Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

The second reading debate contained some matters that I did not have a chance to address, so I would like to put a brief comment on the record now. I did say that it is the opposition’s view that the Commonwealth should retain control of the planning and development of airport land. We should note, however, that we support recommendation (d) of Premier Rann’s letter to the Prime Minister dated 5 March 2007. Recommendation (d) states that if non-aviation development control remains with the Australian government ‘it should provide clarification as to how it will enforce conditions of development approval placed on airport lessee companies’ and what role state and territory governments are expected to play in relation to these conditions. In addition, amendments should be made to the Airports Act 1996 to require the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to formally consult the state, territory and local governments concerning a master plan or any development application and to take into consideration the state, territory and local government planning policies governing the region in which the airport is located when making an approval decision.

The shadow minister for transport has advised me that he would be happy to work with the premiers to implement this recommendation when Labor is in government. But he does not support the handing over of planning responsibility to states and territories. Non-aviation development is a very important part of aviation operations and is a critical source of funding for future aviation development. This has relieved what could have been a big burden on taxpayers in the future. Airports are strategic national infrastructure items, and airport development is contentious by its very nature. The right level of government to deal with airport planning is the federal government, and Labor, in government, will continue to support that principle.

In relation to this block of amendments, we are pleased that the government has taken up recommendations 1 and 2 of the Senate committee report on the bill and Labor support those amendments moved by the government which have that effect. It is certainly worth while to directly notify state and local government authorities of the commencement of consultation processes and to ensure that the minister receives actual submissions on proposals rather than just the summary provided by the airport lessee. That is an improvement which the opposition will be supporting. However, we do not support any shortening of consultation or approval time lines. The government has brought that on itself through its failure to properly administer the Airports Act and engender community confidence in its administration. There was no missing the contribution from Senator Sterle about the Perth brickworks. That particular project is an example of this government’s poor processes and disregard for community concerns. So we will not be supporting the shortening of consultation or approval time lines in any form.

We have no objection to other minor amendments being put forward by the government relating to requests for more information, examples of conditions that may be set and the exclusion of Canberra airport from the National Capital Plan. We will therefore be supporting the amendments which have that effect in the legislation. That is our response in summary.

In the debate we will be asking that the amendments be put into two blocks and that, to shorten contributions, the smaller of the two blocks be items in the government Airports Amendment Bill schedule of amendments—the document that I have does not have a number on it but apparently it is the only one—those being amendments (2), (3), (4), (10), (11), (12), (21), (22) and (23) as one block and the rest as the other block.