Senate debates

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Bills

Airports Amendment Bill 2015; Second Reading

5:58 pm

Photo of Lee RhiannonLee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

When debate was interrupted earlier today, I was talking about the Airports Amendment Bill 2015, which we have before us now. I was talking about the big promises on jobs associated with Badgerys Creek airport. I relayed how the Prime Minister promised that that airport will deliver 60,000 jobs. There is no time frame for that, but the promise is out there and it has been repeated many times. Then we have the New South Wales Business Chamber promising 30,000 jobs by 2050. That 30,000 figure is already half of the figure touted by the Prime Minister and reported in the media; however, it relies on the assumption that passenger movements are significantly higher than even the most generous predictions. A more realistic scenario, which was also developed by the New South Wales Business Chamber but this time relying on passenger movements estimated by the federal government's joint study into aviation capacity, puts the job creation figures at 10,000 by 2040. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister and the business lobby have inflated job creation figures to boost support for Badgerys Creek. Without a time line, without a business case and without a contract, any job creation figures touted by the government must be taken with a large grain of salt. This is clearly very important because the jobs issue is something that is very critical to the people of Western Sydney—and we start to see how considerably they have been misled, sadly, by both the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party.

The issue of a curfew is also highly relevant to the business case behind Badgerys Creek. It has been stated many times that Badgerys Creek will only be viable when there are 24/7 operations, but this would expose residents in Western Sydney to aircraft noise that Sydneysiders living close to Sydney Airport at the Kingsford Smith site are protected from. The infrastructure minister ruled out a curfew just last month, further evidence that the community is ignored in order to protect the interests of the private corporations lining up to make a nice profit out of the construction of a publicly subsidised supplementary airport. How can the Liberal-National government argue that the residents of Western Sydney should be subjected to a 24/7 airport when residents in the inner west and the inner city benefit from a curfew at Kingsford Smith airport? While it is true that much of the land around Badgerys Creek is yet to be developed, that certainly will not be the case in 2025, when the airport is allegedly going to be first operational, or in 2035, when it has been operating for a decade. It makes more sense to create policy around what Badgerys Creek will look like in 20 years, not what it looks like now.

It has also been said that Badgerys Creek will reduce aircraft noise associated with Kingsford Smith airport. It is far more likely that the creation of a supplementary airport at Badgerys Creek will increase aircraft noise at Kingsford Smith. Badgerys Creek is expected to be a smaller airport with less hangar space and a smaller runway, similar to Avalon Airport in Melbourne. Like at Avalon, this means that Badgerys Creek will soak up demand for smaller regional flights, leaving more arrival and departure slots open at Mascot for large international jets. This means more aircraft noise, not less. More noise pollution for the locals is certainly not what we want.

Despite the fact that the leadership of the Labor Party and the coalition are on a unity ticket when it comes to Badgerys Creek, local Labor and Liberal MPs around the proposed airport site have raised significant concerns. Last year, Chifley Labor MP Ed Husic said:

I have maintained an unwavering position against an airport at Badgerys Creek for 15 years.

He is certainly spot on. He further said:

I remain firmly of the view this airport will adversely affect the quality of life of the people of western Sydney and I won't be changing my position until I—and more importantly my constituents—are totally convinced it is in their best interests.

Another quote:

There must be detailed discussion and consultation with the community on any proposal for an airport the equivalent size of Brisbane's and to date this has not happened.

I agree with much of what the member for Chifley has said and it is disappointing that the leadership of his party has run roughshod over his concerns to back the Abbott government's proposal fully. As recently as last month, the member for Chifley was, rightly, attacking the Abbott government for not taking its proposal for an airport at Badgerys Creek to an election and for failing to implement a curfew. Again, these are absolutely valid points and it is a shame they have been ignored by the Labor Party leadership and the shadow infrastructure minister, Anthony Albanese.

