Bills Digest no. 131 2014–15
PDF version [687KB]
WARNING: This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Matthew James and Sophie Power
Science, Technology, Environment and Resources Section
23 June 2015
Contents
The
Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Other provisions
Concluding comments
Appendix : Badgerys Creek history and studies
Date introduced: 4
June 2015
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Infrastructure
and Regional Development
Commencement: On the
day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they
become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw
website.
Following the Australian Government’s
decision in April 2014 to proceed with a new airport for Sydney, the Airports
Amendment Bill 2015 (the Bill) provides for the determination of an airport
plan for Sydney West Airport (SWA) to be located at Badgerys Creek.
Whereas normally there is a requirement for airport Master
Plans and Major Development Plans (MDPs), the Bill provides a special planning
process involving an airport plan for SWA as a green-field site. The major
section of the Bill is proposed Division 4A of Part 5 of the Airports Act
1996 (at item 30) ‘Airport plan for Sydney West Airport’ which sets
out the process for and required content of the airport plan. This process
involves both the Environment Minister and the Infrastructure Minister. In
terms of content, the plan may include airport development objectives,
proposals for land use and related development, a map showing contours of
projected aircraft noise and indicative flight paths at the airport and other
details.
The Bill also recognises the environmental impact
assessment process that commenced in December 2014 under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) for
a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek and requires the environmental
impact statement to be finalised before the airport plan can be determined.
This is the third environmental assessment process for the site, with two
previous processes reporting in 1986 and 1999. The Appendix to this Digest
contains further historical background on the western Sydney airport site
selection process.
The Bill also includes measures to allow options to the
Australian Government should Southern Cross Airports Corporation, as the owners
of the existing Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at Mascot, decline to develop
the new airport. In particular, the Bill removes the requirement that the
airport-lessee companies for Sydney (Kingsford‑Smith) Airport at Mascot
and SWA at Badgerys Creek must be subsidiaries of the same company. The Bill also
removes the airport pair cross-ownership restrictions currently placed on SWA.
A further barrier will be the negotiations with the owners
of the existing Sydney Airport, and it might be argued that it would be in
their commercial interests to delay any new competing airport venture for as
long as was possible, notwithstanding that the airport-lessee company for SWA
will be required to complete a full master plan within five years of signing
the airport lease.
The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Airports
Regulations 1997 and the Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996.
The purpose of the Airports Amendment Bill 2015 (the Bill)
is to amend the Airports
Act 1996 (Cth)[1]
to:
- provide
a streamlined process for the development of a second airport for Sydney through
the determination of an airport plan for Sydney West Airport (SWA) and
- increase
options available to the Australian Government should Southern Cross Airports
Corporation decline an offer to develop the new airport by removing ownership
restrictions in relation to SWA.
The Bill has one schedule with two parts:
- Part
1 amends the Airports Act and also makes consequential amendments to the
Airports Regulations 1997 and Airports (Building Control) Regulations
1996 as a result of the changes made to the Airports Act and
- Part
2 provides application and transitional provisions.
On 15 April 2014, the Prime Minister and the Minister for
Infrastructure and Regional Development confirmed that Badgerys Creek is the
site for the new Western Sydney Airport.[2] The
2014–15 federal Budget announced an Infrastructure Growth Package, with a
series of new measures, including the Western Sydney Infrastructure Plan.[3] This involved the building
of road infrastructure in preparation for the Badgerys Creek
airport. The plan was budgeted at $2.9 billion over ten years, with $1.2
billion available over the forward estimates. As well:
To facilitate progress, a Western Sydney
Infrastructure Unit will be established within the Department of Infrastructure
and Regional Development and will be responsible for the development of
detailed airport design concepts, conducting environment assessments and
engaging with potential private sector operators. The Department has been
allocated $77.8 million over four years to establish this Unit.[4]
The Appendix to this Digest provides further historical background
relating to the planning of a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.
Project progress
On 15 October 2014, the Federal
Government announced an environmental assessment process for Badgerys Creek.[5] In December 2014, a referral was made to the Minister for
the Environment under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC
Act)[6]
for a proposed action ‘to construct and operate a Western Sydney Airport at
Badgerys Creek’ in New South Wales.[7]
On 23 December 2014, it was decided that the project would require
environmental assessment and approval under the EPBC Act on the basis of
its potential to have a significant impact on World Heritage properties,
National Heritage places, listed threatened species and communities and as a
Commonwealth action.[8]
On 29 January 2015, guidelines were issued for the content of a draft
environmental impact statement.[9]
The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
website on the Western Sydney Airport provides some information on the progress
of the project.[10]
With the Western Sydney Airport environmental guidelines issued and the geotechnical
analysis starting at the site, detailed planning has commenced.[11]
As well, consultation began with the Sydney
Airport Group (as the owners of the Kingsford Smith airport at Mascot) with a
view to starting the new operations by the mid 2020’s. Regarding Sydney
Airport’s involvement, the Factsheet on Delivering the Western Sydney
Airport outlines the ownership requirements:
The Government intends that most of the cost of the airport
will ultimately be met by a private sector operator. In facilitating this and
delivering the airport, a critical first step is for the Australian Government
to meet its obligations under the Right of First Refusal, a condition of the
2002 Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport Sale Agreement.
...The
Right of First Refusal consists of a number of phases, including a consultative
phase and a contractual phase. These are expected to take between one and two
years to complete. The Australian Government has issued a Notice to Consult to
the Sydney Airport Group and the first phase formally commenced on 30 September
2014.This consultative phase is expected to take nine months. Following the
consultation phase the Government may enter a contractual phase, which would
involve issuing a Notice of Intention to the Sydney Airport Group.[12]
Selection of Bills Committee
The Bill has not been referred to a committee
for consideration.[13]
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
On 17 June 2015, the Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee) commented on two aspects of the
Bill: firstly that the SWA airport plan will not be a legislative instrument,
which means that the disallowance and sunsetting provisions of the Legislative Instruments
Act 2003 will not apply; and secondly that decisions to determine an
airport plan for SWA, vary such an airport plan, and declare that a specified
day is the Sydney West Airport completion day are not reviewable by the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal.[14]
These issues are discussed in further detail where relevant in
this Bills Digest.[15]
The Australian Labor Party supported the Bill in the House
of Representatives, with the Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
stating that the Bill ‘clears the way to progress the plan to build a second
Sydney airport’ and will ‘clear up deficiencies in aspects of the Airports
Act 1996, which create uncertainty and confusion about the process for
establishing a second Sydney airport’.[16]
At the time of the project announcement in April 2014, the
Greens denounced it as a win for developers and big businesses and not in the
interests of the community. The Greens cited ‘massive inconvenience, traffic
congestion, noise pollution and a range of health problems’ for the region.[17]
Further the Greens stated:
The Greens policy does not support a second airport and calls
for Sydney Airport to be relocated outside Sydney basin with an efficient High
Speed Rail network to and from the airport.[18]
At the time of writing, no policy position
on the Bill had been announced by other
non-government parties or the independents.
