Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to make a few comments about the Airports Amendment Bill 2006. This bill and the Senate inquiry into the bill have given senators and members and other interested parties the opportunity to once again canvass a number of contentious issues that have arisen since some 22 of Australia’s airports were leased to private companies—a process that commenced more than 10 years ago. The initial decision to privatise airport leases was a contentious one and continues to be so. However, in hindsight—and noting the huge expansion in air travel in this country and our reliance on air travel as a nation—the only way we were going to be able to fund continuous improvements and build the infrastructure needed to deliver the required air transport services was to invite private investment. Otherwise, taxpayers would have had an unbearable burden and it is unlikely that air transport services and infrastructure would have kept pace with our nation’s growth and with the demand for modern transport systems.

However, privatisation of any government services brings with it the usual difficult problem of balancing the need for the private provider to make a profit in a way that does not override the rights and reasonable demands of citizens. Privatisation also puts distance between the ability of a government to control the delivery of services and the ability of the people to hold their government accountable when things go wrong. Privatisation makes it easier for government to abrogate its responsibility for service provision and makes it easier for government to blame everyone else for problems that may arise. These familiar things and tensions have also arisen in the ongoing debate about our privatised airports.

Particularly controversial and ongoing issues that have arisen since the passage of the original act in 1996 include the fees charged by airport lease owners for airport users; the increasing aircraft noise from expanded or varied aircraft operations; and, possibly the most contentious of all, the expansion of non-aviation uses, including large retail and commercial office developments, on airport sites.

While privatisation of airports has brought many different interest groups into the debate—including investment banks, business representatives, airport lessee companies, state and local governments, residents groups, developers, airlines, freight companies and environment groups; the list goes on—ultimately it is the federal government that has oversight of significant legislation dealing with aviation, airports, transport and transport safety. The buck stops well and truly with the federal government and no amount of blame shifting by the federal government can change that fact. The Australian people expect their federal government to have ultimate responsibility for what happens at airports and on airport land that the government leases to private companies. Airports are not just transport hubs, they are the first port of call for most tourists to this country and they are, unfortunately, places where we must be ever-vigilant about security. They are also places where there is a very real potential for accidental incidents that cause enormous damage.

The scope and complexity of federal government responsibility for aviation and airport related matters is not going to diminish. Statistics provided by the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics show that, Australia-wide, passenger movements on domestic routes have increased by an annual average of 4.6 per cent since 1995-96 and that on international routes the average annual increase is 5.2 per cent. Regional airline passenger activity has increased by an average of 3.2 per cent each year since the same date.

At Adelaide Airport in my state, for example, that translates into revenue passenger movements increasing in number from 3,740,000 in 1995-96 to 5,760,000 in 2005-06. For a relatively small city, that is a very big increase. There is no reason to believe that the number of passenger and freight movements through Australia’s airports will reduce. The nation needs to be prepared to meet increasing demand.

Capital city airport precincts these days are major employment and service delivery centres. For example, Adelaide Airport precinct employs in the vicinity of 3,000 to 4,000 people. Whereas in the past a capital city airport precinct might have comprised a terminal and a few retail shops within it, a car park, airline and freight company offices, maybe some government offices, emergency services and possibly a petrol station, now an airport precinct is like a small city within a city. At Adelaide Airport precinct, in addition to all the things I mentioned earlier, we also have a childcare centre, restaurants, logistics companies, extensive government and private offices, and the ubiquitous and controversial large retail developments.

Like other airports, Adelaide also has a newish airport terminal—and I doubt that anyone who travels frequently to Adelaide would dispute that it is high time for South Australians to have a real, grown-up airport that has airbridges and an international terminal better than a tin shed. That airport was built with private investment. However, along with the positive developments in airports and aviation in Australia, many in our community—while they understand that modern aviation infrastructure and services are essential for Australia and acknowledge the role that private investment plays in delivering those objectives—believe their legitimate interests, rights and complaints have been ignored or not adequately dealt with under the current legislation. They look to the federal government for support.

There is no doubt that the federal government has been reluctant to acknowledge that all was not right with the legislation governing airport development. Public confidence in the ability of the government to genuinely take into account community concerns about inappropriate, non-aeronautical development was undermined when the minister gave the green light for the Perth brickworks site—an inappropriate use if ever there was one, and I am sure we will hear more about that shortly. Labor has moved a second reading amendment which condemns the government for undermining public confidence in the Airports Act through bad planning approvals like the Perth Airport one and the siting of the Essendon Direct Factory Outlets.