The shadow Treasurer and member for McMahon, Chris Bowen, is also opposed to the operation of an airport at Badgerys Creek without a curfew, again putting him at odds with Mr Albanese. The Labor members for Parramatta, Greenway and Werriwa are also on the record opposing a 24/7 airport at Badgerys Creek. The member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, has stated publicly that any new airport at Badgerys Creek should be serviced with a rail link, not just road links. The government has already ruled out a rail link when Badgerys Creek becomes operational. It is simply extraordinary that the concerns of all these local Labor MPs have been ignored by Mr Albanese in his eagerness to support the Prime Minister's proposal for a 24/7 operation at Badgerys Creek. It is not just local Labor MPs who have spoken out against this proposal; many Liberal MPs have done so also. The member for Lindsay, Fiona Scott, has strongly opposed the operation of a 24/7 airport at Badgerys Creek.

While the Abbott government is currently pursuing the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek, the Greens believe that, at an absolute minimum, an environmental impact assessment should be undertaken as soon as possible so the community is fully aware of its impacts. I will be moving a Greens amendment to the bill to clarify that, if Badgerys Creek airport is not constructed, a completed environmental impact statement for this location cannot be used as a substitute for an environmental impact statement for any other future airport location. The Greens do not oppose this bill, but we do believe it is really important that this amendment is adopted.

6:05 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

The Airports Amendment Bill 2015 makes arrangements for a second airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek in Western Sydney. Clearly, Sydney does need a second airport—Kingsford Smith airport at Mascot is at capacity—but I wonder whether the need for it and the urgency would be as great if we had some high-speed rail links in this country, particularly between Sydney and Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne, and Sydney and Brisbane.

Sydney Airport Corporation has the right of first refusal to develop and manage the new airport. This option was part of the original privatisation deal that saw the airport sold for $5.6 billion by the Howard government in 2002. The privatisation of Sydney Airport, creating a monopoly out of our largest and oldest airport, has been a disaster for Sydney and the nation. Now we are considering a bill that makes arrangements to possibly extend that monopoly to the new airport, cementing high costs of services for the travelling public for decades to come. Many formally state owned enterprises have been privatised since the 1980s and sometimes not with a good result for the public—from the Commonwealth Bank to Telstra to electricity grids; and, in my home state of South Australia, the state government is crazily trying to privatise the Motor Accident Commission—but the privatisation of Sydney Airport has to take the cake as the craziest of all. It was not inevitable. The federal government did not have to privatise the airport and it did not have to include a first right of refusal for any second airport within 100 kilometres of Mascot, guaranteeing not only a monopoly now but a monopoly into the future if that is what the new owners want.

Back in 2002 it was thought to be a high price but, 13 years on, it is clear that Macquarie Bank got Australia's largest and oldest airport for a bargain. But it has gained a reputation for providing overpriced low levels of service, as a private monopoly, for those who have to use the airport. Sydney Airport Corporation pretty much charged what it liked for its services, including to the airlines and the travelling public, via landing and car-parking fees. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know—through chairing regional and rural affairs and transport committee inquiries—that landing fees for Qantas, for Australian airlines, are exponentially higher than they are for comparable overseas airports. It is a rip-off.

The ACCC is on the record as being concerned at the privileged place Sydney Airport Corporation has in extending its monopoly. Each year the ACCC looks at the prices set by airports and has found Sydney Airport to have the most exorbitant parking rates of any airport in Australia. In fact, it is way up there on an international level. For example, it costs drivers $32 for three hours or $135 for seven days in the longer-term carpark. These charges have generated a revenue of $120 million in the last reporting year—up 4.9 per cent, in margin, on the previous year. Why do they do it? It is because they can get away with it, as a monopoly. They will do it again at Badgerys Creek if they decide to take up the option to develop, which I suspect they will.

The issue of landing and parking fees for airlines has also been a sore point in Sydney. No one could accuse me of being mates with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce—and he cannot do anything about this; I even got a lawyer's letter from him over something I said about him, but we sorted that one out—but he is on the record as saying that Australian airports could charge fees for oxygen if they could and that Sydney Airport had amongst the highest charges. On this issue, I agree with Mr Joyce in his advocacy. He is absolutely right. He is speaking not just for his company but for all Australian airlines that want a fair go and for consumers who are being ripped off.

It does not end there. Credible reports from Michael West and Fairfax Media show that Sydney Airport Corporation pays little or no tax to the federal government. According to Mr West—a very experienced business journalist—Sydney Airport did not pay any tax in its first 10 years but has delivered more than $1 billion in fees to advisers and financiers. Because it is a monopoly, it can afford to carry huge debts and it claims interest on that debt as a tax deduction. That effectively cancels out any profits. The real profits are soaked up in hundreds of millions of dollars in fees to its bankers and financiers, each year. It is a nice little earner.

This monopoly privatised corporate entity generates about $700 million in financing costs soaked up on Macquarie Bank clients, bankers, advisers and security holders. To quote Rupert Murdoch, 'A monopoly is a terrible thing unless you happen to own one.' No wonder the ACCC has openly questioned why Sydney Airport received a first right of refusal to operate a second Sydney airport. In its 2013 airport updates the ACCC said that separate owners of the two Sydney airports would encourage lower prices and increase capacity and quality for customers. But that is not to be. The ACCC report said:

Unfortunately, in this case short term budgetary considerations have served to undermine the competitive framework that delivers improved services and lower prices within a market economy.

Who will pay, in the long run, for this undermining of competition? It will be the people of Australia, particularly the hapless passengers who have to travel through Sydney Airport and get ripped off, day in and day out. Those who must travel through its airport include many from my home state of South Australia who catch connecting flights, particularly to the United States and across the Pacific.

It has not been that long since the privatisation—just 13 years. In that time Sydney Airport has had three CEOs, but its first, Max Moore-Wilton, is now the chair of Sydney Airport Holdings, which owns 84 per cent of Sydney Airport. He has come a long way since those days, before the privatisation, when he was secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He left to take up the helm of Sydney Airport Corporation just months later. He now has the unprecedented opportunity to create a privately owned multisite airport monopoly in Sydney.

Sydney Airport might not be the only private company that charges like a wounded bull and structures itself to pay as little tax as possible, but it is Australian and was created by our federal government. The privatisation of Sydney Airport has been a disaster, and that disaster is set to continue if Sydney Airport Corporation decides to take up its option to develop and operate Sydney's second airport. We will rue the day, if that happens.

6:12 pm

Photo of David FawcettDavid Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I want to make a few comments on Sydney Airport and the Western Sydney airport. I commend Senator Xenophon for his great interest and passion around aviation and protecting our aviation assets. He and I have worked quite closely on the rural affairs and transport committee on a number of occasions. I do differ a little with him, in terms of our major airports. The intent of the government when Deputy Prime Minister Anderson, I think it was then, looked at privatising airports—I think with our major airports—has been relatively well met. As I look and travel around the country I see that the privatisation has allowed an injection of capital, which has transformed the major gateways into each of our states around Australia.

Unfortunately, I cannot say I am quite so supportive of our secondary airports, the likes of Bankstown and Archerfield and others around the country. As recently as last weekend, when I was up at Port Augusta speaking with the manager of the unincorporated lands, I was very aware of the fact that airfields owned by local government and particularly those that serve remote communities are constantly under pressure to maintain the airfields to be capable of taking the Royal Flying Doctor Service, mail services and other services they critically need.

There are a couple of aspects to privatisation. Those in secondary and remote areas I am not such a great fan of; we still need to find ways to invest in those and make them viable for the future. With our primary airports privatisation certainly has transformed Australia, particularly when you look at the role of the airports as a hub not only for passenger movements but also for freight. This week I met with people at the Sydney Airport to talk about the Western Sydney airport and understand what their plans are for servicing regional communities and having that connection with international flights. I certainly compare it with South Australia with the advent of international flights—for example, going direct from Adelaide Airport to Asia and places like Hong Kong and therefore China. There is the export industry—for example, our prawn industry, which does not have the volumes to justify a freight aircraft all by itself—and there are other industries in a similar case. Once you have a passenger service, it means that you have the ability to get freight onto an aircraft and into a market and it opens up new markets around the world, but the important part is to have that link.