In previous decades there were both strong
opposing and supportive views for an airport at Badgerys Creek, however, since
the current proposal was announced in April 2014, there has been minimal
criticism and generally muted approval. For example, the Western Sydney Airport
Alliance, comprising local businesses, unions and professional bodies expressed
its support for the proposal:
The Alliance fully supports the Federal Government's recent
decision to proceed with developing a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek
as well as the accompanying commitments by the Federal and NSW Governments to
build supporting road infrastructure and preserve a rail corridor for the
future.[19]
The Western Sydney Community Forum (WSCF), claiming
over 200 member organisations, comprising both funded and unfunded community
based services in Greater Western Sydney, has welcomed
the announcement of a Western Sydney Airport.[20]
However, the ‘Say NO to Badgerys Creek
Airport’ and the ‘No Badgerys Creek Airport’ campaigns continue online with
contributions from local residents and others concerned about its effects.[21]
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Bill will
have no financial impact.[22]
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary
Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s
compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the
international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The Government
considers that the Bill is compatible.[23]
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had no
comment on the Bill.[24]
Airport planning
The Commonwealth regulates planning and
development controls for the 21 federally-leased airports through the Airports
Act.[25]
A part of this is a requirement for Master Plans and Major Development Plans
(MDPs):
Master Plans are key planning documents which play an
important role in informing the community, airport users, and other airport
stakeholders. The [Airports] Act currently requires core-regulated federally
leased airports to prepare a new master plan at least once every 5 years,
regardless of the type or size of the airport's operations.
...The Airports Act 1996 prescribes the circumstances
which trigger the MDP process. These circumstances are described in terms of
specific development activities with potential operational, economic,
environmental or social impacts. Some development activities also include a
monetary trigger.... Major Development Plans are required for each major airport
development at each federally-leased airport, except Tennant Creek and Mt Isa.[26]
However, under the Bill, the SWA will have a special
planning process as a greenfield development:
An airport plan for Sydney West Airport is a special planning
instrument that recognises the unique circumstances of a greenfield airport
development. It is a temporary, transitional measure that authorises the
initial airport development for Sydney West Airport and specifies the
Australian Government’s requirements for the airport. An airport plan may be
determined by the Infrastructure Minister following completion of an
Environmental Impact Statement under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and the exercise of an approval
function, in relation to environmental matters, by the Environment Minister.[27]
The provisions of the Bill relating to the special
planning processes provided for SWA are outlined in further detail below.
Airport plan for
Sydney West Airport
Part 5 of the Airports Act provides for the planning
process and building controls for airports regulated by the Act. One of the
main provisions of the Bill is item 30 which inserts a new ‘Division
4A—Airport plan for Sydney West Airport’ into Part 5 of the Airports Act
setting out the process and content for the airport plan. The determination process
involves both the Environment Minister and the Infrastructure Minister. The
plan may include airport development objectives, proposals for land use and
related development, a map showing contours of projected aircraft noise and
indicative flight paths at the airport; and other details. Specific provisions apply
to any variations of the airport plan and associated developments. Further
details are set out below.
Process for determination of an
airport plan for Sydney West Airport
New section 96B provides for the determination of
an airport plan for SWA. New subsection 96B(1) provides that the
Infrastructure Minister, being the Minister who administers the Airports Act,[28]
may by writing determine an airport plan for SWA. New subsection 96B(2)
requires the Infrastructure Minister to give a draft airport plan to the
Environment Minister.[29]
Under new subsection 96B(3), the Environment Minister must, within 30
business days after receiving the draft airport plan, give the Infrastructure
Minister a notice. The Environment Minister has three options in relation to
this notice. The notice can state that:
- the
Environment Minister considers that the airport plan should not be determined (subparagraph 96B(3)(a)(i))
— the Explanatory Memorandum suggests that the Environment Minister might give
such a notice, for example, ‘because it is unacceptable from an environmental
perspective and that there are no conditions or other provisions that could
mitigate the unacceptability’.[30]
If the Environment Minister gives this notice, the Infrastructure Minister is
prohibited from determining the airport plan without giving a new draft to the
Environment Minister and the Environment Minister giving one of the two notices
discussed below (new subsection 96B(8))
- the
Environment Minister considers that one or more specific conditions or
provisions should be included in the airport plan for the purpose of protecting
the environment (subparagraph 96B(3)(a)(ii)).[31]
Those specified conditions or provisions must be carried through into Part 3 of
the final airport plan (new subsection 96B(9)), no inconsistent
conditions or provisions may be included (subsection 96C(8)), and the
Environment Minister’s agreement will be required for any subsequent
inconsistent variations (subsection 96D(3))
- the
Environment Minister is satisfied with the airport plan (subparagraph 96B(3)(a)(iii)).
In considering the draft airport plan, new subsection
96B(5) provides the Environment Minister must have regard to the SWA
environmental impact statement and such other matters (if any) relating to the environment
as the Environment Minister considers relevant. The Infrastructure Minister
must wait for the SWA environmental impact statement under the EPBC Act to
be finalised and the Environment Minister’s notice to be given before
determining the airport plan (new subsection 96B(7)).
