Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (5:12 PM) —I rise on behalf of the opposition to clearly indicate that we support the government's amendments to this important bill. As I indicated to the House in my speech in the second reading debate on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2003, the amendments enhance the capacity of Airservices Australia to pursue work in related fields in Australia and we hope, importantly, to aggressively pursue export dollar opportunities overseas.

I think it is fair to say that these changes were encouraged by the opposition to help Airservices to tap their potential. I consider that there is significant untapped potential with respect to the operation of Airservices at this point in time. There is now the challenge to Airservices to take up the opportunities provided by this bill and the amendments thereto. Those potential challenges include significant national income and high skill and employment opportunities which have been forgone in days gone by because there was a barrier to such opportunities being pursued on the export front.

For far too long the Howard government have had Airservices focused on an inward basis, on watching their back against the fear of phoney competition. They have had Airservices focused on improving efficiency by cutting costs and functions. When we talk about functions we ought to think about what types of functions are at the centre of the debate this afternoon. The government stand condemned for the phoney competition that they have been promoting in recent years, while they have walked away from the challenge and the opportunity to pursue the amendments before the House this afternoon. These functions are fundamental to air safety in Australia. We have had an attack on Airservices' capacity to provide these functions for the travelling public in Australia.

We are talking about air traffic services, aeronautical information services, aeronautical radio navigation services, aeronautical telecommunications services and, last but not least, rescue and firefighting services. Over recent years we have had a government that has been prepared to put at risk the provision of those services through a phoney competition war effectively for which the government stands condemned.

I am going to raise another aspect of this debate this afternoon with respect to the future of Airservices Australia's terminal control units. I am looking for an answer this afternoon from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration as to whether or not the proposed closure of the Sydney, Adelaide and associated TCUs is still on the agenda. I think it is about time the travelling public and the workers in those centres were told about their future. It is not about employment alone; it is also about safety in the air.

As I said, this phoney war has unfortunately put at risk the travelling public. We are talking about fundamental safety functions, and the government's negative, regressive approach with respect to the provision of Airservices' functions in Australia is a disgrace. Labor not only defends the need to provide those services in Australia but also advocates efficiency improvements of air services by encouraging Airservices Australia to grow both internationally and domestically and, in doing so, to pursue work opportunities both at home and abroad.

Airservices Australia has a highly specialised and skilled staff and cutting edge technology. As shadow minister, I am exceptionally proud of the functions provided by the employees of Airservices Australia. They have put in place a system that is a world leader. That is something that we ought to be proud of in Australia. We ought to aggressively pursue export earning opportunities on the international front, which in turn has the capacity to lead to the skilling of more Australians, enabling them to take up highly skilled employment opportunities in a range of centres around Australia.

These amendments are about repositioning Airservices Australia for further record rates of achievement. If these amendments are carried, the management of Airservices Australia, the workers employed by Airservices Australia and the travelling public who depend on the functions provided by Airservices Australia can be released from the phoney, narrow competition rhetoric of the Howard government. (Extension of time granted) It is time that these people and this organisation are allowed to get on with what they do best. The opposition believes that these amendments position Airservices Australia to build and grow opportunities for Australia. But it is not enough. There are some other outstanding issues that must also be attended to.

That takes me to Airservices Australia's terminal control units. I bring to the House's attention this afternoon the fact that the minister is pursuing the closure of terminal control units in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. There is an agenda to close important air traffic control functions and move them and the staff to Melbourne and Brisbane. The Howard government had the same thing in mind for Cairns, but that proposal was withdrawn—not on the basis of any technical advice or consideration but purportedly because of the jobs impact on the region. What about the potential impact on the jobs front if the terminal control unit is withdrawn from Adelaide in the state of South Australia, where employment is always a challenge because of the difficulties that that state has confronted for a number of years?

If it is good enough to make a political decision with respect to the terminal control unit in Cairns because it is at the heart of the marginal coalition seat of Leichhardt—a decision made on the run by the Prime Minister—then I have a very strong view that the time has come for the Howard government to also rule out here and now, this afternoon, the closure of the terminal control units in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. Why Leichhardt? Because Cairns is in the middle of that marginal coalition seat held by a parliamentary secretary. Why not make the same decision for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane? The workers in those centres and the travelling public want to know this afternoon what the government's position is with respect to the terminal control units in those centres. It is about jobs and it is about safety in the air.