As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport that inquired into this bill, I would like to express my appreciation to all the persons and organisations who made submissions to the inquiry and who attended the public hearing.

I also note the abiding interest of the member for Hindmarsh, Mr Steve Georganas, in all things to do with the Adelaide Airport in particular, which is in the middle of his electorate. Well before he became a member, Mr Georganas was active in his support for residents of Adelaide’s western suburbs, who watched as the airport grew to the enormous transport hub that it is today. As a member of parliament, he has introduced a private member’s bill to create the position of airport ombudsman, an initiative designed to give residents an independent person to whom they can take their complaints and issues about the airport.

I also acknowledge the hard work and commitment that Mayor John Trainer of the City of West Torrens Council puts into his role as a community representative and advocate for the businesses and organisations in his area that are aggrieved by what is happening at Adelaide Airport. Mr Trainer and his CEO, Mr Trevor Starr, travelled to Canberra to put their views on behalf of not only the residents of West Torrens but also all South Australian local councils.

The Senate committee also received submissions from the City of Salisbury, under the leadership of Mayor Tony Zappia, and from residents near Parafield Airport in Adelaide’s north, who view the increased usage of that airport—including the establishment of flying schools and on-airport land developments—as not always compatible with the right of local residents to a safe and habitable environment.

Similarly, I would like to acknowledge the written and verbal submissions of Mr Phil Baker and Mr John McArdle of Adelaide Airport Ltd. The issues between West Torrens council in my state and Adelaide Airport Ltd are not unfamiliar to other participants in this debate. Looking at the submissions to the Senate inquiry into this bill, I believe many will not be convinced that the proposed new legislation will do much to alleviate their concerns.

Tensions between airport operators and surrounding communities, over both aeronautical and non-aeronautical developments on airport land, occur on a number of fronts. Some of these concerns are dealt with to some extent in this bill, but some concerns of local communities are not dealt with and will no doubt continue to cause friction between all levels of government, airport developers, residents groups and individuals.

Broadly, this bill does the following things. It provides for making regulations that will allow airports specified in regulations, but not core regulated airports, to be exempt from the current prohibition on airlines owning more than five per cent of a company that is an airport operator company. The bill amends the act to take account of a 2005 Federal Court decision regarding non-aeronautical development on airport land, and adds that substantial trading or financial business must also be consistent with the relevant airport master plan. The bill inserts a new subsection that goes some way to clarifying the purposes of airport master plans, a deficiency in the current act that needs to be remedied.

The bill includes an amendment that will mean an airport master plan must contain reference to an Australian noise exposure forecast and to future flight paths, in accordance with any regulations for the purpose of this section of the act; however, we have not yet seen these regulations. The bill also provides for a draft or final master plan to include ANEF information that extends beyond the 20-year planning period, a measure introduced to give some additional certainty given the future anticipated increase in aviation usage in this country. A new master plan must be developed if a new ANEF is endorsed for the relevant airport.

The more controversial aspects of the amendments go to changes to the time allowed for public comment on drafts of master plans and major development plans and environment strategies. One of the most contentious aspects of modern airport usage is that developments on airport lands are not subject to the same state government and local council planning regimes as developments on off-airport land.

There is a sense in the community—rightly or wrongly—that airport developers can do whatever they like, without regard to what the impact may be on local roads, local residents, the environment, other businesses nearby and on people who, even if they are not using the airport or its non-aeronautical developments, must use roads in and around airports to travel from one part of a city to another. This sentiment, that the airport developers are allowed to get away with it, has been exacerbated by consultation and approval processes that have been criticised by local government, business representatives and residents groups who either do not have the opportunity to participate in consultation processes or do not believe their concerns are taken into account when they do participate. They do not know if their concerns actually make it beyond the airport operator company and are brought to the attention of the department and the minister as part of the approval process. The sentiment in the community that airport developers are allowed to get away with it has also been exacerbated by the fact that the minister had not refused any major development plans until the recent disallowance of the plan for Sydney airport.

Changes proposed by the government as part of this bill to shorten consultation periods fed into the disquiet felt by local councils and residents groups in particular, so much so that the government is amending its own amendment bill to increase the consultation period for draft plans from 45 days to 60 days. Labor does not support reduced consultation times, and it remains to be seen whether the government-proposed shortened time lines for consultation periods will prove adequate to quell disquiet about airport developments.

It is hoped the changes to the way interested parties are informed about developments will go some way to generating confidence in the planning, consultation and approval processes. Those changes include that, in addition to current requirements to publish information about plans and variations in local newspapers, the airport lessee company must publish advice on its website that the plan is to be made available for comment, a copy of the plan must be made available free of charge on the website throughout the consultation period and the airport lessee company must demonstrate how the company has had due regard to comments provided by the public, as opposed to simply stating it gave due regard to comments.

In addition, a new ‘stop the clock’ provision is proposed, whereby the minister may request that the airport lessee company provide specific information relevant to a decision-making process and, if that happens, the stated approval time for the minister will cease while this information is requested and provided.

The Senate committee report into the bill made some additional recommendations, including that the airport lessee companies be required to directly advise state, territory and local governments about commencement of the public consultation processes. This is intended to overcome the complaint that unless local authorities and other interested parties kept a watchful eye on advertisements in newspapers they would not know a consultation process was underway.

The Senate committee also recommended that any submissions that the airport lessee company received arising from the public consultation process be forwarded to the minister. These recommendations from the Senate committee reflect the unanimous view of the committee that there are indeed flaws in the current process of consultation and approval, and of course Labor supports these recommendations.

Labor believes there should be other changes to the bill to strengthen ministerial accountability and to build public confidence in what is happening at our airports. Labor believes we should remove the deeming provision in the current legislation which means a development is automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the appropriate time frames of the act. Labor also proposes a requirement of the minister to provide a statement of reasons if he or she overrides the recommendations from state or local government authorities. Further, Labor proposes that the department be required to have qualified town planners involved in the assessment of airport development plans. Apart from ensuring that expertise is always part of the approval process, it would go some way to assuring the public that persons qualified to contemplate the outcomes of a particular development plan are part of the process.

Other changes in this bill include lifting the threshold for a major development from $10 million to $20 million and allowing the minister to determine that the combined cost of consecutive or concurrent projects or extensions be included when deciding whether the cost of a proposal exceeds the threshold for major development projects. Whether or not airport lessee companies have in the past manipulated the current $10 million barrier and whether they would manipulate the new, higher barrier were matters of some interest at the Senate inquiry. Labor understands that the rationale for increasing the limit is based on increases in building costs since the original act was framed more than a decade ago. We take on board, however, the concerns raised by people who made submissions to the inquiry and believe the minister should not have the discretion to determine the combined cost but be required to determine it.

Whenever private developments on airport land are in the public arena, local governments rightly raise the issue of whether or not their ratepayers are getting a fair deal from the rate equivalent contribution regime that applies to airport lessee companies. At the Senate committee inquiry and at previous inquiries and reviews, local governments in particular have put the view that, while on-airport development is not subject to the usual local government planning and rating regimes, the impact on surrounding infrastructure such as roads, on off-airport businesses and on residential development is borne by local governments and their ratepayers. That is an argument that is unlikely to go away, but Labor acknowledges this and believes that the minister, when considering approval conditions for a proposal, should be required to take into account whether an agreement or a revised agreement should be negotiated between the airport lessee company and the local and state authorities. That should be an agreement that really does reflect the additional burden on local communities of on-airport development.

There are other amendments proposed in this bill which I have not dealt with but which were of interest to the Senate committee, particularly those relating to Canberra airport, the issue of gambling on airport land and the intention to allow persons or organisations approved by CASA to supply air traffic, fire and rescue services, which are currently supplied solely by Airservices Australia.

In conclusion, airport and airport land developments will continue to be controversial. Senators only need to see the expansion of office, retail and industrial developments near Canberra airport and the problems of traffic flow around that airport at peak times on inadequate roads surrounding the airport to realise that this issue will continue to occupy not only our attention but the attention of many in the community. It is unlikely that the legislation we are debating today will satisfy all the criticisms of the current system of planning and approval of developments on airport land. It is, in the scheme of things, a modest package of reforms and, while Labor supports the thrust of the bill, we believe the government has wasted an opportunity to do more to alleviate the ongoing and legitimate concerns of local government, residents groups and citizens about the issue of balancing community interests with commercial interests in and around airports.