Subsection 96B(10)
provides that in determining an airport plan for SWA, the Infrastructure
Minister may have regard to such matters as he or she considers relevant. As
such, apart from anything in a notice from the Environment Minister, the
determination of an airport plan for SWA is at the Infrastructure Minister’s
discretion.[32]
Contents of the airport plan
New section 96C provides that the SWA airport plan must
be divided into three parts:
- Part
1: a title—such as ‘Airport Plan for Sydney West Airport’[33]
- Part
2: the concept design for the airport, which may include airport development
objectives, proposals for land use and related development, a map showing
contours of projected aircraft noise and indicative flight paths at the
airport; and other details as specified in regulations. Note that under new
section 96E, Part 2 of the airport plan is a transitional part which is
automatically omitted from the airport plan and becomes redundant (along with
the provisions in this Bill relating to Part 2) once both the airport plan and
a final master plan for the airport come into force and
- Part
3: details of specific developments[34]
for the airport development (which must be consistent with Part 2 of the
airport plan). Part 3 may set out the details of ancillary developments[35]
that may be carried out on an associated site. Part 3 may also set out conditions
to be complied within in relation to either of these developments.[36]
Under subsection 96C(9), the airport plan is not
limited to Parts 1, 2 and 3: it may set out other matters or contain material
that sits outside the three parts.
Subsections 96C(10)–(12) deal with interests in
land that the Commonwealth does not own at the time the airport plan is
determined. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, there are some areas that
the Commonwealth may intend to be part of the airport site, but because the
areas are not yet owned by the Commonwealth, they cannot be declared to be part
of the airport site. Subsection 96C(10) provides that the airport plan
may cover these areas. The airport plan will have effect in relation to the
areas when they become part of the airport site (subsection 96C(12)).[37]
Variation of airport plan
New section 96D gives the Infrastructure Minister the
power to vary an airport plan for SWA. If there is no airport lease for SWA,
this power can be exercised on the Infrastructure Minister’s own initiative. If
there is an airport lease, the plan may be varied on the application of the
airport-lessee company for airport.[38]
Under new subsection 96D(3), if the airport
plan includes a condition or provision which was required by the Environment
Minister before the determination of an initial airport plan, then the Minister
must not make a variation of the airport plan that is inconsistent with that
condition or provision, unless the Environment Minister agrees to the variation.
While there is no specific requirement in this provision that the Environment
Minister be consulted in relation to that variation, new subsection 96D(7)
provides that the EPBC Act has effect as if the airport plan variation
were an authorisation of an action under subsection 160(2) of the EPBC Act.
Section 160 of the EPBC Act requires a Commonwealth agency or employee
to consider advice from the Environment Minister before authorisation of
certain actions under section 160. This subsection means that the Environment
Minister’s advice would need to be sought on the variation before it was made,
as is currently the case for major development plans. The Explanatory
Memorandum explains that this is ‘to ensure that relevant environmental
considerations are factored into any variation in the same way they are
considered for major development plans’.[39]
New subsection 96D(8) provides that Part 3 of the
airport plan must not be varied after the Sydney West Airport completion
day so as to set out the details of any additional developments. The Explanatory
Memorandum explains that this recognises that after the SWA completion date,
all new development activity must be undertaken in accordance with the standard
requirements of the Airports Act, which include the requirement for a
major development plan for certain developments.[40]
The concept of the Sydney West Airport completion
day is contained in new section 112B, which is inserted by item
44 of the Bill. This new section allows the Minister to declare that a
specified day is Sydney West Airport completion day. The
declaration will be published on the Department’s website and is not a
disallowable instrument. As noted above, the Sydney West Airport
completion day marks the point after which Part 3 of the airport plan
can no longer be varied to include new developments or ancillary developments.
As will be noted elsewhere in this Digest, it is also relevant, for example, to
the consideration of master plans and major development plans.[41]
Publication of airport plans
New section 96F sets out publication requirements
for the airport plan and variations to airport plans. Until there is an
airport-lessee company, the Infrastructure Minister is responsible for ensuring
that the airport plan, variations and up-to-date copies of the airport plan are
published on the Department’s website. Once an airport lease is granted, the
airport-lessee company is responsible for ensuring that the airport plan,
variations and up‑to-date copies of the airport plan are published on the
company’s website.
Airport plans are not legislative
instruments
New subsection 96B(11) provides that an
airport plan for SWA is not a legislative instrument.[42]
This means that the provisions for disallowance by Parliament and sunsetting
under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 will not apply to the airport
plan.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that this is consistent
with major development plans and master plans, which are also not legislative
instruments:
This is appropriate because, like master plans and major
development plans, an airport plan does not determine the content of the law;
it just triggers particular legal effects such as an authorisation to implement
the airport plan and a sanction for not complying with its conditions. It is
the Act, and not the plan, that creates these legal effects. For this reason
it is highly likely that, even in the absence of subsection (11), an airport
plan would not be a legislative instrument: it is of an administrative
character. Subsection (11) is thus declaratory and is designed to make the
legal status of the airport plan clear to a reader of the legislation.[43]
However, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee expressed
concerns about this aspect of the Bill, noting that:
Although it may be accepted that the plan ‘just triggers
particular legal effects’ it remains the fact that the legal obligations which
are created by the [Airports] Act are given substance by the plan, that is
their content is filled out by the determination of the plan. As such, the
determination of a plan is a decision that arguably has legislative elements
thus it is one which is difficult to clearly categorise as having only a
legislative or administrative character (the courts have recognised this is a
difficult line to draw in the context of such cases).[44]
For this reason, the committee has sought the Minister’s
advice as to whether consideration has been given to providing at least some
level of parliamentary scrutiny of the plan (such as a tabling requirement),
even if it is considered that it should not be subject to disallowance.[45]
Review of airport plans and
variations
Subsection 242(1) of the Airports Act provides that
applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for
review of decisions made by the Minister under the Act. However, certain
decisions are excluded from such review under subsection 242(2), including, for
example, decisions to approve or refuse to approve the grant or transfer of
airport leases.
Item 45 of the Bill adds three new paragraphs to
subsection 242(2) to provide that the following decisions are also not
reviewable by the AAT:
- a
decision to determine an airport plan for SWA
- a
decision to vary an airport plan for SWA and
- a
decision to declare that a specified day is the Sydney West Airport completion
day.[46]
The Explanatory Memorandum explains that:
The economic and national significance of the Western Sydney
Airport project mean that any decision to approve a plan that would provide for
the development of an international airport or any variations to that plan, is
such as to make them unsuitable for ordinary merits review processes.[47]
The Explanatory Memorandum also states that whereas for
existing airport lessees, major development plans and master plans are
submitted for Ministerial approval and that a lessee should be able to seek
merits review of the Minister’s decision on such a plan, the airport plan for SWA
would be different:
It will be prepared and determined by the Commonwealth
itself, and will be developed in a way as to ensure the Commonwealth’s policy
objectives for the proposed airport – economic, social and aviation – are
achieved. The airport-lessee company that is granted the airport lease for
Sydney West Airport will have entered into a contract with the Commonwealth
that will require the lessee to implement that plan. Subjecting the plan to
independent merits review would cut across the commercial relationship between
the Commonwealth and the airport-lessee company and would jeopardise the
capacity of the plan to deliver the Government's objectives. It could also
result in substantial delays to the project timeframes: susceptibility to
litigation in a no-cost jurisdiction would almost certainly mean that construction
of the airport could not commence in accordance with the government’s preferred
timeframes.[48]
The Explanatory Memorandum also notes that ‘the usual
courses of judicial review would be available for the Infrastructure Minister’s
determination of an airport plan or a decision in relation to its variation’.[49]
In relation to the declaration of a day as the Sydney West
Airport completion day, the Explanatory Memorandum states that:
The effectiveness of the Act requires that once such a
decision is made, there is certainty as to its operation. Further, the kinds of
considerations that underlie the making of such a decision are uniquely adapted
to assessment by a Commonwealth Minister as opposed to an independent tribunal.[50]
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted these provisions and
the explanation given in the Explanatory Memorandum, and left ‘the question of
whether the proposed approach is appropriate to the Senate as a whole’.[51]
Compliance with conditions in airport plans
New section 96J creates an offence regarding
non-compliance with a condition set out in an airport plan. If an
airport-lessee company contravenes a condition of an airport plan, a maximum penalty
of 2,000 penalty units applies. If a person other than the airport-lessee
company contravenes a condition of an airport plan, a lower penalty of 400 penalty units applies.[52]
These offences mirror offences in section 90 of the Airports Act regarding
non‑compliance with a condition set out in a major development plan. The
Explanatory Memorandum notes that:
This is intended to ensure consistency across relevant
offence provisions of the Act and ensure, as with major development plans, that
airport-lessee companies and others comply with any and all conditions set out
by the Infrastructure Minister. This latter aspect is necessary to ensure the
integrity of the regulatory regime as applicable to the airport plan for Sydney
West Airport.[53]
Master Planning for Sydney West
Airport
Ordinarily, under section 75 of the Airports Act, an
airport-lessee must give the Minister a draft master plan for the airport
within 12 months after the acquisition or grant of the airport lease (unless
the Minister permits a longer period). However, the Bill would exclude the first
SWA master plan from this requirement.[54]
Instead, item 17 inserts a new subsection 75(1A) into the Airports
Act which provides that, within five years after the grant of the first
airport lease for the airport, a draft master plan for SWA must be provided to
the Minister by the airport-lessee company, unless the Minister permits a
longer period.[55]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
This five year timeframe recognises the greenfield nature of
the Airport and the expectation that there will be an airport plan for Sydney
West Airport covering much of the same ground that a master plan would
ordinarily cover. In this context, it would be undesirable to apply the usual
12-month requirement (subsection 75(1)) for a first master plan.
This change only applies to the first master plan for Sydney
West Airport. After the first master plan, the airport‑lessee company
will be subject to the usual five-year cycle for master plans under section 76.[56]
Item 19 of the Bill inserts a new section 81A which
deals with the relationship between an airport plan for SWA and a draft master
plan. New subsection 81A(1) provides that if an airport-lessee company
for SWA gives the Minister a draft master plan, and an airport plan is in
force, the Minister may refuse to approve the draft master plan if the Minister
is satisfied the draft master plan is inconsistent with the airport plan. The Explanatory
Memorandum states that:
This is intended to ensure that the Minister can require a
master plan for Sydney West Airport to be consistent with the development
objectives and other matters set out in the airport plan.[57]
However, new subsections 81A(2) and (3) provide that
the Minister may approve a draft master plan, even if it is inconsistent with
parts of the airport plan, in certain circumstances. For example, new
subsection 81A(2) permits the Minister to approve the draft master plan
notwithstanding the inconsistency if the draft master plan is accompanied by an
application to vary the airport plan and the Minister is satisfied that the
draft master plan (if approved) and the airport plan (as proposed to be varied)
will be consistent with each other. This subsection only applies before the Sydney
West Airport completion day.[58]
There are equivalent provisions in new subsection 84AA,
which is inserted by item 20, to deal with the relationship between an
airport plan for SWA and a variation to a final master plan for the airport. For
example, the Minister may refuse to approve a variation to a final draft master
plan if the Minister is satisfied the draft master plan is inconsistent with
the airport plan.
Major development planning and
Sydney West Airport
Section 90 of the Airports Act currently provides
that a major airport development[59]
must not be carried out except in accordance with an approved major development
plan or the development is of a kind declared by the regulations to be exempt
from Division 4 of Part 5 of the Airports Act. Items 21–29 of the
Bill make amendments to the Airports Act relating to the relationship
between major development planning and the SWA airport plan.
Items 21–27 amend section 90 to allow a major
airport development to be carried out at SWA if it is carried out in accordance
with Part 3 of the airport plan for SWA. As a consequence, developments at SWA covered
by the airport plan will not be required to go through the major development
planning process in the Airports Act. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
This recognises that the airport plan for Sydney West Airport
will provide authorisation for the initial development of the airport and is
intended to ensure that developments are not subject to duplicate approval
processes.[60]
However, developments at SWA that are not covered by the
airport plan will be subject to the generally applicable requirements such as
those relating to major development plans.[61]
This is made clear by new section 96H in item 30, which provides
that the new Division 4A of Part 5 of the Airports Act, relating
to the airport plan for SWA does not, by implication, prevent the approval of a
major development plan that relates to a major airport development that is not
covered by Part 3 of an airport plan for SWA. The Explanatory Memorandum states
that:
This is intended to preserve flexibility for the
airport-lessee company for Sydney West Airport by permitting major development
plans to be submitted for developments not covered in the airport plan. As the
airport plan is only expected to cover the initial airport development, the
airport-lessee company may wish to propose other developments for the airport
site that are not covered by the airport plan. This could include, for example,
the development of a business park or hotel. In such circumstances the
development would be subject to the usual provisions in the Act, including that
major airport developments are subject to major development plans and an
environmental assessment process.[62]
Indeed, given that some existing airports have facilitated
commercial developments on their leased land, similar proposals might be
expected for shopping centres, hotels and business parks for location alongside
the new airport construction. It might be assumed that such developments would
provide strong returns, as has occurred at other airports.[63]
Item 28 of the Bill inserts a new section 94AA
which clarifies the relationship between an airport plan and a draft major
development plan. This provision is in equivalent terms to new section 81A
for master planning as outlined above. For example, new subsection 94AA(1)
provides that if an airport-lessee company for SWA gives the Minister a draft major
development plan, and an airport plan is in force, the Minister may refuse to
approve the draft major development plan if the Minister is satisfied the draft
major development plan is inconsistent with the airport plan. Item 29
inserts a new section 95AA which contains similar provisions dealing
with the relationship between an airport plan for SWA and a draft variation to
a major development plan for the airport.
