to that information at the time that they are making their public submissions in response to a development application. In my view it is not fair process, proper process, to keep those documents secret, especially in this case where it turns out that the developer is the Tasmanian government. Again, that is a deception that has gone on in Tasmania. A development application was put forward by a company which the public were unaware is one hundred per cent owned by the state government. We then had Tasmanian government ministers saying: ‘Oh, isn’t it terrible! The Commonwealth are going to make this decision; they are taking it out of our own planning laws.’ Yes—and the state government is the developer. Paul Lennon, the Premier of Tasmania, with one phone call could have had the social and economic impact statement released, but he chose not to do it. He chose to shut the public out just as he is currently doing with the pulp mill proposal.

I would like to know from the minister what justification the Commonwealth has for not requiring the public submissions to go to the minister through this formal process and why the Commonwealth will not require that these social, environmental and economic impact statements also be made available before the period for acceptance of public submissions closes. That is an absolutely critical point, particularly in relation to this Hobart development, because I think in years to come a great many people around the Hobart CBD and other shopping centres will not be able to compete with this megadevelopment, this direct factory outlet, at Hobart airport. The onus is then going to be on the Tasmanian and federal governments to explain why the economic analysis was never made public and why the public were not told about what was going on in relation to that. I would be interested to know what the minister has to say.

I am going to move my amendment a bit later and comment on that in relation to state government approvals, but I have to say I think it is pretty lame to say there will be confusion about what is an aviation purpose and what is a non-aviation purpose in terms of commercial development. It is pretty clear to me that a direct factory outlet has nothing to do with aviation activities, and, in the context of the letter the state premiers have written to the federal minister, that is obviously what they think. In fact, the state premiers support the intent of the amendment I intend to shortly move on restoring state, territory and local by-laws and planning laws in relation to these developments. I heard what the minister had to say about ex gratia rates payments, but the issue here becomes that those rates payments are made, in this case, to the state government and will bypass local government. But it is local government that has to provide many of the facilities—roads, water, amenities and so on—and deal with the environmental impacts in their local government area. So I am interested to know about that. I also asked last night, Minister, where the Hobart megastore development is up to in its planning process. Senator Scullion was representing the government last night. I would like an indication from the minister where that is up to.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The individual workings and commercial plans of lessees are not relevant to the bill, and I do not propose to get into that. This is not the proper forum to be asking probative questions about the conduct of the lessees. You can certainly make commentary about them, using examples of the working of the legislation, but I am not going to get into answering questions on a cross-examination basis on conduct or plans into the future. The lessees are now required to make public all of their development plans. Upon making those development plans, the mechanisms that I have set out in my second reading speech come into play such that the public, the community, local government and state government have the opportunity to interact with the lessees and with the Commonwealth government as to the plans that are proposed.

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

That still does not answer my question. Surely, the environmental, social and economic impact statements for the development are not commercial-in-confidence. This is a major development plan. If it were going through normal planning laws, that is what you would be expected to provide to the public so that they could make comment. If you say that they can somehow provide their development plan and there can be some sort of interaction, yes, there can be, but what if they refuse to provide it? If there is no way in the legislation that the Commonwealth requires that to be made public during the process then it simply will not happen. So I again ask the minister: why won’t the Commonwealth guarantee that the social, environmental and economic impact statements required for developments be made public in the consultation process?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered that question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the first block of government amendments—(2) to (4), (10) to (12) and (21) to (23)—on sheet PD271 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the second block of government amendments—(1), (5) to (9), (13) to (20) and (24) to (33)—on sheet PD271 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

We did not choose to divide on those amendments, but we opposed (2) to (4), (10) to (12) and (21) to (23) and we supported the others. I make that clear just for the record, so that the opposition’s position is clearly recorded without requiring everyone to traipse into the chamber and record it.

The Temporary Chairman:

Thank you.

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

by leave—The opposition oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 42, page 9 (lines 17 and 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(3)    Schedule 1, item 45, page 9 (lines 30 and 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (lines 4 and 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(6)    Schedule 1, item 56, page 11 (lines 16 and 17), TO BE OPPOSED.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 58, page 11 (lines 20 and 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 5 and 6), TO BE OPPOSED.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 69, page 13 (lines 7 and 8), TO BE OPPOSED.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 80, page 14 (lines 27 and 28), TO BE OPPOSED.

