Mr McArdle—Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee and present the views of 22 of the 258 member airports. The Australian Airports Association generally supports the Airports Amendment Bill 2006 subject to clarification and amendment of some items in the bill. We have made a written submission which contains the consensus views of our member airports. I do not intend to speak at length on the contents of the written submission or the entire contents of the bill as we support most of the amendments; rather, I wish to concentrate this address on a few key issues.

In summary, the Australian Airports Association supports the majority of the amendments in the bill as proposed. However, we contend that there is an opportunity for further improvement. The planning and development powers should remain with the Commonwealth and shorter display periods and assessment timings should be included in the bill. The stop-the-clock provisions should be heavily conditional to prevent inappropriate use or even political misuse. The ANEF system for long-term land-use planning is supported but should be separate from the master planning process or, alternatively, airports should not have to provide a whole new master plan every time an ANEF changes but only a variation to the affected parts. The Commonwealth must do more to prevent the states from allowing urban encroachment around airports and thereby reducing the capacity of national aviation infrastructure assets to meet essential needs in the future. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the views of the AAA.

Dr Synnot—I have an observation from an earlier time. Before the EPBC Act came in, the impact of proposals act was the mechanism by which environmental assessments were done. It was commonplace, after an EIS had been on public display and all the submissions had been returned, that a response document was then handed to the federal minister. That contained all the submissions made and every response to each of those.

CHAIR—But there is no piece of paper that sets out what the format for this would be.

Senator JOYCE—Can you just say, ‘I’ve taken it into account, I think it’s a load of rubbish and there’s my reply’?

Dr Synnot—Then the minister has to make a decision if that is truly demonstrated.

Mr Keech—But the minister has the opportunity to stop the clock if he is not satisfied with the enterprise.

Talk
CHAIR—Yes, but that is a political decision. What sort of a lunatic system is it? What you need is a system where an ordinary citizen sitting in the back of that room there can think, ‘That makes a bit of sense.’ How much confidence are you going to fill people with? I am all for the development of airports, but I am also for not blowing someone out of the sky in the development application process. What sort of a process is it when you know that when things are held up—the letter was lost in the tray or the 90 days is up—then, blow me down, it’s going to go ahead? What sort of a process is that?

Talk
Senator JOYCE—It is one for the ACT, the Australian Competition Tribunal.

Talk
CHAIR—There you go; there might be room for improvement in the process. Senator O’Brien?

Senator JOYCE—Changing the ownership guidelines and allowing people who run planes to own more than five per cent of airports in certain area is the thin end of the wedge. Do you think a competition problem will arise down the track?

Talk
Mr McArdle—No, not at all.