Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to draw to the attention of the House a retail planning controversy that is building momentum in Tasmania—and so it should because one false move could spell disaster for the Tasmanian retail sector. I refer to the proposal by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd. At an astonishing 77,000 square metres in floor space, it would include the biggest Discount Factory Outlet in Australia as well as furniture stores and a hardware centre. The scale of this project is a moot point. It is of such a magnitude that business operators from all around the state are very worried about the distortion to the marketplace that would occur. As a consequence, in my view, the community is very uncomfortable with the planning process as we now understand it.

Let me make it clear that, as a parliamentary representative, unlike some others, I strongly believe that I should generally adopt a pro-development position. However, in this case I find that in order to represent my constituents, especially the small business community in northern Tasmania, I must stand up to this situation, which is absolutely unacceptable. I do this on the grounds that I am concerned that this developer has an unfair advantage because it is being allowed to bypass local government and state planning laws, even though it is a non-aviation development. Tasmanian regional and business representatives want the proposal to be assessed with state planning guidelines, which are able to take into account retail hierarchy and indirect effects on regional businesses—the same grounds which struck out the application for a big box estate on private land near Launceston airport.

Today I want to call on both the state and federal governments to give some ground on this issue and join me in standing up for commonsense and fairness. Let us be absolutely clear here: the land in question is owned by the Commonwealth. The land and the infrastructure are on a 99-year lease to Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd, which in turn is 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian government. The Commonwealth retains responsibilities for land use at all airports covered by the Airports Act 1996. Most people accept the need for such powers in the interests of protecting the long-term strategic interests of our airport network.

While the investment is coming from Austexx, the legal proponent is in fact the state government owned body. The Lennon government is acting in bad faith by on the one hand politically demanding that the Commonwealth hand over planning powers for all Commonwealth land and on the other hand sneakily acting as the land developer and refusing to subject itself to the Tasmanian planning system—which I suggest it has the power to do. In response to expressed concern, we have been fed a diet of rhetoric and silence from the Tasmanian government, but I say that now is the time to act.

I join with the Property Council of Australia and the Launceston Chamber of Commerce in calling for the immediate release of the social and economic impact statement of this proposal—which is being protected by Hobart International Airport Pty Ltd. The existence of this report is well known, and perhaps contains evidence of the negative impact the proposal would have on the broader economy. Until that report is released, every Tasmanian should feel deeply affronted that the draft major development plan summarises the impact statement in a dismissive 161 words.

State government ministers announced this development in November last year, proof positive that this project is state government sponsored. With taking the credit also comes taking responsibility. So today I call on the Lennon government to do one of two things. One is to ensure that it takes responsibility for its own airport corporation and guarantee that any developments it proposes will be consistent with the Tasmanian planning system prior to submitting any plans to the federal transport minister. The Tasmanian government could do this unilaterally as the owner of the business proposing this monster development. The alternative is to direct the airport corporation to withdraw the proposal, submit it to its Resource Planning and Development Commission for consideration as an ordinary development or as a project of state significance and then resubmit it to the federal minister if the proposal stacks up.

In case the Tasmanian government blusters through this chaos and ignores the community, I call on my own federal government to: firstly, regard with scepticism the social bona fides of the major development plan when it does finally come from the Lennon government owned Hobart International Airport, especially with regard to the inordinate scale of the proposed development; and, secondly, be prepared to genuinely consider the public submissions that become part of this process while demanding access to the economic impact statement which I know to already be in the hands of the developer. In closing, I intend to broadcast to the Tasmanian business community that I will seek leave to table in federal parliament any submissions that are being made to Hobart International Airport. Ordinarily these submissions only need to be summarised for the benefit of the federal minister; however, I would be pleased to collect and inject the substance of any submissions into the federal sphere subject to reasonable content.