(13)  Schedule 1, item 83, page 15 (lines 10 and 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

(20)  Schedule 1, item 95, page 17 (lines 15 and 16), TO BE OPPOSED.

(21)  Schedule 1, item 100, page 18 (lines 1 and 2), TO BE OPPOSED.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 103, page 18 (lines 14 and 15), TO BE OPPOSED.

(24)  Schedule 1, item 112, page 19 (lines 19 and 20), TO BE OPPOSED.

(25)  Schedule 1, item 127, page 21 (lines 17 and 18), TO BE OPPOSED.

(27)  Schedule 1, item 130, page 21 (lines 30 and 31), TO BE OPPOSED.

(29)  Schedule 1, item 136, page 23 (lines 4 and 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(30)  Schedule 1, item 141, page 23 (lines 16 and 17), TO BE OPPOSED.

(31)  Schedule 1, item 147, page 24 (lines 12 and 13), TO BE OPPOSED.

I move opposition amendments (2), (4), (8), (12), (14), (22), (26) and (28) on sheet 5237:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 43, page 9 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(4)    Schedule 1, item 48, page 10 (line 23), omit “as a business day”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 59, page 11 (line 27), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(12)  Schedule 1, item 81, page 15 (line 4), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(14)  Schedule 1, item 86, page 16 (line 4), omit “as a business day”.

(22)  Schedule 1, item 101, page 18 (line 8), omit “15 business”, substitute “30”.

(26)  Schedule 1, item 128, page 21 (line 24), omit “45 business”, substitute “90”.

(28)  Schedule 1, item 133, page 22 (line 24), omit “as a business day”.

Our position in relation to those items can be put fairly succinctly: the opposition is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines. That is the essence of that array of amendments to various aspects of the bill.

Earlier this year, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Vaile, said, ‘I have received a number of representations from government MPs and senators asking me to extend the 45-day working period for consultation to 60 working days.’ If there was historical evidence of the minister having due regard for community and local government concerns when it comes to sensitive airport development, the revised time lines, which would have brought the planning regime into line with state and territory planning processes, may well have been acceptable. But the unwillingness to reduce consultation time lines on our part is a manifestation of our distrust of this government in the implementation of the process.

Following consultations with the shadow minister, Labor members and senators expressed equal concern about the matter—and, for that matter, so do their constituencies. It is a fact that the government’s record on airport development, with the brickworks in Perth and the retail developments in Adelaide and Essendon, for example, demonstrates the reasons we in the Labor Party are not prepared to accept any reduction in consultation or approval times. These processes are very important and the Commonwealth discharges a very significant and onerous responsibility in dealing with them. We believe that it is an appropriate responsibility for the Commonwealth, but we do not believe that at the present time the Commonwealth is demonstrating the necessary level of respect for the views of the community in the way that it is handling this process. In our opinion, our agreeing to these propositions would almost be a decision to accept the government’s bona fides in that regard.

We propose that there be no change to consultation or approval time lines. That will have some effect on the period of time available for proper consultation and the proper consideration of matters. We think that that is appropriate. We think that there is no reason the government could not live with such a proposition and we believe that the industry sector would have no significant problems living with this particular series of amendments. We know that the government is seeking to do otherwise. We cannot support the government’s view, hence we press these amendments.

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

I support these amendments. I certainly do not support any reduction in the time for public consultation, especially because of the issue I raised previously. The public should have as much time as is reasonable in order to make a judgement about these major development proposals. Trying to collapse the time just makes for poor decisions in the longer term. I note that the government calls it red tape and green tape. I presume green tape refers to the environmental impact. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, Minister, and it is time that that is reflected in the legislative framework. I certainly support these amendments.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have answered all of those matters in my second reading speech.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that opposition amendments (2), (4), (8), (12), (14), (22), (26) and (28) on sheet 5237 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that schedule 1 items 51, 56, 58, 61, 69, 95, 100, 103, 112, 136, 141 and 147 stand as printed and that schedule 1 items 42, 45, 80, 83, 127 and 130, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a very short comment on the amendments proposed by the opposition. Every legislative imposition upon the minister’s decision-making capacity creates a further vulnerability to legal challenge which, in turn, increases litigation, delay and costs. That is precisely what the government seek to avoid. We seek to avoid what has unfolded in each of the states with respect to planning. We do not seek to avoid it by imposing a capricious or arbitrary system in this instance. We think that this bill inaugurates reasonable safeguards and provides an efficient and transparent regime for airport lessees to commence their developments in a proper and measured way. That is the difference between the way the opposition looks at these matters and the way we look at these matters. They want to mandate all of the minister’s discretion and make the process vulnerable to lawyers. We say, ‘No, let’s just get on with the job.’

