queensland parliament · a draft master plan for the airport, which included the recommendation for...

Parllnfo- GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH- Address-in-Reply (Print Version) of5

( /~/ Title ~OVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH "'-"

Address-in-ReJJIY Database House Hansard Date 11-11-1998 Source House of Reps Pari No. 39 Electorate ~riffith

Interjector DEPUTY SPEAKER Honourable members

Page 162 Party V\LP Status Final Speaker Rudd, Kevin, MP

Stage V\ddress-in-Reply Context V\ddress in Reply System Id

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parllnfo/searchldisplay/displayPrint.w3p;query=Id%3A%22c... 6/03/2013


I as

r

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/par1Info/search/display/displayPrint.w3p;query=Id%3A%22c... 6/03/2013

Parllnfo- GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH- Address-in-Reply (Print Version) of 5

Honourable members

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/par1Info/search/display/displayPrint.w3p;query=Id%3A%22c ... 6/03/2013

Jumbo dumped fuel near city Page 2 of2

Airport boss outlines plan BRISBANE Airport Corporation boss Koen Rooijmans yesterday stressed the need for environmental balance in outlining plans for a parallel runway at Eagle Farm.

But Federal Member for Griffith Kevin Rudd said Mr Rooijmans was "guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy" and plans for the proposed runway would be like "constructing one huge autobahn in the sky".

Speaking at a Property Council luncheon, Mr Rooijmans said Brisbane needed infrastructure that would not destroy lives or make the city unattractive.

The Courier Mail Wednesday, March 31, 1999 page 4

last update 24 Oct 1999

This page is maintained by

The Rivermouth Action Group Inc

as a community service.

http://www.rag.org.au/barb/cm31mar99.htm 6/03/2013

New runway air jam fear Page 1 of 1

New runway air jam fear

by STEEL TALLON

THE number of flights over Brisbane suburbs is set to almost double if a parallel runway goes ahead at the city's airport.

More than 100,000 residents face the thunder and buzz of a plane every three minutes, according to critics of the plan.

Airservices Australia figures show there are more than 430 take-offs and landings at the airport each day.

Federal Labor MP for Griffith Kevin Rudd said airport projections showed about 170 of those flights went over the suburbs.

That number was forecast to increase to about 280 a day by 2006, when the parallel runway was expected to be finished- if it goes ahead.

Most flights were between 6am and 9pm so there would be one flight every three minutes over suburban Brisbane.

Mr Rudd said there was no doubt another runway was needed. But a parallel runway -the option overwhelmingly favoured by the Brisbane Airport Corporation - would send more planes over long- suffering southern and northern suburbs, he said.

More than 4000 people from those suburbs such as Hamilton, Hendra, Northgate, Nudgee, Bulimba, Cannon Hill and Murarrie, turned out for a protest rally last month.

The BAC has argued a parallel runway would allow aircraft to take off and land in opposite directions.

This would take planes out over the waters of Moreton Bay most of the time.

Exactly what percentage of planes would remain over the suburbs is unclear because the BAC says it's not in a position to make such a prediction.

Mr Rudd said prevailing winds at the airport meant the same percentage of planes would remain over the same suburbs ifthe parallel runway were built.

But he said it remained unclear how feasible the development of a cross- runway, running north-west to south- east. was because there was no independent study.

The airport's master plan was endorsed last month by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson despite it failing to include any other recommended options apart from the parallel runway.

Mr Rudd said the Senate was expected to vote this week on a planned inquiry into that master plan.

Labor was confident the inquiry would be given the go-ahead, with the Democrats and Greens showing suppot1 and key Independent Brian Harradine hopefully coming on board.

The inquiry would examine issues including whether BAC failed to fully investigate alternative runway options; whether it failed to release flight path information; and the adequacy of public consultation.