Environmental approvals and the
role of the Environment Minister
As noted above, the Environment Minister plays a role in the
process before an airport plan is determined by the Infrastructure Minister and
in the variation of the airport plan. The Bill also recognises the
environmental impact assessment process that commenced in December 2014 under
the EPBC Act for a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek and requires
the environmental impact statement to be finalised before the plan can be
determined. As such the Explanatory Memorandum states that:
The airport plan process in the Bill ensures that relevant
environmental considerations are taken into account before the plan is
determined. It recognises the environmental impact assessment process that
commenced in December 2014 for a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek and
requires the environmental impact statement to be finalised before the plan can
be determined. The airport plan process also requires the input of the
Environment Minister, who has the capacity, for environmental reasons, to
prevent the determination of an airport plan or to require specified conditions
or other provisions to be included in the plan.
There will be consultation on the airport plan as part of the
environmental impact statement consultation, given that the environmental
impact statement is assessing implementation of the airport plan and its
impacts on the environment. As with master plans and major development plans,
building activities at the airport will be required to be consistent with the
airport plan.[64]
As noted in the Appendix to this Digest, environmental
impact assessments have been previously conducted for a second Sydney airport
at Badgerys Creek. However, since that time the EPBC Act has commenced
with a new set of environmental assessment requirements and a focus on matters
of national environmental significance. In addition, the Greater Blue Mountains
was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000 and the Greater Blue Mountains
was one of 15 World Heritage places included in the National Heritage List on
21 May 2007.[65]
As noted earlier in this Digest, the impacts of the SWA on the heritage values
of the Greater Blue Mountains, along with a number of listed threatened
species, are being assessed under the EPBC Act process.
However, new section 96G provides an exemption from
Parts 3 and 9 of the EPBC Act by stating that those Parts do not apply
to the determination, variation or implementation of an airport plan for SWA. This
means that developments outlined in Part 3 of an airport plan can be undertaken
without the need for further approval under the EPBC Act. This mirrors
existing provisions in the Airports Act for major development plans,
which are approved following an environmental assessment process under the EPBC
Act and are thus excluded from each of the offence provisions in Part 3 of
the EPBC Act. [66]
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that, although the implementation of an
airport plan will not be subject to the offence provisions in Part 3 or the
approval process in Part 9 of the EPBC Act, failing to comply with an
environmental condition set out in Part 3 of an airport plan will be an offence
under new section 96J (discussed above).[67]
While new sections 96G and 96J mirror existing provisions
in the Airports Act for major development plans,[68]
it is worth noting that there is a question as to whether the offences and
penalties under the Airports Act are comparable to those under the EPBC
Act. For example, under new section 96J if an airport-lessee company
contravenes a condition of an airport plan, a maximum penalty of 2,000 penalty
units applies; and if a person other than the airport-lessee company
contravenes a condition of an airport plan, a lower penalty of 400 penalty
units applies. This compares to the penalties for breaching a condition of an
approval under the EPBC Act, which are up to 10,000 penalty units
for a body corporate and 1,000 penalty units for an individual.[69]
Another issue is whether the enforcement and compliance provisions in the Airports
Act are equivalent to the EPBC Act. For example, the EPBC Act
contains third party standing provisions allow ‘interested persons’ to apply to
the Federal Court for an injunction to prevent a possible contravention of the EPBC
Act.[70]
However, this is perhaps an issue related to the interaction of the EPBC Act
and the Airports Act more generally, rather than the provisions of
this Bill in particular.
Market Access and cross-ownership
restrictions
As noted earlier in this Digest, under the 2002 sale
agreement for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport, the owners of Sydney Airport
have right of first refusal to develop and operate a second major airport
within 100 kilometres of Sydney’s Centre. This contractual arrangement has been
the subject of criticism.[71]
The Infrastructure Minister has indicated that if Sydney
Airport declines to accept, the offer could be made to third parties, or the
Commonwealth can undertake the project itself. However, current ownership
restrictions in the Airports Act effectively prevent the Commonwealth
from taking either of these actions in the event Sydney Airport Group declines
to accept the offer.[72]
Common ownership
The Bill proposes to remove requirements in the Airports
Act that the airport-lessee companies for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport at
Mascot and SWA at Badgerys Creek must be subsidiaries of the same company.
In particular, section 18 of the Airports Act
currently provides for Sydney (Kingsford‑Smith) Airport and SWA to be under common ownership.
So for example, under subsection 18(1), the Commonwealth must not grant an
airport lease for Sydney (Kingsford‑Smith)
Airport or SWA unless each of the airport‑lessee companies is a
subsidiary of the same company. Similarly, under subsections 18(3) and (4) the
Commonwealth Minister must not approve the transfer of an airport lease for
Sydney (Kingsford‑Smith)
Airport or for SWA unless the transferee and the airport‑lessee company for the relevant
airport will be subsidiaries of the same company. Item 5 of the Bill
repeals subsections 18(1) to 18(6) and replaces them with a new subsection
18(1) which provides that the airport-lessee company for Sydney (Kingsford‑Smith) Airport and the
airport-lessee company for SWA may be subsidiaries of the same company.[73]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that:
The intent of this item is to permit the common ownership of
Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and Sydney West Airport, which is contemplated
by Southern Cross Airports Corporation’s contractual right of first refusal and
section 248 of the [Airports] Act, but not to require it.
