Senator O’BRIEN (11:41 AM) —I thought the government might like to make the first contribution, but it is slower off the mark in the debate on these amendments than it was earlier today. I made it clear at the commencement of the committee stage that the shadow minister for transport would be happy to work with premiers to implement some of the recommendations of the Commonwealth and state ministers but that he does not support handing over planning responsibility to the states and territories. It is our view that non-aviation development is a very important part of airport operations. It is a critical source of funding for future aviation development. Labor’s decision to privatise the airports has relieved the taxpayers of a very large burden for the future. Airports are a strategic national infrastructure item and airport development is contentious by its very nature.

The opposition’s view is that federal government is the right level of government to deal with airport planning, and Labor in government will continue to support that principle, so we will not be supporting an amendment that is a direct negative to that proposition. We put forward a number of amendments which we believe would have required a very transparent process in which the Commonwealth minister would have to have regard to the state and territory planning laws and publish reasons why he differed from those bodies on any particular development, approved or otherwise. We are of the view that there ought to be appropriate transparency and very clear consideration of those matters, but we are not persuaded to the view that we should throw out the concept that aviation-planning responsibility, which has been with the federal government since the privatisation of airports or indeed before that, ought not continue that way. So we will not be supporting the amendments.

Frankly, it is a spurious concept that the outcome of the planning process for developments at Hobart airport is relevant to this amendment. That process is being conducted under the current legislation, and it is our view that if this bill were amended in the way proposed it would not impact on that particular development.

Question put: