❓ The WA Minister for Planning and Infrastructure raises concerns about the Commonwealth's approach to non-aviation use of airport land, citing negative impacts on state planning and infrastructure, and a lack of consultation.
AnsweredQoN 772Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the minister advise the house of the difficulties being experienced by state and territory governments as a result of the commonwealth’s attitude towards allowing airport land to be used for non-aviation purposes, such as brickworks? Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. I raised this issue again last Friday as part of the meeting of ministers from across Australia at the Australian Transport Council. Every state and territory had a horror story to tell about the way in which the commonwealth is approaching the issue of non-aviation use of airport land. For example, in Queensland, large showroom developments have been placed near the entrance to the airport, which has meant that people have been unable to easily get into and out of the airport. A large number of people have missed their planes because of the traffic chaos that has been created by this development. There were stories from South Australia about the abandonment of national competition policies and principles. Rival developers have been able to get an unfair advantage by developing on land on which they do not face any constraints from environmental and planning laws. Concerns were raised about the fact that major developments were taking place on airport land in New South Wales without any contribution being made to transport infrastructure, as would normally be required. States and territories presented similar arguments. We then sought some input from the federal minister. We tried to get the federal minister to agree to some amendments to the Airports Act to allow state and territory governments to be formally consulted as part of the process. However, our efforts were to no avail. The federal government made it very clear that it had basically sold off this land and wanted to ensure that the maximum value of the land was retained. There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I raised this issue again last Friday as part of the meeting of ministers from across Australia at the Australian Transport Council. Every state and territory had a horror story to tell about the way in which the commonwealth is approaching the issue of non-aviation use of airport land. For example, in Queensland, large showroom developments have been placed near the entrance to the airport, which has meant that people have been unable to easily get into and out of the airport. A large number of people have missed their planes because of the traffic chaos that has been created by this development. There were stories from South Australia about the abandonment of national competition policies and principles. Rival developers have been able to get an unfair advantage by developing on land on which they do not face any constraints from environmental and planning laws. Concerns were raised about the fact that major developments were taking place on airport land in New South Wales without any contribution being made to transport infrastructure, as would normally be required. States and territories presented similar arguments. We then sought some input from the federal minister. We tried to get the federal minister to agree to some amendments to the Airports Act to allow state and territory governments to be formally consulted as part of the process. However, our efforts were to no avail. The federal government made it very clear that it had basically sold off this land and wanted to ensure that the maximum value of the land was retained. There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
I thank the member for the question. I raised this issue again last Friday as part of the meeting of ministers from across Australia at the Australian Transport Council. Every state and territory had a horror story to tell about the way in which the commonwealth is approaching the issue of non-aviation use of airport land. For example, in Queensland, large showroom developments have been placed near the entrance to the airport, which has meant that people have been unable to easily get into and out of the airport. A large number of people have missed their planes because of the traffic chaos that has been created by this development. There were stories from South Australia about the abandonment of national competition policies and principles. Rival developers have been able to get an unfair advantage by developing on land on which they do not face any constraints from environmental and planning laws. Concerns were raised about the fact that major developments were taking place on airport land in New South Wales without any contribution being made to transport infrastructure, as would normally be required. States and territories presented similar arguments. We then sought some input from the federal minister. We tried to get the federal minister to agree to some amendments to the Airports Act to allow state and territory governments to be formally consulted as part of the process. However, our efforts were to no avail. The federal government made it very clear that it had basically sold off this land and wanted to ensure that the maximum value of the land was retained. There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN replied: I thank the member for the question. I raised this issue again last Friday as part of the meeting of ministers from across Australia at the Australian Transport Council. Every state and territory had a horror story to tell about the way in which the commonwealth is approaching the issue of non-aviation use of airport land. For example, in Queensland, large showroom developments have been placed near the entrance to the airport, which has meant that people have been unable to easily get into and out of the airport. A large number of people have missed their planes because of the traffic chaos that has been created by this development. There were stories from South Australia about the abandonment of national competition policies and principles. Rival developers have been able to get an unfair advantage by developing on land on which they do not face any constraints from environmental and planning laws. Concerns were raised about the fact that major developments were taking place on airport land in New South Wales without any contribution being made to transport infrastructure, as would normally be required. States and territories presented similar arguments. We then sought some input from the federal minister. We tried to get the federal minister to agree to some amendments to the Airports Act to allow state and territory governments to be formally consulted as part of the process. However, our efforts were to no avail. The federal government made it very clear that it had basically sold off this land and wanted to ensure that the maximum value of the land was retained. There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
I thank the member for the question. I raised this issue again last Friday as part of the meeting of ministers from across Australia at the Australian Transport Council. Every state and territory had a horror story to tell about the way in which the commonwealth is approaching the issue of non-aviation use of airport land. For example, in Queensland, large showroom developments have been placed near the entrance to the airport, which has meant that people have been unable to easily get into and out of the airport. A large number of people have missed their planes because of the traffic chaos that has been created by this development. There were stories from South Australia about the abandonment of national competition policies and principles. Rival developers have been able to get an unfair advantage by developing on land on which they do not face any constraints from environmental and planning laws. Concerns were raised about the fact that major developments were taking place on airport land in New South Wales without any contribution being made to transport infrastructure, as would normally be required. States and territories presented similar arguments. We then sought some input from the federal minister. We tried to get the federal minister to agree to some amendments to the Airports Act to allow state and territory governments to be formally consulted as part of the process. However, our efforts were to no avail. The federal government made it very clear that it had basically sold off this land and wanted to ensure that the maximum value of the land was retained. There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
There are two parts to the problem. The first is the attitude of the federal government that it can do what it likes. I do not think it understands what it is doing. It demonstrated to us that it had no understanding of the sort of chaos that could be created by these inappropriate developments on airport land. The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
The brickworks case is very interesting. We do not believe that mechanisms are in place to ensure a proper assessment of this development. If a proper assessment of the environmental and planning impacts of the development were undertaken, one would expect a whole series of environmental and probably also planning conditions to be imposed. When we asked the federal government how it would monitor and enforce such conditions, it could not tell us. It does not have a legislative or departmental apparatus that would enable that to be done. The federal government has not properly thought through how these things can be delivered on the ground and does not have any understanding of what is needed to administer planning and environmental laws. We know that we cannot get the other side of politics to say that this is wrong. Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Several members interjected. Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Ms A.J.G. MacTIERNAN : I hope we get a very clear statement from the opposition supporting the state government in its fight with the federal government. We think this is a very important point and we will continue to run this argument politically. Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Mr C.J. Barnett interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Cottesloe to order for the first time. I urge members on my right to speed up their answers. We have got through four questions and answers in 20 minutes, and that is not nearly enough.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.