The requirement for common ownership was inserted into the [Airports]
Act due to a regulatory imperative at the time to ensure that the two airports were
under common ownership. That regulatory imperative no longer exists, so it is
considered desirable to convert the requirement into a permission (without
affecting Southern Cross Airports Corporation’s contractual right of first
refusal).
Removing the requirement for common ownership will provide
the Commonwealth with the commercial flexibility to deal with third parties or
develop the airport itself if required. The measure does not affect Southern
Cross Airports Corporation’s contractual right of first refusal or section 248
of the Airports Act.[74]
Subitem 72(1) in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the
Bill provides that the amendments made by the Bill to section 18 of the Airports
Act do not affect a pre-existing right or the application of a law to a
pre-existing right that a person has under a contract with the Commonwealth, so
as to disadvantage the person. This provision is designed to clarify that the
amendments to section 18 do not affect Southern Cross Airports Corporation’s
contractual right of first refusal to develop a second Sydney airport.[75]
Airport cross-ownership
restrictions
The Bill also removes the airport pair cross-ownership
restrictions currently placed on SWA. Part 3 of the Airports Act
contains a number of restrictions on ownership of airport-operator companies.
Division 5 contains limits on cross-ownership of ‘pairs’ of
airport-operator companies, and in particular there is a 15 per cent limit on
the cross‑ownership
of paired companies.
Section 49 of the Airports Act contains a table
setting out these ‘pairs of airport-operator companies’. So, for example, the
airport‑lessee
company for Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport and an airport‑management company for SWA are
considered a ‘pair of airport-operator companies’.
Item 9 of the Bill repeals items in the table in
section 49 that, to any extent, refer to SWA.[76]
As a result, the amendment will remove airport-pair cross-ownership
restrictions that apply in relation to three pairs of airports: Sydney West and
Melbourne; Sydney West and Perth; and Sydney West and Brisbane.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that this means ‘Sydney
West will be treated like the majority of airports under the Airports Act
and not be subject to airport-pair cross-ownership restrictions’.[77]
It also suggests that ‘this will help maximise the success of any market
offering in the event Southern Cross Airports Corporation chooses not to
exercise an option to develop and operate the airport’.[78]
Regulation Impact Statement
The Explanatory Memorandum contains a Regulation Impact
Statement (RIS) on Western Sydney Airport – Market Access Facilitation,
prepared for the removal of airport pair cross-ownership restrictions for SWA.[79]
The RIS states that, in the context of the part of the Government’s sale of
Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (KSA) in 2002, the purchaser Southern Cross
Airports Corporation Pty Ltd (SCAC) was provided with the opportunity to
develop and operate any second major airport in the Sydney region. Then, by
virtue of the Government’s announcement that the site for Western Sydney
Airport will be at Badgerys Creek, this right was activated along with rigid
contractual provisions associated with it. Further:
If SCAC did not exercise an option to develop and operate [SWA},
and an offer was then made to the market, the cross-ownership restrictions
would unnecessarily restrict the pool of experienced and local investors
available to take part in any market transaction and would unreasonably
restrict the ability of the market to source capital to deliver the project. To
help address these concerns this RIS reviews the ongoing need for the [SWA]
cross‑ownership restrictions.[80]
The RIS reviews the ongoing need for the SWA cross-ownership
restrictions by examining three options and after industry consultation, favours
the removal of the restrictions as they relate to SWA. The Explanatory
Memorandum states that this would enable experienced airport investors with
investments in Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane airports, and the airports
themselves, to invest more than 15 per cent in WSA should SCAC elect not to
exercise an opportunity to develop and operate the airport.[81]
When introducing the Bill, the Minister stated the
Government’s position on ownership:
While the government is contractually obliged to engage
commercially with the Sydney Airport Group and is not opposed to a common
ownership situation, it needs to be legislatively possible for the two airports
to be under different ownership in the event that Sydney Airport Group turns
down an offer to develop and operate the airport. The Airports Amendment Bill
removes the requirement for common ownership, providing the Commonwealth with
the commercial flexibility to deal with third parties or to develop the airport
itself if required.[82]
Building Approvals
Under Division 5 of Part 5 of the Airports Act,
building activities on airport sites require approval. Approval and
certification processes for buildings and structures on airport sites are set
out in the Airports
(Building Control) Regulations 1996.[83]
Items 31–43 of the Bill contain amendments to Division 5 of Part 5 of the
Airports Act to set out the circumstances in which building activities
may be carried out for SWA. In particular, section 101 of the Airports Act
requires approvals for building activities to be consistent with airport master
plans and major developments plans. Item 37 amends this section to
provide that, in the case of building activities on the airport site for the SWA,
the activity must be consistent with a designated SWA instrument that
covers the development. A new section 103A is then inserted by item
43 to provide in relation to SWA that for a building activity that occurs
wholly or partly before the Sydney West Airport completion day, Part
3 of the airport plan for SWA is a designated SWA instrument; and
for a major airport development, any major development plan is a designated
SWA instrument for the development
Item 43 also inserts a new section 103B into
the Airports Act. This new section clarifies that if a building activity
is, or comprises part of, an ancillary development on an associated site for SWA,
the activity is taken to be a building activity on the airport site for SWA.
This is consequential to the provisions of new Division 4A of Part 5 of
the Airports Act (at item 30) that will allow an airport plan to
cover certain off-site developments.[84]
Items 47–69 then amend the Airports (Building
Control) Regulations 1996 as a result of amendments to the Airports Act.
For example, item 47 amends subregulation 2.04(1) in the Airports
(Building Control) Regulations by inserting paragraph (ba). This paragraph provides
that in the case of SWA an airport‑lessee company must not refuse to
consent to an application for building approval unless the proposed building
activity is inconsistent with Part 2 of the airport plan for SWA (if it is in
force) or Part 3 of the airport plan (if it is in force) if the building
activity wholly or partly occurs before the Sydney West Airport
completion day, and the proposed building activity is, or comprises
part of, a development covered by Part 3 of the airport plan.
Another example is item 49, which amends
subregulation 2.04(2) of the Airports (Building Control) Regulations to provide
that, in relation to SWA, an airport-lessee company must not refuse to consent
to an application for building approval if to do so would be inconsistent with
an obligation of the company, relating directly or indirectly to approval of
the building activity under a contract with the Commonwealth that relates to
the airport.
