|
senate vote 2018-09-12#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-10-19 17:06:30
|
Title
Bills — Airports Amendment Bill 2018; Second Reading- Airports Amendment Bill 2018 - Second Reading - Consultation
Description
<p class="speaker">Kim Carr</p><p>The Airports Amendment Bill 2018 amends the Airports Act 1996 to streamline processes for the development at and around federally leased airports. The Commonwealth is the consent authority for major developments at airports, which is unusual for infrastructure projects. Nineteen of the 21 federally leased airports are required to submit a master plan every five years for approval by the minister. Each master plan sets out strategic development over a 20-year period. The master plan process requires community consultation. Specific major projects require federal approval or a separate major development plan.</p><p>In its original form, the bill made the following changes: all airports will be required to submit master plans, which will be removed from a five-year cycle to an eight-year cycle; an updated Australian noise exposure forecast will be required for each of the master plans; there will be a money trigger for the separate major development plans that will arise; there will be 15 days for the minister to consider reduced consultation periods for the major plans with deemed approval if that time frame is not met; there will be a proposal to enable the minister to extend, more than once, the period during which major developments are required to be substantially completed; and, finally, airport operators will be allowed to notify the minister of exceptional circumstances that mean a major development cannot proceed. The government claimed that these changes removed inefficient outcomes and onerous administrative burdens for the industry.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-09-12.29.1) introduced by Greens Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice), which means it failed. The motion would have added the words below to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html) "that the bill be read a second time" (meaning "that the main idea of the bill be agreed to").
- ### Motion text
- > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the government to develop and implement better consultation and community engagement standards for federally leased airports, to mitigate the impact of air noise on communities under major flight paths."*
<p>This bill is being debated at a time of considerable development at our nation's major airports. It also occurs at a time of considerable growth in air transport. Over the past 20 years, international passenger movement has grown at an annual average rate of some 4.5 per cent. That is slightly above the GDP growth in aviation. Labor has made it very clear that we support broad consultation with local communities, proper assessments of community impacts and reasonable mitigation measures to reduce those impacts when it comes to the question of airport development. We've had some concerns about the original form of this bill, but the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Mr McCormack, was prepared to work with the shadow minister to resolve these issues in a bipartisan manner and make this a better bill. Firstly, as the bill originally proposed increasing the monetary trigger for requiring the development of a major development plan from $20 million to $35 million, the government agreed to a lower trigger of $25 million. This figure, in our judgement, more accurately reflects the recent increases in construction costs.</p><p>Secondly, the initial bill introduced into the House proposed inserting a new subsection that would have provided that, if an airport makes a request for a shorter consultation period for a major development plan and the minister doesn't make a decision on the request within 15 business days, the minister is deemed to have approved that shorter period. Labor could not have supported such an amendment. Of course, the amendment undermined the right of local communities to actually have a say. In the words of the <i>Bills Digest</i>, which were prepared by the Parliamentary Library:</p><p class="italic">This amendment seems to raise the possibility that the Minister could simply not decide on the request, and then be deemed to have approved the short period, even if the development is inconsistent with the airport master plan, or raises issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community.</p><p>It should be well within a minister's capability to consider any request for reduced consultation within 15 business days, and that's why we welcome the government's decision to accept Labor's amendment which will deem any request for a shorter consultation period not approved by the minister within the 15 business days as being refused. This will achieve the right balance. And if we don't get the balance right in these tragic circumstances, I think it is of great disadvantage to local communities.</p><p>Now, we saw the situation that occurred in my locality—I'll make this point. I've actually lived underneath a flight path with regard to Essendon Airport. I no longer live under a flight path, I'm pleased to say, but I do still live in Pascoe Vale in Melbourne, a few minutes from Essendon Airport. The circumstances that arose with regard to the events in February 2017, where a Beechcraft Super King Air B200 crashed into the DFO shopping centre in Essendon, has stuck quite dramatically in the minds of the local community.</p><p>The circumstances of this incident, I acknowledge, are still under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. But I am reminded that that shopping centre is within, I think, 170 metres of the runway. It is an extraordinary thing to actually visit that shopping centre and see just how close it is to the runway at Essendon. This crash was described at the time as 'Victoria's worst civil aviation accident in 30 years,' and it caused concern for residents and businesses surrounding the airport. I make the point that not only is that runway very close to the DFO but it's also very close to the freeways that run parallel to the airport and cut across the flight path of that runway.</p><p>Having received an overwhelming volume of calls and correspondence from local constituents, Mr Khalil, the federal member in the seat of Wills, and Mr Shorten, the federal member adjacent to the airport in the seat of Maribyrnong, hosted, in December 2017, a community forum at Strathmore Heights Community Hall, which is just around the corner from where I live. Hundreds of local residents attended, as well as representatives of the Victorian government and considerable media. It reflected the concerns of residents. The points that were raised by Mr Khalil and Mr Shorten had been presented in a letter to Mr Chester in October 2017, saying that until the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has published its findings about the fatal crash that occurred on 21 February 2017 questions remain unanswered about the safety of the airport, especially given the proximity of commercial and residential developments.</p><p>This tragic event at Essendon and incidents at other airports like Moorabbin highlight the need to get the planning balance right—that is, the balance between community safety and airport operations. I've long held the view that it's not unreasonable to suggest that the primary purpose of airports is aviation, not retail. I think the balance has been lost in the planning decisions that have been taken at a number of airports around the country.</p><p>I make the observation that Labor has had a look at the second reading amendment to this legislation proposed by the Greens. We won't be supporting that amendment, but we do readily acknowledge the concerns of community groups and individuals who are affected by airport noise. We acknowledge that policymakers and agencies that oversee these issues have to pursue practical measures to minimise the impacts that airports have on communities that live around them. It is a simple proposition that airports are not islands. They have grown up in circumstances where the communities around them have changed over time. We have to acknowledge, however, that a proper balance needs to be set.</p><p>That is why the last Labor government developed and implemented Australia's first-ever national aviation white paper, which strengthened the community consultation requirements and put in place transparent public oversight developments at Commonwealth leased airports. These measures include requiring all Commonwealth leased airports to establish community aviation consultation groups to address planning and development issues and a range of other operational matters, such as aircraft noise; establishing an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman; banning older, noisier aircraft flying over residential areas; obligating Commonwealth leased airports to submit more detailed master plans; and introducing a new major development plan trigger that is activated by any development with a significant community impact, regardless of the size or cost, ensuring communities get the opportunity to scrutinise developments which may be contentious within a local area, including proposed new flight paths.</p><p>Lastly, Labor supports the April 2018 recommendations that were made by the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, following her investigations into the complaints about the introduction of the new flight paths in Hobart, including that Airservices access external expertise in community consultation to develop a 'more detailed community engagement strategy'. Labor also supports the ombudsman's recommendations that would strengthen Airservices' complaint management processes so as to ensure that the concerns of affected residents are managed effectively. These measures would benefit not only those who make complaints but also Airservices itself.</p><p>I think Australians generally acknowledge the importance of our aviation infrastructure. Labor have certainly always supported investment in Australia's aviation infrastructure. We are committed to supporting the growth of the industry, but growth must be underpinned by compacts between airports and local communities. The amended form of this bill, in our judgement, will help to ensure that airport planning processes remain transparent, while giving the industry the certainty to plan and invest for the longer term.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|