Question negatived.

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

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Efficiently?

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

‘Efficiently’ is the word the Minister for Justice and Customs uses, and I noticed in the paper that the Sydney Airport Corporation chairman, Max Moore-Wilton, has said that the regulatory confusion associated with local and state government participation would paralyse the process and create uncertainty. Alternatively, it might actually lead to a better decision. I disagree with the view that every time a developer wants something expedited quickly any social, environmental or economic impacts become ‘red tape’, ‘green tape’, ‘paralysing processes’ and so on. The courts are there for a purpose. They are there to sort out what is just and unjust. People have rights of appeal, and so should they have.

This situation has been a windfall. At the time this Commonwealth land was made available for airports, the intention was that the land would provide buffer zones and provide for future planning in relation to aviation development. People were planning ahead for large areas of land for aviation development. The decision to see these areas as a commercial windfall, cut them off from aviation development, turn them into shopping malls, factory outlets, golf courses or brickworks—whatever the Commonwealth deems appropriate or a developer comes up with—and evade the local planning laws is a slap in the face for local communities, local governments and state governments. And there will be additional costs, especially because the minister currently does not have to take into account whether or not these developments are consistent with surrounding areas, the full impact of the developments on metropolitan centres around them or the full impact on infrastructure services—for example, of water and infrastructure services like roads and transport.

I am strongly of the view that the state premiers were right when they wrote to the Prime Minister and asked that control of non-aviation developments on airport land be restored to local and state planning laws. I note that the federal Labor Party is not supporting this contention—at least that is my understanding from what has been said here today—so perhaps the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads, the Hon. Jim Lloyd, was right in arguing that if there were a change of government Labor would not be interested in giving back planning control to the states. I will be interested to see what the position of federal Labor is. I presume it is supporting the government in this and therefore not supporting these amendments.

It is a very poor planning process when the federal minister now does not have to engage a town planner to look at these other matters and the government does not require the release of social, environmental and economic impacts, and the communities that live around these areas will suffer accordingly. While I recognise that there will probably not be support for these amendments, either from the government or from the opposition, I think it is an indictment of proper process that this windfall arrangement has been taken out of the hands of the people who have to live with and suffer the consequences and the retail outlets. As I said before, I think Hobart is going to be very much worse off if this development proceeds. If and when it does, the people who are sitting here today supporting this legislation and refusing to support these amendments will have to take some responsibility for that.

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

I thought the government might like to make the first contribution, but it is slower off the mark in the debate on these amendments than it was earlier today. I made it clear at the commencement of the committee stage that the shadow minister for transport would be happy to work with premiers to implement some of the recommendations of the Commonwealth and state ministers but that he does not support handing over planning responsibility to the states and territories. It is our view that non-aviation development is a very important part of airport operations. It is a critical source of funding for future aviation development. Labor’s decision to privatise the airports has relieved the taxpayers of a very large burden for the future. Airports are a strategic national infrastructure item and airport development is contentious by its very nature.

The opposition’s view is that federal government is the right level of government to deal with airport planning, and Labor in government will continue to support that principle, so we will not be supporting an amendment that is a direct negative to that proposition. We put forward a number of amendments which we believe would have required a very transparent process in which the Commonwealth minister would have to have regard to the state and territory planning laws and publish reasons why he differed from those bodies on any particular development, approved or otherwise. We are of the view that there ought to be appropriate transparency and very clear consideration of those matters, but we are not persuaded to the view that we should throw out the concept that aviation-planning responsibility, which has been with the federal government since the privatisation of airports or indeed before that, ought not continue that way. So we will not be supporting the amendments.

Frankly, it is a spurious concept that the outcome of the planning process for developments at Hobart airport is relevant to this amendment. That process is being conducted under the current legislation, and it is our view that if this bill were amended in the way proposed it would not impact on that particular development.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Milne’s) be agreed to.