Regulation 2.19 of the Airports (Building Control)
Regulations currently provides that building approvals under the regulations
are generally valid for three years. Item 67 amends this regulation to
provide that building approvals for building activities on the airport site for
SWA that are part of a development covered by Part 3 of the airport plan that
occur wholly or partly before the Sydney West Airport completion day
are valid for five years. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that ‘because of the
greenfield nature of the development of Sydney West Airport, a period of five years
rather than three years is considered more appropriate’.[85]
Item 68 inserts a new regulation 2.26 into
the Airports (Building Control) Regulations, which has the effect that
the building control regime in the regulations will also be applicable to
building activities that are part of ancillary developments on associated sites
for SWA.[86]
Items 70 and 71 contain consequential amendments to
the Airports Regulations
1997.[87]
While the Government has committed to the new airport, along
with funding support, those sceptical that a Western Sydney Airport will ever
be built after such a long gestation period, will not be surprised that yet
another (third) environmental assessment must be performed, to allow the
project to proceed. The Bill facilitates that process, but a further barrier
will be the negotiations with the owners of the existing Sydney Airport, and it
might be argued that it would be in their commercial interests to delay any new
competing airport venture for as long as was possible, notwithstanding that the
airport-lessee company for SWA will be required to complete a full master plan
within five years of signing the airport lease.
The planning of a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek
has had a very long history of gestation. The Australian Parliamentary Library 2012
Chronology, which built on an earlier version, lists all of the relevant
studies up to that time.[88]
In April 2014, the NSW Parliamentary Library produced a Backgrounder which
builds on the earlier two chronologies and provides additional background
information.[89]
Of note is that, on 2 December 1985, the first environmental
assessment of the Badgerys Creek and Wilton sites was completed and on 17
February 1986, the then Government announced that Badgerys Creek was to be the site
for the second airport.[90]
After that decision languished and a series of further studies continued, on 30
June 1999 the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services officially released
the ‘final’ EIS into the Second Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek.[91]
In November 2009, the then Infrastructure and Transport
Minister Albanese announced a new joint study into airport needs which subsequently
appeared in March 2012 as an independent report.[92]
This is referred to in parts as the Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the
Sydney Region.[93] Subsequently,
in response to the Joint Study on Aviation Capacity for the
Sydney Region, the former Government appointed experts to undertake a
technical scoping study into Wilton's suitability as a second Sydney airport
and to explore the use of RAAF Base Richmond for limited civil operations. This
scoping study referred, in turn, to related supporting studies on economic
factors.[94]
Looking to alternative airport economic
analyses for guidance, in 2013 there appeared the Economic
impact of a Western Sydney Airport, by Deloitte Access
Economics for the NSW Business Chamber.[95]
Looking forward with a regional perspective was the 2013 study by the Tourism
& Transport Forum on Sydney’s aviation future: meeting the challenges of
growing demand.[96]
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Airports Act 1996
(Cth), accessed 16 June 2015.
[2]. T
Abbott (Prime Minister) and W Truss (Minister for Infrastructure
and Regional Development), Western Sydney Airport to deliver jobs and infrastructure, joint media release, 15 April 2014, accessed 5 June 2015.
[3]. R
Dossor, ‘Infrastructure
Growth Package—Asset Recycling Fund’, Budget review 2014–15, Research
paper series 2013–14, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 30 May 2014, p.
114; Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘Western
Sydney Infrastructure Plan’, Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development website, both accessed 5 June 2015.
[4]. R
Dossor, op. cit., p. 114.
[5]. W Truss (Minister for Infrastructure and Regional
Development), Environmental
assessment for Badgerys Creek, media release,
15 October 2014, accessed 19 June 2015.
[6]. Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, accessed 22 June 2015.
[7]. Department
of the Environment, ‘EPBC
referral 2014/7391’, Department of the Environment website,
accessed 16 June 2015.
[8]. Department
of the Environment, Notification
of referral decision and designated proponent – controlled action and decision
on assessment approach, 23 December 2014, accessed 16 June 2015. Note
that the relevant World Heritage property and National Heritage place is the
Greater Blue Mountains.
[9]. Department
of the Environment, Guidelines
for a draft environmental impact statement for Western Sydney Airport,
22 January 2015, accessed 16 June 2015.
[10]. Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘Western Sydney Airport’,
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website, accessed 5 June
2015.
[11]. W Truss (Minister for Infrastructure and Regional
Development), Western
Sydney airport environmental guidelines issued, media release, 29 January 2015; W
Truss (Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development), Geotechnical
analysis starts at Badgerys Creek, media release, 20
January 2015, both accessed 5 June 2015.
[12]. Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘Factsheet:
delivering the Western Sydney Airport’,
Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development website, accessed
5 June 2015.
[13]. Selection
of Bills Committee, Report
No. 6 of 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 16 June 2015, accessed 17 June
2015.
[14]. Legislative Instruments
Act 2003, accessed 22 June 2015.
[15]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Alert
Digest No. 6 of 2015, The Senate, Canberra, 17 June 2015, pp. 1–3,
accessed 17 June 2015.
[16]. A
Albanese (Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport), ‘Second
reading speech: Airports Amendment Bill 2015’, House of Representatives, Debates,
16 June 2015, p. 55, accessed 17 June 2015.
[17]. The
Greens (New South Wales), Proposed
Badgerys Creek airport - win for developers not community, media
release, 15 April 2014, accessed 5 June 2015.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Western Sydney Airport Alliance, ‘Western
Sydney community unites for airport, jobs and infrastructure’, Western Sydney Airport Alliance website, accessed 5 June 2015.
[20]. Western
Sydney Community Forum (WSCF), ‘Western
Sydney Airport Alliance News’, WSCF website. The WSCF
website provides useful project background on their frequently asked questions page,
accessed 5 June 2015.
[21]. Facebook,
‘Say NO to Badgerys
Creek Airport’, and ‘No Badgerys Creek Airport’,
Facebook update, June 2015, accessed 5 June 2015.
[22]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Airports
Amendment Bill 2015, p. 2, accessed 22 June 2015.
[23]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 3 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[24]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-third
report of the 44th Parliament, The Senate, Canberra, 18 June 2015, p.
1, accessed 22 June 2015.
[25]. Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘Better
regulation proposals’, Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development, website, accessed 5 June 2015.
[26]. Ibid.
