Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Batman has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the second reading debate on the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 and I note the second reading amendment moved by my colleague the member for Batman. This bill provides members with an opportunity to reflect not only on the role and importance of the 22 federally leased airports but also on the effectiveness of the regulatory controls that are placed on airport lessees. Labor’s second reading amendment condemns the government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act, particularly in relation to the decisions to approve the Perth brickworks site and the Essendon direct factory outlet. That second approval ignored the potential impacts on local road infrastructure.

The proposed amendments to the Airports Act 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. As the federal member who has the largest and busiest airport, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, in the electorate that I represent, I find this bill particularly important. It is of great interest to the constituents of the Kingsford Smith area, in particular those who live close to and around the airport.

Labor recognises the role that airports play, particularly in allowing us to have sufficient travel and conduct business and leisure, both out of Australia and around Australia. Tourism provides a significant contribution to our national economy. That industry represents Australia’s third-largest export earner. The amendment that the member for Batman has moved is informed by the government’s response to a review in 2002, a report into this act, which was never publicly released. What was eventually released in November 2005 was called ‘the outcomes’ of the review.

The significant issues that have been discussed in relation to this bill relate specifically to the planning and approval conditions within the bill. The amendment that the member for Batman has moved goes to the heart of ensuring, in this parliament, that there is public confidence in the decision-making processes that are contained in the act. There is no doubt that the question of the most appropriate form of development that can take place on airports, other than that which is specifically required for the airport and for the needs of aviation, has become a contentious public issue. In particular, the proposals by Sydney Airport Corporation for a sizeable development at Sydney airport—which I will return to a little later on—are a matter of local, state and, ultimately, national interest.

The Sydney Airport Corporation proposed that there would be a significant development including retail facilities. Once that first proposal was made public, the level of concern from state government, local council and local residents was huge. Sydney Airport Corporation submitted a revised development proposal and in this proposal sought to build a shopping complex at the junction of Foreshaw Road and the M5 motorway—an area of significant traffic congestion at most times of the day in and out of Sydney, and a location quite close to the emergency services and the fire services that are there in the event of any accident, terrorist action or anything of that sort, which we dearly hope will never happen. All of this occurred without any consultation. It represented an extraordinarily out of scale proposal and as a consequence it was subsequently rejected. I think that the concerns of residents, the state government and other authorities were listened to, and they needed to be.

The bill seeks to reduce the time allowed for public comment on draft master plans, major development plans and environmental strategies. The current period for consultation is some 90 calendar days. Initially the government proposed a reduction to 45 business days. However, this was then reconsidered following a number of ‘representations from government MPs and senators’, and the government has now settled on a period of 60 working days. There was also initial concern from a number of stakeholders, including the Australian Local Government Association, who stated:

We do not support the proposed reduction in the statutory consultation period from 90 calendar days to 45 working days.

The Shopping Centre Council of Australia also argued that they were concerned about halving the period of public consultation from 90 to 45 days.

Labor is opposed to any shortening of public consultation and approval time lines. Item 16 seeks to codify the right of the airport lessee to conduct non-aeronautical trading on airport land as long as it is consistent with the airport master plan. This explicitly incorporates Federal Court decisions in 2005 which affirm the ability of federal leased airports to engage in non-aeronautical on-airport development, but, importantly, it should always and only happen where there are significant and sufficient public consultation and approval time lines. The recent decision by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to reject Sydney airport’s revised draft major development plan—which, incidentally, included 48,000 square metres of outlet centre, 2,000 square metres of office space and commercial buildings, and a 2,412-space car park—reaffirms the critical role of the public consultation process.

I note that in a speech on 22 January 2007 the Chairman of Macquarie Airports Management Ltd, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, argued:

I ask anyone to seriously contemplate an alternative regulatory model that involved local and state government participation in the supervision of airports.

The regulatory confusion would paralyse the process and create uncertainty.

To my knowledge, no-one is asking that the supervision of airports be handed over to local councils and state governments. However, it is necessary that when considering developments on airport land, particularly of the size and scope proposed by Sydney airport in this specific case, the views of local residents be expressed and heard, including through their elected representatives.

The Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, representing the City of Botany Bay and Randwick City Council amongst others, argued in its submission to the Senate inquiry on this matter:

A key piece of infrastructure in the Sydney region, the future development and planning of Sydney Airport has the potential to impact neighbouring businesses, communities and individuals and is therefore of particular interest to nearby councils and communities.

This point was reinforced by the minister’s decision when he stated:

Given recent history, not in Australia but in Bangkok and in Toronto ... where aircraft have ended up when they’ve overshot the runway … and the possibility of impact with buildings containing people that are not involved in aviation at all is still unresolved …

That is absolutely right, but why in this instance are we seeking to reduce the capacity for local communities to give feedback? Clearly, the need to consider the concerns of the surrounding community must be taken into account, and councils and state governments are the appropriate institutions through which these concerns should be raised. In introducing this bill the member for Dawson stated:

The government is mindful that the planning arrangements for Australia’s leased federal airports have been an area of concern for the states and territories and some local governments ...

The member went on:

Input from state planning authorities, local governments and the community at large is important for the operation of the airport regulatory regime, and the government is committed to ensuring the consultation processes in the scheme are operated effectively and ensure genuine engagement.

It seems that following the member for Dawson’s second reading speech on 30 November the government took some notice, as 2½ months later the consultation period on major development plans was revised. This bill also amends the current definition of a ‘major airport development’. At present any proposed development which costs over $10 million requires the airport lessee to submit a major development plan. The bill before us would raise this figure to $20 million.

In relation to the deemed approval provision, Labor will address this issue by way of amendment. Presently, if the minister does not make a decision within the allocated time frame, it is assumed the decision is made in favour of the entity proposing. This seems a completely illogical proposition. As a representative for the Shopping Centre Council pointed out in evidence to the Senate inquiry:

In most local government and statutory regimes that I am aware of there is a deemed refusal if the planning authority does not consider the matter within the statutory time period. Here we have a reversal of that; it is a deemed approval.

This is a ridiculous proposition.

Labor also believes there should be a requirement for all public comments on proposals to be submitted to the minister in addition to the summary currently required of the developer. This is a sensible proposition which ensures the minister is properly informed of all concerns relating to each of those proposals. Labor would also require the minister to specify approval conditions where a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and take into account rate equivalent contributions where there is a reasonable requirement for the lessee to negotiate in good faith with state and/or local governments to reach agreement for appropriate contributions to specific off-airport infrastructure.

Finally, and importantly, Labor would require, rather than allow, the minister to include consecutive or concurrent projects in total project costs when it comes to major developments. The New South Wales government’s submission to the Senate inquiry estimated that the proposed Sydney airport retail development would add a further 20,000 to 25,000 vehicle kilometres travelled by 2011. The additional burden that a decision of this kind would have had on surrounding road infrastructure would have been substantial.

Debate interrupted.