Certainly a key part of my discussions around the Western Sydney airport was to make clear in my mind that the planning of the airports and the airlines was to have a joined up service where we did not leave regional communities in the situation where, if they had business to conduct, travel to do or, importantly, exports to get to market, they were relegated to a secondary airport and then had to make a connection across Sydney to a major airport. I am pleased to report that that is not the intention that is being proposed at the moment.

Having been in the aviation industry for many years and having watched debates flow to and fro, I am very conscious that people have talked and talked and talked about Sydney airport and where it might be for longer than I think Senator Ian Macdonald has been talking about Traveston dam. By the time we have built the Sydney airport, perhaps we would have float planes on Traveston dam. I am glad to see that finally, after many years, we have a decision on a location and now we have started the process towards creating the airport.

If you look at the number of movements that come through Sydney and particularly if you look at the management of traffic—they have a cap on the number of movements in a period of time—it comes right down to managing the number of aircraft, even within a quarter of an hour block. It makes it very inefficient for the airlines in terms of bringing aircraft in, because, if they have to divert around weather, for example, or volcanic activity in Indonesia or somewhere and they fall outside of their preapproved slot, there are more aircraft programmed in a period and they do not have the fuel to hold, they end up getting diverted. In terms of the reputation of Australia as an international destination, the last thing you want is uncertainty on behalf of the passengers as to whether they are going to end up in Sydney, which is where they wanted to go, or possibly Brisbane or Melbourne, which are the two logical diversion points. Having the extra capacity at a Western Sydney airport means that we would be able to manage in a far more effective way the flow of air traffic and the volume coming in, not only overall but in any given time frame, which means that we will be able to see a great reduction in the number of aircraft that have to divert to other ports. That can only be good in terms of marketing Australia as a reliable destination for business, including tour businesses, as well as for people who wish to import and export goods using the airports.

This is an example of a promise by the government that, coming into government, there were a number of things we would do. There are the promises you have all heard: stopping the boats, which we have done; getting rid of the carbon tax, which we have done. This is one more area where the Prime Minister promised he would be the infrastructure Prime Minister and would drive development and things that would create jobs. I am pleased to see that this is one more area where the Australian people can look at the Abbott government and say, 'They have actually been prepared to take a decision. It is not popular with everyone, but it is a decision that provides the potential to grow the Australian economy.' If there is one thing that I firmly believe the coalition is characterised by it is looking at ways not to distribute wealth but to grow wealth—to make the pie bigger, because a rising tide floats all boats and people benefit when there are more jobs and more opportunities.

Certainly, when I look at Badgerys Creek and I look at what it will provide, I see it has significant benefit in terms of both investment and job creation. Ernst and Young did an analysis where they found that an airport at Badgerys Creek has the potential to generate some $24.6 billion in direct expenditure by 2060 and contribute $23.9 billion in gross domestic product to the national economy. It would be the largest job creator in Western Sydney. The construction of both the infrastructure package and the airport itself could create up to 8,000 jobs. Initiatives like this are the reason why we are seeing that the rate of jobs growth under the coalition is higher—in fact, multiples higher than at any time under your government, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. That is something the Australian community can look to with hope.

In terms of the value of the infrastructure that we are putting in, there is a large infrastructure project particularly around roads to make sure that the access is there. There is some $3.6 billion for a 10-year road investment package for Western Sydney. The Commonwealth is going to contribute some $2.9 billion to that. You can look up the detail of the roads that are laid out. What it says to me is that planning has gone on to create an asset in terms of the airport, but, more importantly, to integrate it with the infrastructure in Sydney. It is that long-term planning that I would like to turn to now.