[27]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 1.
[28]. A
new definition of Infrastructure Minister is inserted into
subsection 5(1) of the Airports Act by item 2 of the Bill.
[29]. The
Environment Minister is to be defined in subsection 5(1) of the Airports
Act as the Minister who administers the EPBC Act: see item 2 of
the Bill.
[30]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 13.
[31]. New
subsection 96B(6) provides that environment has the same
meaning as in the EPBC Act.
[32]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 14.
[33]. Ibid.,
p. 15.
[34]. New
section 96M defines development to include a major
airport development; a building activity or an activity
of a kind prescribed in the regulations. Major airport development
and building activities are currently defined in existing
sections 89 and 98 of the Airports Act respectively. Item 31
extends the definition of building activities in section 98 to
include an activity of a kind prescribed by the regulations.
[35]. An
ancillary development is defined at new subsection 96L.
[36]. See
further new subsections 96C(3)–(8).
[37]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 16.
[38]. Note
that new subsections 96D(5) and (6) permit the execution of contractual
provisions for any transaction for SWA that would limit or affect the capacity
of an airport-lessee company to seek a variation.
[39]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 17.
[40]. Ibid.
[41]. Ibid.,
p. 22.
[42]. Note
also that a variation of the airport plan is also not a legislative instrument:
see new subsection 96D(4).
[43]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 14.
[44]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, op. cit., p. 1.
[45]. Ibid.
[46]. As
noted earlier, new section 112B, inserted by item 44 of
the Bill, allows the Minister to declare that a specified day is Sydney
West Airport completion day. The declaration will be published on the
Department’s website and is not a disallowable instrument.
[47]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit. p. 23.
[48]. Ibid.
[49]. Ibid.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, op. cit. pp. 2–3.
[52]. Under
section 4AA of the Crimes
Act 1914 (Cth), a penalty unit is $170, which means that the penalty is
worth $340,000 for an airport-lessee company and $68,000 for other persons.
Note that at the time of writing, a Bill was recently passed by parliament to
increase the penalty unit rate to $180, effective 31 July 2015: Parliament of
Australia, ‘Crimes
Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015 homepage’,
Australian Parliament website, accessed 22 June 2015. Section 4D of the Crimes
Act provides that a penalty specified for a Commonwealth offence is to be
taken as the maximum penalty unless the contrary intention appears.
[53]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 19.
[54]. Amendments
relating to master planning for SWA are set out in items 15–20 of the
Bill.
[55]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 12.
[56]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[57]. Ibid.
[58]. As
noted earlier, the Minister may declare a day as the Sydney West Airport
completion day under new section 112B which is inserted by
item 44 of the Bill.
[59]. The
meaning of Major airport development is set out in section 89 of
the Airports Act.
[60]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 9.
[61]. Ibid.
[62]. Ibid.,
p. 18.
[63]. See,
for example, ‘Flying
high [Investing in airports]’, The Economist, 6 June 2015, p. 56,
accessed 19 June 2015.
[64]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 12.
[65]. Department
of the Environment, ‘World
Heritage places - Greater Blue Mountains’, Department of
the Environment website, accessed 17 June 2015.
[66]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 18.
[67]. Ibid.
[68]. Ibid.
[69]. EPBC
Act, section 142.
[70]. EPBC
Act, section 475.
[71]. See,
for example, A Albanese, (Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport), ‘Second
reading speech: Airports Amendment Bill 2015’, op. cit.; see also B
Sandilands, ‘Sydney’s
2nd airport ownership raises competition concerns’, Crikey, 23 June
2014, accessed 19 June 2015.
[72]. W
Truss (Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development), ‘Second reading speech:
Airports Amendment Bill 2015’, House of Representatives, Debates,
4 June 2015, p. 2, accessed 5 June 2015.
[73]. A
number of other items in the Bill are consequential to this amendment: see for
example, items 3, 4 and 6.
[74]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 5.
[75]. Ibid.,
pp. 28–29.
[76]. A
number of other items in the Bill are consequential to this amendment: see for
example, items 1, 7, 8.
[77]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 5.
[78]. Ibid.,
p. 1.
[79]. Ibid.,
p. 30.
[80]. Ibid.
[81]. Ibid.,
p. 35.
[82]. W
Truss (Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development), ‘Second reading speech:
Airports Amendment Bill 2015’, op. cit., p. 2.
[83]. Airports (Building Control)
Regulations 1996, accessed 18 June 2015.
[84]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 22.
[85]. Ibid.,
p. 27.
[86]. Ibid.,
p. 27.
[87]. Airports Regulations 1997,
accessed 18 June 2015.
[88]. ML
James, Second
Sydney Airport: a decade of deferral 2002–2012, Background note,
2012–13, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 10 July 2012; P Williams and N
O’Sullivan, Second
Sydney Airport: a chronology, Chronology, 2 2001–02, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 19 February 2002, both accessed 5 June 2015.
[89]. A
Halen, A
second Sydney airport: policy developments, reports and key findings,
Issues backgrounder, 4, NSW Parliamentary Research Service, April 2014,
accessed 5 June 2015.
[90]. P
Morris (Minister for Aviation), Second Sydney airport supplement released,
media release, 2 December 1985; P Morris (Minister for Aviation), Second
Sydney airport site announced, media release, Minister for Aviation, 17
February 1986.
[91]. J
Anderson (Minister for Transport and Regional Services), Second
Sydney Airport environmental impact statement, media
release, 30 June 1999, accessed 5 June 2015.
[92]. A
Albanese (Minister for Infrastructure and Transport), Meeting
the future aviation needs of Sydney, media release, 2 March 2012,
accessed 5 June 2015.
[93]. Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘Joint study
on aviation capacity for the Sydney region’, Department of
Infrastructure and Regional Development website, accessed 5 June 2015.
[94]. Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development, ‘A study
of Wilton and RAAF Base Richmond for civil aviation operations’, Department
of Infrastructure and Regional Development website, accessed 5 June 2015.
[95]. Deloitte
Access Economics, Economic
impact of a Western Sydney airport, prepared for the
NSW Business Chamber, 2013, accessed 5 June 2015.
[96]. J
Stewart and J Wastnage, Sydney’s aviation
future: meeting the challenge of growing demand,
Tourism and Transport Forum, 2013, accessed 5 June 2015.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Entry Point for referral.