The Sunday Mail March 14, 1999 page 33.




activist(ivrag.org.au


http://www.rag.org.au/barb/srn14rnar99.htrn 6/03/2013

we it one,"

"a source

a

Section: LOCAl

©Copyright f\11 rights reserved. Most articles on l\levvstext are copyright

THE Rudd government has backed a for Brisbane airport that includes a $1 billion runway the Prime IVJinister against as a backbencher. Kevin Rudd was so concerned the prospect of increased aircraft noise he outlaid $32,000 of his own to pay costs incurred unsuccessful court to the project. But Infrastructure Minister Albanese had the last word approving a master

for Brisbane airport the 2007 Howard government decision to the new runway. His office said IVJr Albanese was for the and it had not gone to cabinet or the Prime Minister. The decision puts to rest an issue Mr Rudd identified himself with as an fVJP. His vocal against aircraft noise and the potential of the new runway to increase the impact on his inner-Brisbane electorate of Griffith was instrumental to him into 1998.

This year's master review" the curfew option.

continue to examine how to increase over-water noise across the city. Work on the runway has been financial crisis, which hit aviation

and it is not expected to be in for at least 10 years. track will be constructed 2km west of the existing north-south runway.

Albanese's BAC said the would allow a further 2bn to be invested

@ Alll·ighis 1·eserved. Most a;-ticles on l~ewslext am copyright Hews Limited. Some copyright is own eel by third parties. may mad ihis article on-screen or print it once for your own personal use. You may not make further copies. forNard it by ern ail, post it on an internal or intranet site or make any other use of i1 without written permission from us. These

and any copy1·ighl licensing queries should be senl to us at newstext@ news ltd. com. au

~ Printer-friendl•; ~ E-mail this artide License this ~

~Reprints

use.

Aviation

Rudd supports second Brisbane runway • by:Sid Marris • From: The Australian • September 18, 200712:00AM

KEVIN Rudd will not reverse a decision to allow a parallel runway at Brisbane airport despite having campaigned against the proposal for more than a decade.

Instead the Labor leader, whose electorate of Griffith lies under the flight path, will argue for a curfew on the cities main passenger and cargo airport in defiance of the Queensland Labor Government which says it should be a 24-hour a day operation.

Transport minister Mark Vaile today approved, with noise and environmental conditions, for work to start - scheduled for next year.

"A 3,600 metre runway will be built two kilometres west and parallel to the existing main runway and extending into Moreton Bay- at a cost of approximately $1 billion and creating 2700 jobs in construction alone," Mr Vaile said.

"The Brisbane Airport Corporation proposal to build the runway is a direct response to the need for vital aviation infrastructure to support economic growth, jobs and Queenslanders' standard of living and is estimated to contribute $17.2 billion towards South East Queensland's gross regional product in 2023.''

The BAC will also be required to construct a new White-bellied Sea Eagle nesting site and fund ecological monitoring programmes for seagrass, mangrove and saltmarsh and the expansion of educational facilities at the Nudgee Beach Environmental Education Centre, he said.

The master plan for Brisbane Airport Corporation, including the controversial second parallel runway had been approved for some time, but there had been a series of environmental impact assessment required before approval to start work today.

Mr Rudd has been appealing against the draft environmental impact statement, including bringing a court action which was eventually dismissed on a technicality.

He has also written to BAC claiming the EIS was inadequate and asking them to consider a curfew.

But rather than undermine investment, Mr Rudd today said he would instead work to reduce the impact of aircraft noise.

"Now that the Howard Government has provided the fmallegal approval for the parallel runway, the challenge for Brisbane's Southside community is how to reduce the impact that this new runway will have on the lives of local residents,'' he said

"If elected to Government later this year, I will work constructively with the BAC and certainly look at ways in which the impact of aircraft noise on the lives of local residents can be reduced- and that includes investigating the need for a night curfew. "

"I will always stand up for all the people I represent in Federal Parliament and I will continue to explore ways to limit the impact that aircraft noise has on the quality of life for Southside residents.''

The Brisbane Airport Corporation argues the new runway will allow more flights to take-off and land over Moreton Bay rather than the city.

Protest against parallel runway

Wednesday, February 24, 1999- 11:00

Protest against parallel runway

By Robyn Marshall

BRISBANE - The peace and quiet of the tree-lined streets and coffee shops of suburban Bulimba were disturbed on February 14, when 4000 people marched down the hill to demonstrate against the construction of a parallel runway at the city's main

airport.