I give credit to the former government for their aviation green paper and the white paper and the NASAG process that came out of that, which is the safeguarding of our airports process. It is the whole idea of trying to get co-operation between the federal government, state governments and local governments around planning permissions to safeguard airports. I am a little disappointed that it seems to have plateaued and the hard work of taking the policy concept and implementing it appears to have stalled. That may not all be the federal government's fault. It takes cooperation from states and local governments as well to make those things happen. We are seeing a lot of discussion with the Federation white paper and the COAG processes. I think both sides of politics suffer the frustration of our three levels of government and sometimes not being able to drive very good common sense ideas through. But can I say that NASAG and the process of protecting our airports and the airspace that goes with them are things that we do need in the national interest to get some alignment between the federal government, of whichever political persuasion, and the state and local governments. Why? Because it is important to our economy and it is important to lots of social functions—things like banking, mail services and medical services. Where we do not protect airports and the airspace, we will see a degradation in the ability of the aviation industry to service Australia in the manner in which we have become accustomed. The reason it is important for this process to be in place is that I frequently come across people at both local and state government levels who are interested in developing their communities, and I fully understand and appreciate that. Whether it is housing close to airports or large high-rise buildings in a capital city that infringe into the airspace,—the PANS-OPS criteria—those things have a direct impact on the viability of airlines to carry the kind of loads they look at.

In South Australia, for example, there was a great deal of contention a year or so back when people looked at the height of the city buildings and complained about what they called the archaic regulations that stopped us having even higher buildings. There was quite some discussion in the media about that and a bit of a head of steam developing in that these were really archaic rules, we should change them and we should have higher buildings. People did not realise that the height limits were actually related to operations out of the airport. If you were taking off from Adelaide Airport on the north-easterly runway and were flying on a cloudy day with a low-cloud base or by night and you had an engine failure in a large transport aircraft with passengers or cargo, then the airspace has to allow for the worst-case in terms of your performance and your climb configuration for you to control the emergency and then return the aircraft to the airfield. If you build higher buildings, then the aircraft has to be able to out-climb the worst-case, which is an intersection with that building. This means that the operators are constrained to carrying less fuel, which means that they go a shorter distance, or they have to off-load passengers or cargo. Eventually, you start constraining the operations to the point where airlines are not prepared to actually service that centre.

The long-term planning that NASAG envisaged is something that is really important for us to get into place. We have seen some benefits with Western Sydney in how the site was originally identified as early as 1969. As a result, the Australian government acquired a site of approximately 1,700 acres over the next decade or so. Land that has been reserved is now having very tangible inputs. For example, around noise and curfew, the fact that those long-term planning restrictions have been associated with that land has largely protected it from incompatible residential development. That means that the typical noise footprint for aircraft does not affect the same number of people it would if unencumbered building had been allowed in those areas. It is going to affect only around 3,900 residents, whereas a similar noise footprint at Kingsford Smith affects nearly 130,000 residents.

Technology for aircraft is getting better, particularly with precision vertical navigation options. Australia is now one of the greatest users, particularly at Kingsford Smith airport. That and new generation aircraft with high-bypass ratio engines, with a low-noise signature, means that we can get higher volumes of traffic into airports. The point I am trying to make here is that long-term planning that allowed us to set aside that land is now going to have a very tangible benefit. That means Western Sydney Airport will be capable of having 24-hour operations. It will not necessarily have to have a curfew. The planning, combined with advancing technology, gives great capability which will benefit our economy and the number of jobs that can grow at Western Sydney Airport.

As we look at these kinds of developments and the threats enveloping other airports—and in your own state, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you would have seen media recently about Perth Airport and concerns about residential development—there are great concerns around incompatible development. Certainly, there are great concerns as I look at places like Archerfield, Bankstown and Jandakot in Western Australia. I just want to lay out, again, for both sides of politics that, for all levels of government, whether we do it through the Reform of the federation white paper or through the COAG process, we need to get on top of the NASAG concepts. I would argue that we even need to extend it to include what the Queensland government has, which are areas set aside in the approach and take-off paths of runway which allow for the fact that many secondary airports service single-engine aircraft with trainees. There is a danger that, if you have a failure, then, obviously, aircraft can come down in the area. Queensland has done a very good job of quarantining, if you like, a splay at the end of a runway. That is something we should be looking at more on a national basis.

