The bill seeks to make a number of amendments to the Airports Act 1996. The Airports Act 1996 was originally introduced to help facilitate the sale of leasehold interests in some 22 airports operated by the Federal Airports Corporation, with the first phase of airport lease sales occurring in 1997 in Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane.

The act covers issues such as the leasing and management of airports; restrictions on the ownership of airport operator companies; land use, planning and building controls; environmental management; control of non-airport activities; and access to airports.

In the time that has passed since its introduction, a series of disputes over the development and expansion of certain airports in Australia have emerged, especially in relation to the expansion of retail, commercial and other non-aviation developments on airport land; as well as increased levels of aircraft noise following expanded or varied aircraft operations; and disputes over the fees charged by airport lease owners for airport use.

Perhaps the most controversial of these is the development of large-scale retail and commercial property on airport land, with most opposition to this traditionally coming from local councils, local businesses and local residents.

As it stands, the development of retail and commercial properties on airport land does not come under the jurisdiction of local development and planning laws. Rather, responsibility for their planning approval rests with the Commonwealth minister for transport.

Currently under the 1996 act, an airport lessee company must produce a draft master plan for any proposed development of airport land, and it must ensure that that draft master plan is open to public comment and consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister for approval.

I intend to return to some of the changes to the consultation processes surrounding draft master plans and ministerial approvals that are being proposed under this new bill later in my speech.

Before that, it is important to note that because retail and commercial developments built on airport land are exempt from local planning laws and formal approval rights that otherwise apply outside the airport, local councils are largely rendered powerless to monitor or modify such developments, especially in light of the possible impact they may have on local traffic, local businesses and also the amenities of the local community.

This was pointed out by a number of local councils in submissions they made to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006.

Indeed, in its submission to the inquiry, the shopping centre council called for all land not required for aeronautical development to be made available for normal commercial development in the interests of fair competition.

At the very least, the range of submissions that was made to the Senate inquiry into the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 gives a strong indication of the many different competing interests that are at play when it comes to the development of airport land.

The importance of preserving an adequate public consultation process when it comes to proposals for airport land development must be seen in this context, as offering a way to balance these interests and to allay the fears of those parties most likely to be affected by any new developments.

Whilst Essendon Airport does not fall within the boundaries of my electorate of Calwell, the traffic congestion that followed when a DFO, or direct factory outlet, was first opened at the Essendon Airport site points to a series of other problems that we need to be aware of, especially in terms of how airport developments can affect the surrounding local community.

When the DFO outlet first opened at Essendon Airport, it created an enormous amount of traffic and a good deal of chaos, to say the least. The volume of traffic which the retail store generated far exceeded anything that the surrounding roads and approach routes could cope with, and the problem was only compounded by the fact that DFO management had failed to notify the relevant authorities regarding the centre’s opening and the enormous influx of people and cars that this was likely to create.

As an example, this reinforces the key importance of consultations aimed at keeping local councils, state and territory governments and local communities in the loop on these issues when they happen and particularly if they are going to have a fundamental impact on the routine daily business of the local community and on the local traffic.

We need to be mindful, however, not to make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The development of commercial and retail properties on airport land also generates jobs for the local community. Commercial developments on airport land can bring with them a series of positives for the local community that we would not want to dismiss or ignore.

Many of the amendments that the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 introduces to the Airports Act 1996 directly relate to the existing framework that is used to regulate airport site development and long-term planning.

In line with decisions handed down by the Federal Court in the case of Westfield Management Ltd v Brisbane Airport Corporation and Direct Factory Outlets Pty Ltd v Westfield Management Ltd, the 2006 bill allows for airport lessees to undertake non-aeronautical development as long as it is consistent with the relevant airport master plan.

The 2006 bill also includes a purpose statement aimed at ensuring that airport master plans have a strategic focus, that public information is made available about intentions, and that there is land use compatibility.

Clause 77 of the new bill further requires that if a proposed major development may affect future flight paths, the master plan must set out what that effect is, though it falls short of specifically outlining exactly how such an effect must be shown.

The 2006 bill also requires Australian noise exposure forecasts and flight paths to be included in airport master plans. In the event that noise forecasts change, it requires that a new master plan be developed. In relation to noise exposure forecasts, the bill also allows for noise forecasts to extend beyond the current limit of 20-year planning horizons.

Other important changes include those contained under item 21 of the 2006 bill, which undo some of the restrictions currently provided for under section 44 of the existing 1996 act that prohibits airlines from owning more than five per cent of a company which owns the lease interest of an airport or manages the airport.

In particular, clause 21 allows for specific exemptions to be made in the case of non core-regulated airports, which essentially means smaller regional airports rather than major metropolitan airports. In non-core regulated airports, airlines will now be able to own more than a five per cent stake in any company that serves as the operator or manager of the airport.

This is intended primarily to attract more money and investment into some of Australia’s regional airports, though I note that, as it stands, the 2006 bill puts no ceiling on the percentage of ownership that is permissible.

The Airports Amendment Bill 2006 also proposes a number of additional changes relating to the consultation procedures currently provided for under the 1996 act.

