Brian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Airports are key components of our national economy. Collectively, they employ more than 120,000 people and are critical infrastructure in the movement of people and goods. It's good to see we have the former transport minister at the table—one of many in this government! Airports are getting busier. More people fly than ever before. New technology and intense competition mean it is much cheaper to fly today than it was more than 30 years ago. Indeed, I personally recall an economy return fare to the UK in 1985, when average weekly wages were around $400, costing my family $2,000. It took a long time to save up to get me to the UK after high school. Sadly, for my family, I came back! Today, with average weekly wages having nearly quadrupled, you can fly to the UK for $1,500. That is $500 less than it was 30 years ago. It is just over a week's wages. Apparently, fares to the UK and the US got down to under $1,000 last year. It is eminently affordable for many Australians, but I must point out that it is still unaffordable for far too many Australians in insecure work and with low wages.

It's little wonder, with fares heading the way they have, that passenger numbers have ballooned both internationally and domestically. This massive increase in passenger numbers has required bigger and better airports, including across our regions. The Airports Amendment Bill 2016 seeks to streamline processes for development at and around 21 federally leased airports. Airports that used to be under Commonwealth control no longer are. The land is owned by the Commonwealth, but they flog the business enterprises off to some very lucky corporations that happen to make a very good amount of money out of those operations. Labor supports this bill, but we will be seeking amendments and we will support an inquiry into the bill when it reaches the other place.

In Tasmania, Hobart and Launceston airports are amongst the 21 that are covered by this legislation. Currently, Hobart and Launceston airports are required to update their master plans every five years. This bill will change that requirement to every eight years, relieving some compliance pressure on airport management. But if we're going to have less frequent updates to airport plans, we need to ensure that the plans airports put in place are better than they are now. In recent years, both Hobart and Launceston airports have had significant upgrades as a result of increased business. These upgrades have driven higher employment and higher profits for the airport companies, and that's good news. But higher profits for airport companies should not come at the expense of the communities that host the airports. Launceston Airport, which sits just inside the northern edge of my electorate, has for the past four years or so failed to pay its fair share to the local community of the Northern Midlands Council. I know the former minister is aware of this because I wrote to him ad nauseam when he was in the ministerial portfolio.

In lieu of rates, airports on federally leased land pay a fee to local councils based on evaluation. As it's federal land, the local council has no legal jurisdiction to levy rates nor to enforce the collection of the fee in lieu. Local councils essentially depend on the airport playing fair and, ultimately, upon the federal transport minister to step in if airports don't pay their way. Following a significant capital upgrade some years ago, Launceston Airport refused to abide by the newest estimates of Tasmania's Valuer-General, which carried with it a significantly higher fee in lieu that recognised the higher valuation as a result of the development.

The airport's refusal has led to years of legal stand-offs between the airport corporation, allied with its landlord, the federal department of transport, against the plucky Northern Midlands Council, which is acting on behalf of its ratepayers. The Northern Midlands Council isn't some big fancy council like Sydney or Brisbane; it's a tiny council with a relatively small rates base, lots of sheep farmers, and it needs this money. It hasn't been able to collect more than $1 million in fees because Launceston Airport simply refuses to hand over the money. Every dollar that the airport corporation refuses to pay is a dollar the council does not have to invest in local amenity for Northern Midlands residents and ratepayers. This was a formal process of assessment done by the same people who assess all residential and commercial property in Tasmania. So why should Launceston Airport expect special treatment?

The government's response through this saga has been disappointing and not helped by the fact there has been a merry-go-round of transport ministers. The current incumbent is the Deputy Prime Minister, and he's getting the same letters that I sent to the minister currently at the table, the member for Gippsland. I do call on the current minister, who is a member of the Nationals, a party that makes much of representing regional communities, to put the interests of a regional council ahead of the interests of a wealthy corporation and direct Launceston Airport to cough up the more than $1 million it now owes the people of the Northern Midlands.

We'll get off Launceston for now. Hobart Airport abuts the southern edge of my electorate. That gives you some indication of the size of my electorate. In the north I've got Launceston and in the south, Hobart sits just outside it. Hobart Airport could also do with some assistance when it comes to dealing with the local community. Hobart has also undergone significant and long-overdue upgrades, and these have been welcomed by all. But it's the new flight paths that have accompanied the upgrades and the extra flights that have my constituents up in arms. More particularly, it was the way that the new flight paths were introduced with no consultation that has people livid.

The new routes fly over formally quiet towns on the Tasman and Forestier peninsulas, areas that have been developing vineyards and boutique accommodation experiences. The last thing they expected was to see jumbo jets flying overhead, but now they fly overhead along very narrow designated flight paths, increasing the impact significantly for people in towns like Dunalley. The noise has been so loud, so negatively impactful, that the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman initiated an investigation, resulting in a report which included 13 recommendations, all of which made operational suggestions to address poor consultative processes, poor complaint handling and the absence of impact consideration. My office continues to advocate strongly for a better consultation process and, as a result, the Hobart Airport and Airservices Australia have organised a number of more appropriate consultative events, providing the opportunity for the community to interact with the service and raise their concerns.

I must stress I do not accept consultation as a tick-and-flick exercise. If Airservices thinks it can mosey into town, have a meeting with the locals then mosey on out and simply continue to do what it wanted to do in the first place, it is badly mistaken. I expect community views to be properly taken into account and acted upon. Where community expectations cannot be met for legal, financial or operational reasons, I expect those reasons to be fully explained and local concerns not simply brushed off.

I am pleased to note that within this bill before the House today is a demand for new Australian noise exposure forecasts in every new airport master plan. I hope there will be limits placed upon permitted noise and noise mitigation policies explored to ensure better community satisfaction. Airports, like other major developments and public infrastructure, have significant implications for the wider community, as I've outlined with Hobart and Launceston. Although they generate income and play a crucial role in transporting goods and people, their operations and construction must be considerate of local amenity.

Wherever possible, airports should work with, not against, the interests of their host communities. I would like to see, as part of this new master plan process, not just community consultation but also a genuine move towards community partnership, including an ongoing role for local community leaders in airport management, where there are wider impacts to be considered. The master plan process is currently a bit short-sighted and narrowly focused. It requires a strategic approach to the airport every five years—soon to be eight years—but it doesn't require nearly enough attention to be focused on the airport's impacts on the wider community.

Airports should be required to assess what their operations are likely to mean for local roads, for example, or for local public transport infrastructure, for nearby creeks and inlets, for shops and for other commercial activities. It is certainly a fact that the road infrastructure in and around both Hobart and Launceston is wanting, to say the least. I don't think there'd be many tourists and visitors coming out of those airports who'd look at the road shoulders coming out of those two airports and think, 'Gee, this is topnotch'—it certainly is not. But those upgrades and management of those things should be a shared responsibility. It's a bit much to expect local councils to carry the cost of these upgrades, and it's certainly a bit much to expect it when the airport corporations are refusing to pay their fair share to those councils.

In order to access Hobart's airport, you must first navigate a dangerous and busy roundabout on the Tasman Highway, which is a major thoroughfare for people exiting Hobart and heading towards some of the state's growing suburban areas in the south-east of my electorate and along the beautiful east coast and beautiful Tasman Peninsula, also in my electorate. Because of the demands placed upon this section of the road and the ongoing dissatisfaction of road users—and, I must say, after some pressure from Labor members, on this side of the House—the roundabout is to be replaced with a four-lane overpass intersection. Typical of this government, however, the overpass project is already months behind schedule without even the first sod being turned. And if rumours that I hear are correct, the budget is also being recast without any work already having been done—not a very good indication of the way that project is going under the joint management of the federal Liberal government and the state Liberal government. Importantly, when that interchange finally happens, it will improve access to the airport and it will be better able to handle the growth in visitor numbers, air freight transport and any commercial developments in the area. Anticipating the demands that will be placed on the surrounds of airports is critical in ensuring that they are equipped to manage and mitigate future growth and increased demands.

Far, far from my electorate is Sydney. Sydney airport is the world's 20th-busiest airport. In 2017 it saw 43.3 million passengers go through it—in one year. Just the year before, Sydney was the world's 23rd-busiest airport, so it's jumped three spaces globally in one year. That is a phenomenal increase. The growth is not incidental and it is demonstrative of Australia's increased visitor numbers, thanks to our country's global reputation as a tourist destination, with high domestic and overseas tourist numbers. While it is positive to see such growth, there are challenges, including environmental wear and tear and the fact that public infrastructure and transport systems struggle to cope with higher demands. It's little wonder that with that growth and, given the size of Sydney, we are now looking at a second Sydney airport. It makes sense, but so does the implementation of a range of new requirements for airport infrastructure, including better environmental assessments, better management and oversight processes and certainly better community consultation and community partnership. I know from speaking to my colleagues on this side of the House who represent some of the communities out in Western Sydney that they are very critical of the fact that their communities have been effectively sidelined with the planning for Badgerys Creek and the way it's essentially being imposed upon them. I'm not sure whether it will be a 24-hour flight plan, but there will certainly be very late flights and very early flights—things that residents in Sydney are not subjected to. So we support this, but we will be seeking amendments.

See this speech in context