So it is an important process, and I would certainly encourage state and local government associations to look at how they can work constructively with the federal government and realise that this is not just about a loss of rates they may suffer if they cannot build a particular subdivision of housing right next to an airport. If they look at the broader impact, the direct jobs associated with an airport and, also, what the airport enables in terms of tourism, in terms of business travel and, particularly, in terms of export for so many of our small- to medium-sized businesses, the economic impact on the state of having a reduced capability in that airport would be extreme. We really do need to take a long-term view around the issues of airport planning.

This all brings me back to Western Sydney. It is a good news story in that it is going to provide Australia and Sydney—I know Victorians do not like to hear this but Sydney still remains, for many people internationally, the place to see when they come to Australia—with a more reliable and consistent opportunity to arrive without needing to divert and to provide the of kind capacity that will increase the flow of business travel, tourism and trade, which will be good.

The infrastructure side alone is a policy commitment by the coalition which has been fulfilled in terms of saying, 'We are prepared to take the decisions that, for many years, other people have not taken.' We have seen Prime Minister Abbott and his team take that decision. It is welcome. It will help grow, not only Western Sydney's, but Australia's national economy. The more the economy grows, the more we can invest in all the other things that people are legitimately concerned to see us invest in, so we can continue to make the investments in health and education and things like overseas aid and defence, which are important to the nation. I welcome the initiatives of this government, the decisions around Badgerys Creek and the development of Western Sydney's airport.

6:29 pm

Photo of Michaelia CashMichaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | | Hansard source

I am delighted to be able to contribute and sum up the debate in relation to the Airports Amendment Bill 2015. To continue on from the exceptionally eloquent speech of Senator Fawcett: this is a good-news story for the people of New South Wales and in particular for the people of Western Sydney. This is fantastic news for the people of Australia in terms of the overall benefit that this airport is ultimately going to offer.

It was on 15 April 2014 that finally the Abbott coalition government announced that the site for the Western Sydney new airport would be located at Badgerys Creek. As we have heard, this is an announcement that has been talked about for some time. In fact, I was not even born, amazingly, when a second airport for Sydney was first discussed. So to have, just over 12 months ago, the culmination of something that had been talked about for decades and decades finally come to fruition under the Abbott government is a fantastic thing for all Australians.

Of course, whilst this is a second airport for Sydney, it must be remembered that first and foremost this is an airport for the people of Western Sydney. But an airport at Western Sydney is going to bring benefits not just to the people of Western Sydney, not just to the people of New South Wales but to Australians as a whole. We know that a new airport at Badgerys Creek is going to be a major boost to the local economy. We know that it is going to create thousands of jobs during the construction phase, but also a pipeline of jobs once the airport becomes operational. This is a government that said, 'We want to be the government that builds the infrastructure to take Australia into the 21st century.' This is a government that said, 'If you give us the honour of electing us to office, we will create the jobs that are going to employ people today and going forward tomorrow. That is exactly what this proposed airport for the people of Western Sydney will do.

The Australian government is now working with the government of New South Wales to deliver the new infrastructure and to deliver jobs for the people of Western Sydney. We are looking at an employment boom of approximately 8,000 jobs that will be created as a result of the construction of the airport and the upgrades that are going to be occurring in relation to the roads that are being built. And of course then we have that flow-on benefit, those long-term jobs that are going to be created for Australians once the airport commences operation, flowing through right to the mid-2020s. We are only in 2015, and we are already talking about an employment boom of 8,000 jobs—quite literally taking us through into the future. As I said, and as we have heard from a number of our speakers, for many decades an airport was proposed, an airport was discussed, and finally, under the Abbott government, the work is now happening. It is certainly a project that the rest of the world will be watching.