As I have already mentioned, under the existing act an airport lessee company must have its draft master plan open to community consultation for a period of 90 days before it is submitted to the minister for approval.

The 2006 bill reduces that consultation period to 60 days. Originally—many of my colleagues have noted this already—the government had sought to have it reduced to 45 days.

Under this bill, draft master plans, major development plans and environment strategies will be available for public viewing and comment for a reduced period of 60 days.

This amendment introduced by the government is one that Labor has strong concerns about. I certainly do. We will seek to address them. When it comes to the development of airport land, the local residents who live close to our regional and metropolitan airports remain one of the most important stakeholders in this process.

We must continue to put them front and centre in this process.

Public consultations provide local residents with an opportunity to voice their own concerns and to put forward their own recommendations in response to proposed airport land developments, changes to flight paths and so on. Reducing the time line for public comment on airport master plans, major development projects and environment strategies is thus bound to put local communities, as well as local councils and other interested parties, at a significant disadvantage, even though the bill tries to compensate for this by putting more onus on the airport lessee company to demonstrate that it has had due regard to public comments in revising its original draft master plan when it submits that plan to the minister for approval.

In determining what counts as a major airport development, the 2006 bill also increases the threshold from $10 million to $20 million. This means that any airport development below $20 million does not need to be accompanied by a major development plan.

It also allows the minister to determine that the combined cost of consecutive or concurrent projects or extensions can be included when the minister is deciding whether the cost of a proposal exceeds this threshold for major development projects.

Importantly, the 2006 bill also sets out a purpose statement for a final environment strategy to ensure all operations are carried out in accordance with relevant environmental legislation and standards.

Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this bill during its consideration in detail. Should those amendments be defeated, Labor will in government revisit these amendments in the context of a broader review of legislation to reduce the impact on local communities.

There are a number of ways in which this bill can be improved, especially in terms of getting it right when it comes to balancing the needs and interests of the different parties affected by airport developments.

Australia’s airports form a crucial link in Australia’s national infrastructure. I believe that they should remain within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and thus that it is the Commonwealth’s responsibility to get the balance right.

The current provision that a development proposal be automatically approved if the minister fails to make an explicit decision within the required 10- or 11-week time frame provided for under the act weakens the bill.

There should be an onus of responsibility placed on airport lessee companies so that it is up to them to advise local and state governments about the commencement of public consultations regarding draft master plans.

It should become a requirement that all public submissions and public recommendations regarding a draft master plan be forwarded to the minister in conjunction with the draft master plan, and it is reasonable to expect the minister to provide a statement of reasons should he or she override these recommendations when approving a draft master plan.

In relation to the implications that airport retail and commercial developments may have for local infrastructure, the bill should contain a requirement for the minister to specify in his or her approval conditions whether a proposal will have any impact on off-airport infrastructure and whether there is a reasonable requirement for the lessee to negotiate in good faith with state and/or local government authorities to reach agreement for appropriate contributions to specific changes in off-airport infrastructure.

In conclusion, I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between Melbourne Airport and my local community in Calwell.

Melbourne Airport was built many years ago in what was a non-residential area and, although a large community has since sprung up around it over the years, there is still enough of a buffer zone to ensure that the expansion of the airport and its future needs do not conflict in any serious way with the local communities, their amenities and—most importantly—their lifestyle.

I am happy to say that there exists a strong working relationship between the management of Melbourne Airport and the local community, including local council and local members of state and federal parliaments. There is a shared recognition that regular consultation is seminal to maintaining this strong relationship, and I want to make sure that this bill aids that relationship and does not hamper or obstruct it in any way.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the senior management at Melbourne Airport on the approach that they continue to take on issues that are of relevance to the overall development of the airport and particularly on the approach that they take in relation to the local community.

All involved know how important Melbourne Airport is to our community, especially as a major employer. We all recognise how maintaining a good working relationship is in everyone’s interest.

Proximity to the Melbourne Airport is increasingly a plus, and a major selling tool for developing industry and infrastructure in my federal seat of Calwell. Many of the major travel and logistics companies have sought to locate in my seat of Calwell, primarily because of the direct access to the Melbourne Airport.

So in addition to the employment that the airport provides for my constituents, the infrastructure that is built around it continues to provide jobs.

Yesterday, Jesuit Social Services presented a report that proclaimed Broadmeadows and Campbellfield, which are in my electorate, as highly disadvantaged areas. Although we often talk about the low unemployment rate in this country, the reality is that, in parts of Broadmeadows and Campbellfield, unemployment and underemployment— especially among young people—remains very high.

Therefore, any opportunity to attract business and industry that provide jobs for our local people and help our local economy is very welcomed.

It is in that context that I want to emphasise the symbiotic relationship between Melbourne Airport and the federal seat of Calwell and the relationship between the airport and the community. There is a need to keep that fine balance so there is no conflict. That is why I am interested in this particular bill and in making sure that the Commonwealth, when it makes decisions on activities in and around major airports, does so in the interests of not only the commercial applicants but also the local community.