Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Resources, Forestry and Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments this morning on the Airspace Bill 2006 and the Airspace (Consequentials and Other Measures) Bill 2006. As the shadow parliamentary secretary for transport, the member for Oxley, has stated, the opposition supports the bill as it provides for the transfer of airspace regulation and administration from Airservices Australia to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which is an appropriate policy decision. The bill also requires the relevant minister to outline an Australian airspace policy statement which should provide certainty for industry, particularly in view of significant changes to technology currently being instituted within Australia and across the globe. This statement will require major changes to Australian airspace to be subject to risk analysis, detailed examination of the potential costs and benefits, and stakeholder consultation.

This is a pertinent issue to debate here in the parliament today, as the residents of Canberra are currently debating the issue of noise sharing resulting from potential airspace use over the city. I intend to make some comments on this very serious issue as part of this debate on airspace. It is also an issue highly relevant to my portfolio as the shadow minister for tourism and also a former shadow minister for transport, infrastructure and regional development. If anything, I have been part of this ongoing debate about the future operation of Canberra airport for some time.

No resident of Canberra could not have noticed Canberra International Airport’s current multimedia campaign to raise awareness of the potential adverse impact of aircraft noise on community health and lifestyle and house and land values. This is a current debate which the New South Wales government has to resolve in a proper, constructive and transparent way. This campaign has been launched by the airport in response to a proposal by Queanbeyan City Council to rezone land to enable the construction of thousands of homes on rural land at Tralee under the airport’s arrival and departure flight paths. It is obviously about airspace. The campaign seeks to highlight the realities of the noise sharing that is set to become a sad, everyday fact of life for Canberra residents if the New South Wales government and Queanbeyan City Council continue to agree to developer demands which would lead to 10,000 people living under Canberra flight paths.

The airport has a long history of working with the community. That partnership has been aimed at reducing the impact of flight path noise along with substantial investments by airlines such as Qantas in noise abatement solutions. As a consequence, 99.5 per cent of Queanbeyan and Canberra residents are protected from aircraft noise. This is a fact of life that people in other cities of Australia—larger cities such as Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney—envy. This is especially important to the member for Lowe, who has to live with this problem as a result of the operation of Sydney airport. It would be a shame, therefore—if anything, a disaster—if such a desired arrangement was ripped away from Canberra residents as a result of short-term decisions by Queanbeyan council and the New South Wales government acting in the interests of a particular developer.

Qantas has already appropriately and correctly indicated that it would be unlikely to continue to invest in further abatement measures if the operational and community incentives in the existing flight procedures were to be compromised by such a proposal. The current situation is, appropriately, opposed by the ACT government—and for good reason. Why would the ACT government want to jeopardise a win-win situation by allowing Canberrans to share aircraft noise when it is not fundamentally necessary?

There is no question that, if rezoning proceeds and the developers get their way to develop right underneath the southern flight path, the residents of the new developments there would be subject to aircraft noise. They should be aware of this if this rezoning is allowed to continue, for they are potentially purchasing dud land—land that will be subject to serious aircraft noise in the future. I bet the developers are not telling potential residents these facts.

It is absolutely inevitable that, over time, pressure would be brought to bear by those residents to have other people share the noise burden. That is what occurs in other cities such as Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. It has also been an ongoing problem in Adelaide and Perth. This is an issue that has already been foreshadowed by Airservices Australia. Why should Canberrans be forced to compensate for poor planning decisions by New South Wales state and local governments? There is another bill which goes to the operation of airports, the Airports Amendment Bill 2006, which is on the table today for further debate this afternoon.

The absurdity of the current situation with Canberra airport is all the more crazy given that there is an alterative area in Googong identified as suitable for residential development. This was put forward as a viable solution by an independent panel of inquiry strongly recommending against residential rezoning on land underneath current flight paths. I say to the New South Wales Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor: you are obligated to pay serious attention to the recommendation of this independent panel of inquiry. I also say that some people associated with lobbying for this proposed residential development have previously lobbied me, as the former shadow minister for transport, in a most unsavoury way, and regard should be had for this type of action in seeking to achieve their desired outcomes on the development front.

Alternatively, Googong would provide the area with the opportunity to provide upwards of 25 years of land supply to Queanbeyan without any noise impact. That is a win-win situation for the people of Queanbeyan and for Canberra. That is what we should be about: proper planning decisions. The move would not only be a good one for the future residents of Canberra, as they would move into the aircraft-noise-free area of Googong, but would also protect the residents of Queanbeyan from the adverse impact of noise pollution and would prevent the residents of other areas in Canberra from the very real future possibility of noise sharing in response to the proposed new 10,000 residents.

As shadow minister for tourism, I am also seriously concerned about the future viability of a huge Canberra asset: Canberra International Airport. The move to rezone the area of Googong would also protect the operations of one of the territory’s most significant national capital and regional assets: its airport. It is fundamental to the future operation of Canberra. Let us deal with some hard economic facts. Tourism is very important to Canberra and the surrounding areas of New South Wales. Maybe it is about time the New South Wales government not only thought about a partner—the ACT Labor government—but also started to think about the needs of surrounding regional communities, which are their own responsibility beyond the territory of the ACT. Tourism is the largest private sector industry in the ACT, employing about 11,000 people. More importantly, recent tourism figures show that the territory is leading the country with an increase in overnight visitors. Why would a fellow state government put at risk the future of employment and the living standards of the workers who depend on tourism in the ACT and surrounding residential and tourism areas of New South Wales?

Tourism Research Australia data showed the numbers staying overnight in Canberra rose 4.5 per cent for the year ending June. This is clearly a most important statement. It is a statement about the strength of Canberra’s tourism industry at a time of overall national decline in regional tourism. The latest national visitors survey painted a bleak picture of the domestic tourism market, which has been hit by high petrol prices and falling costs for trips abroad. This effectively means that domestic tourism in Australia is doing it tough.

Yet the proposal by the New South Wales government, potentially in partnership with the Queanbeyan council, could have a huge impact on a potentially bright future for tourism in Canberra and surrounding regional areas of New South Wales. With these figures, obviously the ACT went against the trend of declining numbers on the domestic tourism front. There were only two other jurisdictions that recorded a rise ahead of the ACT—Victoria and Western Australia.

I simply say to the News South Wales Minister for Planning, Mr Sartor, and the Queanbeyan council and the developer: think smart; do not think about lining the pockets of one developer, placing at risk the future operation of Canberra airport and potentially undermining an appropriate noise-sharing arrangement that benefits all. Why place all of this at risk to please a self-interested developer? That is the crux of this matter.

Any future noise-sharing arrangement will almost certainly lead to a pathway of increasing operational constraints on Canberra airport in less than 10 years, which will render the existing airport site unsustainable well before its natural life span has expired. If it is deemed that the risk is worthwhile then the New South Wales government, Queanbeyan City Council and the private sector developers of Tralee, Environa and The Poplars should give a guarantee to Australian taxpayers that they will meet any future costs of noise abatement and relocation of airports. It is about saying to people who make planning decisions that if they want to make these decisions, they bear the costs.

It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth to guarantee the future of airports in Australia. But there is also a special responsibility for state and local governments to not undermine the operational efficiency and capacity of regional and city airports with short-term planning decisions, as proposed by the Queanbeyan City Council at Tralee, Environa and The Poplars at this particular point in time. I say in a very serious way to Mr Sartor and the Queanbeyan council: think about the overall good of Canberra and the surrounding area as a community. Do not place at risk the efficient operation of Canberra airport and cause unnecessary aircraft noise problems across the Canberra region as a whole simply to please a self-interested developer. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context