Turning to the statistics in relation to the number of passenger trips, for example, 54 million passenger trips are forecast to go unmet at Kingsford Smith airport by 2060 unless another airport is built in Sydney. If we forgo those passenger trips, can you imagine the adverse consequences to our economy?—the loss of the tourism dollar, the loss of purchasing power, the loss of employment. Grabbing hold of those 54 million passenger trips is exactly what we want to do under this government, and that is why we are making the concrete decision to go ahead and build the Badgerys Creek airport.

In terms of the additional infrastructure that is going to be needed, this is a government that is going to ensure that it is a case of roads first and the airport second, because we want to ensure that the airport is a success right from the very start. What does that ultimately mean? It means that thousands of good jobs and better local roads will be delivered well before that first plane taxis down that runway. And what are we looking at in terms of that road infrastructure build? Fourteen intersections, eight kilometres of road and 10 kilometres of shared paths have already been built this year alone. That is absolutely amazing. The airport is going to create economic and employment benefits then be a catalyst for further growth. The analysis undertaken by Ernst & Young found that an airport at Badgerys Creek has the potential to generate 24.6 billion in direct expenditure by 2060. It also found that an airport at Badgerys Creek could potentially contribute a $23.9 billion increase in gross domestic product to the national economy. Again, we are talking about a project that is going to have a huge economic impact on our nation.

This project will be the single-largest job creator in Western Sydney. We are very proud of that as the Abbott government. We said that we wanted to create jobs for Australians. We said that we wanted to be the government that built the infrastructure today for everybody to use tomorrow. That is exactly what we are doing.

With the road infrastructure to date, significant progress has been made on the projects. This is included in the $3.6 billion Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan—$3.6 billion is being injected into Western Sydney by this government under this plan. As you know, the Prime Minister literally broke the ground on the Bringelly Road on 20 January 2015. We have also seen the commencement of construction on the Werrington Arterial Road in March 2015.

But we do not stop there. The Local Roads Package has also commenced, with $32.4 million being allocated across seven projects under round 1, and submissions for round 2 will be invited in mid-2015. Then we have construction on the Northern Road, which is expected to begin in late 2015, and construction on the new motorway connecting the M7 to the Northern Road motorway is expected to commence in 2019. So again, the benefits of this project are already being seen with the start of construction of road upgrades to support the new proposed airport.

As I have said, the new airport in Western Sydney is part of the coalition government's investment in the infrastructure for the 21st century, and it is going to generate thousands of jobs and provide a huge economic boost that is going to give us economic growth in Western Sydney. And then of course we have those flow-on effects. It will be a catalyst for investment—investments in education, science, research and aeronautical industries.

In their contributions, a number of the previous speakers referred to high-speed rail. I would like to make some comments in relation to high-speed rail. The Australian government continues to explore what role high-speed rail could play as part of Australia's long-term transport planning. There is no doubt Australia will need additional transport capacity in the future to meet our growing population's demands for travel. In planning to meet this demand—and this is where a number of our speakers failed to consider other forms of transport—we do need to consider all forms of transport modes, which include aviation, road, conventional rail and high-speed rail. We should not just limit ourselves to looking at high-speed rail, because what we need to do in our considerations is to determine the best approach for our unique conditions and then we need to optimise the benefits for our regions.

In terms of some costings that have been undertaken, the 2013 High Speed Rail Study Phase 2 found that it would cost approximately $114 billion to construct a line between Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane, with construction best staged over three decades and commencing with the Sydney to Canberra section in 2027.

The same study found that the cost of connecting Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne was approximately $50 billion. They are huge amounts of money that we are talking about here. Whilst I certainly appreciate that a high-speed rail is a priority for the Australian Greens in particular—and we have certainly heard from Senator Rice and Senator Rhiannon in that regard—it is not the subject of the bill that we are referring to and it does not replace the need for an airport in Western Sydney.

Western Sydney has a population of over two million people. That is almost the size of Brisbane. As the population continues to grow, we must provide the appropriate infrastructure a region of that size warrants. Currently, around 30 per cent of workers living in Western Sydney commute well outside their region to get to work. This has an economic as well as a personal and a family impact. Then we have a look at the projections. Where are we going? Projections indicate that, by 2041, a further one million people will live in Western Sydney; and, in the next 20 years, Western Sydney will account for two-thirds of Sydney's population growth but only one-third of jobs. So Western Sydney airport will be a catalyst for growth. It will be a catalyst for investment and it will be a catalyst for jobs in Western Sydney.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2015 is going to amend the Airports Act 1996 to provide for the creation of an airport plan for the proposed Western Sydney airport, recognising that the airport will be a greenfield development that requires a unique process. The Airports Act provides the framework to manage and operate Australia's federally leased airports like Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. The airport plan will authorise the initial development and specify the Australian government's requirements for the airport.

Importantly, the bill recognises that the environmental assessment process currently underway for the airport is a key part of the approvals process. The bill confers an approval function on the environment minister in relation to environmental matters. The bill will require the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development to incorporate into the airport plan any environmental conditions imposed by the Minister for the Environment following completion of the environmental impact statement.

Preparation of a new and robust environmental impact statement is underway, and the community will have an opportunity to have a say on the draft environmental impact statement later this year. Once the airport plan envisaged under this act is in place, no further planning or development approvals will be required prior to initial construction commencing

It will enable detailed design and construction planning to commence as soon as possible after contract signature.

The bill also includes measures that would help the government consider alternative operators, should Sydney Airport group turn down an offer to develop and operate the proposed airport. Under the 2002 sale agreement for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, the owners of Sydney airport have a right of first refusal to develop and operate a second major airport within 100 kilometres of Sydney's centre. If they decline to exercise the right, the Commonwealth is open to looking at other operators, or to developing the site itself, provided it is done on the same terms. However, the Airports Act currently effectively prevents the Commonwealth from taking either of these actions in the event that the Sydney Airport Group declines to accept the offer. Section 18 of the Airports Act requires that the airport lessee companies for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and any airport site declared to be 'Sydney West Airport', as it is referred to in the Airports Act, must be subsidiaries of the same company. This is a legacy provision from the Airports Act as originally passed in 1996.

The bill removes the requirement of common ownership, providing the Commonwealth with the commercial flexibility to deal with third parties, or to develop the airport itself if required. The bill also removes the airport cross-ownership restrictions currently placed on Sydney West Airport. These restrictions prevent cross-ownership of more than 15 per cent between Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth airports and a new airport at Badgerys Creek. The amendment will help maximise the success of any market offering in the event that Sydney Airport Group chooses not to exercise an option to develop and operate the airport. The bill also contain some mechanical provisions to facilitate declaration of the airport site and other preparatory work.

In closing, this is the culmination of decades and decades of discussion. What has been decades of discussion under the Abbott coalition government has finally come to a decision. That decision was announced on 15 April 2014, when we said that the site for Western Sydney's new airport would be at Badgerys Creek. We said that if we were elected to govern, we wanted to be the government that built the infrastructure for tomorrow. We wanted to be the government that takes Australia into the 21st century. We said that we wanted to be a government that creates jobs for Australians today but also ensures that those jobs flow on to become the jobs for Australians well into the future. And that is exactly what we are seeing with the Sydney West Airport. As I have said, we are looking at a multibillion dollar boost to our economy. On top of that, we are looking at the creation of approximately 8,000 jobs. That is an absolutely fantastic package of support for Australians. And these benefits are already being seen with the start of construction of road upgrades to support the new airport. But on top of that, this is going to be a catalyst, going forward, for investment in so many things—investment in education, investment in science and in research, and investment in aeronautical industries.

I have listened very carefully to the debate and I thank those on the opposition benches for their support for this bill. I certainly commend the bill to the Senate.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.