Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 15 October 2003
Page: 21609


Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 August 2003:

(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2057, which provision in the Airports Act 1996 requires that “any developments on the airport site are to be consistent with the approved Master Plan”, and, in particular

(a) does Division 4 of Part 5 of the Act specify consistency of major development plans with the master plan, if so, what are those provisions,

(b) does Division 5 of Part 5 of the Act specify consistency of building activities to the master plan, if so, what are those provisions, and

(c) does Division 6 of the Act specify consistency of environmental management to the master plan, if so, what are those provisions.

(2) Further to the answer to question No. 2055, if, as the Act states, “any developments on the airport site are to be consistent with the approved Master Plan”, why does the Government's Response to Recommendation 2 of the Report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Inquiry into the Development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation Master Plan state that “the Government will prepare an amendment to the legislation to clarify the relationship between airport master plans and major development plans”.


Mr Anderson (Minister for Transport and Regional Services) —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:

(1) The following are the relevant sections of the Airports Act 1996 (the Act):

(a) Division 4 and Part 5 Subsection 94(5) of the Act states that:

“If a final master plan is in force for the airport, the Minister must not approve the draft major development plan unless it is consistent with the final master plan.”

(b) Division 5 and Part 5 Subsection 99(1) of the Act states that:

“99(1) An airport-lessee company for an airport must not:

(a) carry out building activities on the airport site; or

(b) cause or permit to be carried out on the airport site a building activity;

unless:

(c) carrying out the activity is in accordance with an approval granted under regulations made for the purposes of this Subdivision; or

(d) all of the following conditions are satisfied:

...

(ii) in the case where there is a master plan in force for the airport - the activity is consistent with the plan;

...”

(c) Division 6 Subsection 71(2) of the Act states that:

“In the case of an airport other than a joint-user airport, a draft or final master plan must specify:

...

(f) the airport-lessee company's assessment of environmental issues that might reasonably be expect to be associated with the implementation of the plan: and

(g) the airport-lessee company's plan for dealing with the environmental issues mentioned in paragraph (f) (including plans for ameliorating or preventing environmental impacts); and

(h) if a draft environmental strategy for the airport has been approved - the date of that approval;

...”

Further, Part 6 of the Act directs how an airport should manage the environmental issues arising on the airport, including detailed requirements in relation to an environmental strategy, mentioned in Subsection 71(2)(h) above.

(2) The Government in its response to Recommendation 2 of the Senate inquiry, endorsed taking steps to “clarify the relationship between airport master plans and major development plans” as a reasonable measure to take in response to public concern associated with the development of the Brisbane Airport master plan.

The Government acknowledges that there has been confusion in the public's mind as to the purpose of the master plan compared to that of the major development plan. Evidence presented to the Senate Committee indicated that the uncertainty centred around the primary purpose of an airport master plan. These concerns were demonstrated by the variety of interpretations that various stakeholders had regarding the purpose of a master plan, and in particular, how they differ from the role of a major development plan.