I believe there is more to this issue than jobs and efficiency. Civil Aviation Authority representatives, in a recent consideration of this matter in an independent report prepared for Airservices Australia, have demonstrated how other efficiencies can be achieved without the inherent safety risks of the minister's proposal. It is very hard, more importantly, to actually find anyone who is lobbying to close the terminal control units other than the minister and the lackeys around him. But this proposal still lives in the minister's office—a direction effectively imposed on Airservices Australia's management.

I urge the minister to actually spend a little bit of time visiting the terminal control units to gain a first-hand understanding, as I have done, of what a valuable job these people do. I urge the minister to actually have a talk to the air traffic control experts who do this job, who protect every one of us every time we get in a plane and travel around Australia. After doing that, any fair-minded person would come to the conclusion that a responsible minister with his eye on the job who actually cares about his ministerial responsibilities would—rather than create a phoney cost-cutting war endangering the travelling public and risking jobs in those key centres—rule out the closure of the terminal control units in Adelaide, Sydney and Perth, just as was done in Cairns. Although perhaps in Cairns it was done for the wrong reason; perhaps there was a political motivation.

But if it is good enough for Cairns then it is good enough for Adelaide, Sydney and Perth, as a number of members on this side of the House have been campaigning for an extended period. Some of those on the other side of the House have also been campaigning with respect to some of these issues. Sentiments have been expressed, for example, by the member for Mackellar in a vigorous way following a presentation of this proposal to members not that long ago.

This in turn takes me to other issues relating to Airservices' operations and their potential operations at Sydney, with the presentation in recent weeks of a Sydney airport master plan. (Extension of time granted) It is incumbent on me, therefore, because of the danger to the future terminal control unit at Sydney, to also make some comments on the Sydney airport master plan this afternoon. This is the first master plan for Sydney airport under the legislation initiated by the Labor government in the mid-1990s. Therefore it is the first time a long-range view of the airport's ambitions have been released for public discussion and consideration.

The master plan takes a 20-year horizon on proposed airport operations and development in the airport precinct and anticipates the implications for the surrounding community and infrastructure. The opposition welcomes the fact that the plan includes our policy to retain the cap, curfew, access for regional airlines and noise sharing measures. The master plan also provides for the intensification of air activities at Sydney airport. That then raises serious questions about the continuation of the noise amelioration program. That in turn raises questions about how the revenue will be raised to further assist in insulating public buildings such as churches and schools and also private dwellings.

It is incumbent on the minister to indicate today whether or not as part of the development of the master plan it is the intention of the government to continue the noise amelioration program, which will become more urgent if this plan is implemented, and also to give an indication as to whether that effectively means that the noise levy which currently applies at Sydney airport—which is about $3.58 per ticket today—will continue to be in operation. The facts show that, to date, about $390 million has been spent on the noise amelioration program and only about $290 million has been recovered from the collection of that levy.

Not only is there outstanding money that has been spent on the program; there is also an expectation from those involved in the consideration of the master plan that the program will continue. They want a clear indication from the government, as part of its consideration of the master plan, as to whether or not it will continue to make funds available to guarantee that, with the development of Sydney airport, those public buildings and homes that are affected by the growth of Sydney airport will receive the same consideration with respect to noise insulation. There should be no approval of the master plan without a very definite statement from the government—sooner rather than later—with respect to the noise insulation program. So far as I am concerned, those issues are not negotiable.

Labor also welcomes the fact that the plan includes its policy with respect to trying to do something about sharing the noise. However, the plan does not envisage a second airport during the planning period. This is based on the assumption by the airport operators that the projected growth will be acceptable to the Sydney community. That is unacceptable to the opposition. The opposition believes a second airport is needed and that the type of second airport and its location must be determined with all the facts and views on the table. This is not only about the future of Sydney airport—it is not just an airport issue—but also about the environment and whether or not the area around Sydney airport will, in the future, be regarded by people as desirable to live in. It must be taken seriously by the government.

What we require is a second airport as part of an integrated transport approach that involves all tiers of government—local, state and federal. Determining a site by government must be part of an open, transparent process and not pre-determined—because this is what the master plan is about—by a private sector company that desires to maintain a monopolistic position. The opposition does not accept that this growth will be acceptable to Sydneysiders, with the master plan envisaging the number of passengers using Sydney airport to exceed the number of passengers who used Heathrow airport in 2001.

Where do we go from here? There is a 90-day time frame for the community and local and state governments to digest the impact of the airport plans. (Extension of time granted) So I say to the minister this afternoon that it is my firm view as the shadow transport minister that, before the minister agrees to the master plan, the government must bring forward its own review of Sydney's airport needs. The government simply cannot wait until 2005, as planned by the minister. The Sydney airport master plan has changed all that.

I also suggest that the proposed sale of Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden be put on ice. We now have the master plan proposal for Sydney airport, which goes to the horizons for the operation of that airport for 20 years. I believe that before those three GA airports in Sydney are sold—Bankstown, Hoxton Park and Camden—similar master plan proposals must be prepared and considered, if they are to be sold at all in the future. The position of the opposition is that they should never be sold. There is a capacity for government to continue to work out how these airports operate and have some influence on them with respect to their impact on local communities.

I also have some very serious worries about the development of the master plan to date and the government's reaction. Before the Howard government ticks off the private sector plan for Sydney airport, I think it is incumbent on the government to do its own independent assessment about sustainability and about the impact on the Sydney community. It is not the responsibility of the airport owners to say how this will impact on the insulation program and levy and how many houses and buildings will need insulation under the Sydney Airport Corporation plan. But it is definitely the responsibility of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services that information be gathered to test the veracity and integrity of the master plan. That has to be part of the process of consultation. There is a 90-day consultation period with the community. On my figuring that means that the master plan in draft form will land on the desk of the minister on 31 December this year. The Airports Act intends that the consideration of this master plan be done in an honest way. The minister then has 90 days to indicate whether he accepts or rejects the Sydney airport master plan.

What worries me are the statements made in recent days by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. They have effectively already made up their minds; they have effectively already embraced the draft master plan's intentions and method of operation. There have been a range of comments made in the public arena by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services to that effect. On the basis of the draft master plan, which is out for public consultation and discussion, they have effectively embraced the view of its general manager, Mr Max Moore-Wilton—a close friend of the Prime Minister. Basically, they have accepted, on the basis of the information provided by the master plan, that there is no requirement for there ever to be a second airport built in Sydney. I regard that as totally unacceptable in terms of how a minister should regard his responsibility under the Airports Act. I take the view that under the act you are required to consider the report in a proper way. That means, in essence, that when it lands on your desk on 31 December you are required—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —You are therefore required to await the draft master plan before effectively ticking it off in the public arena. I say this because the comments of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services in recent weeks raise serious questions about the integrity of the process currently under way and whether or not they are approaching the final consideration of this master plan with clean hands. That raises serious questions about the legality of the processes and whether or not—based on the public comments to date indicating their acceptance of the presumptions laid out in the draft master plan—the consideration by the minister might be challenged in the courts. (Extension of time granted) I raise these issues this afternoon, and I will continue to make comments on very important issues going to the operation of Sydney airport and the importance of Airservices Australia.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I will not be gagged by you or anybody else. As I said, these are very important issues going to safety in the air, the operation of airports around Australia and the legislative framework dealing with the operation of these airports. I simply make the point today that we are watching the development of the Sydney airport master plan very closely. There are serious questions about whether the process has been corrupted and prejudiced by comments made to date by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. This could lead to legal challenges with respect to the final determination of the issues by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.

These are important issues. The development of the Sydney airport master plan ought to be a proper process undertaken at arm's length from the government. We should not forget that the report is prepared to embrace the Macquarie Bank's ambitions and to `max out' Sydney airport. We do not accept the proposals embodied in the master plan. It is about time we had some integrity with respect to these processes. This brings me to other important employment issues and the question of Ansett workers.

Mr Hockey —Oh God.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Australian workers who were employed by Ansett Airlines—some of them live in the member opposite's seat of North Sydney—and their families have had a gutful of the legal wrangling, delays and politicking over the collapse of their jobs, careers and opportunities. This is the 100th anniversary of air services—and the member for North Sydney thinks the plight of Ansett workers is a joke.

Mr Hockey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Batman just made an allegation against me that is plainly not true. I do care deeply about Ansett workers. I ask him to withdraw his allegation against me or move a substantive motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. B.C. Scott)—I have heard the member for North Sydney—

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I was responding to his interjection. It was not offensive and I am not withdrawing it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask you to facilitate the House.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I am asking you what was offensive about it. He made an interjection and I responded.

Mr Hockey —I didn't make an interjection.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —When I mentioned Ansett workers, you sighed and said, `Oh God' or something like that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Member for Batman, your allegation was, as I heard it—although I was concentrating on some other matters to come before the House later—that the member for North Sydney did not care about Ansett workers. Member for Batman, will you withdraw?

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —If the member for North Sydney takes offence, I will withdraw it to facilitate the House. I know that he is a very sensitive little flower.

Mr Sidebottom —What do you mean `little'?

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The emphasis was on `flower'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Batman will not abuse the privileges that he has.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON — This week we have learned that the superannuation court case will now go to another level in the legal process. The Minister for Small Business and Tourism might sigh. He sighs because it is going through legal challenges. This is about the entitlements of workers and the impact on their families. The minister might sigh because it is not a big issue to him. While the court processes must run their course, it is time the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism showed some empathy and acknowledged the plight of these workers and their families.

These families are no different from families affected by drought or salinity, and we have seen how the government reacts when those challenges confront the Australian community. I believe that Ansett workers should be treated in the same sympathetic way as farmers who are confronted by drought or as industry is confronted by the issues of salinity, as you would appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. After a concerted campaign by the opposition, the minister finally kicked off the Ansett ticket tax. But we got to a position where it was being collected under false pretences; it was purported to be for the benefit of the very workers and their families to whom I am referring today. (Extension of time granted) The Ansett ticket tax continued beyond its expected time, but the workers are not getting a cent of that levy. I see this approach by the Howard government as disgraceful, divisive and irresponsible. We are talking about air services and the provision of activities around Australia.

Mr Hockey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is nothing in these amendments that discusses the Ansett—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —What is your point of order?

Mr Hockey —It is about relevance. Nothing in these amendments has anything to do with the Ansett levy, and yet the member for Batman is waxing on and misleading the House about what is being done with the Ansett levy. I ask you to bring him back to the matter before the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will rule on the point of order. I have heard the member for North Sydney. From both sides of the House from time to time a wide ranging debate occurs as a result of legislation. This is a debate on the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 2003, and I know that from time to time both sides of the House are given latitude.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I agree with your ruling. I will not take offence because I want to facilitate the debate by referring to some comments made by the minister in his point of order. The government itself has acknowledged that it made a profit out of the Ansett workers' ticket tax. We even have the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Minister for Small Business and Tourism now having a brawl about the surplus and how it is to be spent. I actually believe that some of it should be spent on airport security.

Mr Hockey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that you draw to the attention of the House the point where in the amendments there is any reference whatsoever to the Ansett levy. There is no reference whatsoever and, given that we are in committee, I ask that you bring the member for Batman back to the amendments before the House, because this is totally unrelated to the amendments before the House.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I hear the honourable member for North Sydney. The member for Batman would facilitate the debate if he could keep his comments confined to the amendments to the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2003.

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —The honourable minister is proving his ignorance with respect to the operation of the airline industry in Australia. The issue of air services is very serious. It concerns the provision of functions such as rescue and firefighting services, aeronautical skill and communications services, aeronautical radio and navigation services, aeronautical information services and air traffic services—very important functions. They go to the operation of Sydney airport, the safety of the travelling public and the need to make sure that we protect icons such as Qantas—and unfortunately acknowledge the passing of what was also an icon, Ansett. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you would understand the importance of these issues as a frequently travelled person.

In conclusion, I say that all I want is some public accountability from the Howard government about the Ansett ticket tax levy proceeds. I know that on the other side of the House there is a brawl going on with respect to how those proceeds should be spent. I simply say that, in terms of the airline industry in Australia—I know that the member for Braddon considers this to be a very serious issue and he intended raising it this afternoon—some of those proceeds ought to be spent on the industry and its security, such as the government facilitating the provision of screening services at Burnie and Devonport airports; I do not want to steal the thunder of the member for Braddon. It is time that Ansett workers and their families are shown some compassion by the federal government, that the government comes clean on the collection of the levy and that there is some public accountability with respect to the surplus. It is also time that those workers are given a full and proper explanation of the superannuation case and how it impacts on the Ansett ticket tax levy proceeds and the federal government's profits from the tax.

This has been a long and important debate, and I thank the House for the opportunity and its generosity. As at the outset of my remarks I said I would do, I have ranged across a number of important issues this afternoon which are central to the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill 2003—and perhaps the Minister for Small Business and Tourism does not appreciate how complex and far reaching this bill is. The amendments are fully supported by the opposition. It was the opposition that actually campaigned for these amendments, and the minister has again shown his ignorance. (Time expired)