The extra runway will bring more aircraft directly over the densely populated southern and western suburbs. According to experts, the plan is badly flawed and may expose passengers

to greater risks during certain weather conditions.

The alternative is an extended cross runway that would take aircraft straight out over Moreton

Bay and reduce the noise for residents.

A draft master plan for the airport, which included the recommendation for a parallel runway,

was submitted in March 1998 by the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC). The 90-day public

consultation resulted in 4000 objections.

On November 23, the BAC resubmitted a slightly revised plan, and it was accepted by the

federal government on February 12.

Federal Labor MPs, Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swann, who have been heavily involved in

organising the campaign, are calling for an investigation into the way the decision for the

parallel runway was made.

Rudd and Swann consistently repeat that they don't know what direction a new runway should take because there is not enough information. They are hedging their bets in case

Labor wins government.

Liberal transport minister John Anderson has called for the BAC to prepare a report on

alternatives. The BAC has forcefully rejected an extended cross runway in the past. The anti

runway campaign wants a Senate inquiry so as to expose the BAC to public scrutiny.

Although a BAC spokesperson has said an extra runway would not be needed for eight to 10 years, approval of the master plan would allow commercial development on vacant land,

leaving the parallel runway as the only option.

The privately owned BAC is opposed to the cross runway because it would require spending

large sums of money building into Moreton Bay. Approval by the minister of the master plan

would send the price ofBAC shares soaring.

http://www. greenleft.org.au/node/2021 0

New runway to fly over Rudd's electorate

Planes will be able to fly over the seats of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan around the clock, with the Federal Government approving the construction of a second runway that will treble passenger numbers at Brisbane International Airport.

The Opposition Leader has already lost $30,000 of his own money fighting the proposal in court.

Transport Minister Mark Vaile approved the project this afternoon.

If Labor wins the next election that could change.

But Mr Vaile said flight paths would be negotiated during the construction phase and he did not anticipate extra air traffic over Mr Rudd's electorate.

Of 196 submissions about the proposal, only 12 supported the construction of a curfew-free runway.

Mr Vaile defended the runway, saying it would create 2700 jobs over its eight-year construction and contribute $17.2 billion to south-east Queensland's GOP by 2023.

He said the second runway would direct most traffic over Moreton Bay and would ultimately alleviate aircraft noise by spreading traffic across two parallel runways working in both directions.

"This is planning for the future," he said. "Currently Brisbane Airport accommodates, I think, around about 16-17 million passengers per year. By 2015 that will be 23.5 million passengers. By 2035 that will be 50 million passengers."

The $1 billion construction will displace a white-bellied sea eagle nesting population, with the Brisbane Airport Corporation being forced to construct a new nesting site and fund ecological monitoring for remanent seagrass, mangroves and saltmarsh.

The Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, had already approved the project.

Extract ofKevin Rudd's maiden speech- 11 Nov 1998

Finally, people who live on the south side of Brisbane value greatly their quality of life. They love their 'Queenslanders', and they love their verandahs. They are incensed at the proposal by the Brisbane Airport Corporation to construct a parallel runway, which would have the effect of doubling the volume of aircraft over the suburbs. By 2006 it is projected that Brisbane airport will have as many aircraft each day as Sydney has at present. The opportunity presents itself not simply to repeat the mistakes made in Sydney but instead to learn from them.

Rudd •must impose runway curfews•

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd must impose night curfews on flights at a new runway at Brisbane airport if he becomes prime minister, opponents of the planned airport expansion say.

The Howard government today approved the development, proposed by Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC), which will take about eight years to complete and cost $1 billion.

The project's construction phase would generate about 2, 700 jobs, the Brisbane Airport Corporation says.

It entails construction of a 3,600-metre runway to operate parallel to the existing main runway at the airport.

An increase in air traffic will affect the Brisbane electorates represented by Mr Rudd and his treasury spokesman Wayne Swan.

Mr Rudd was elected as the member for Griffith after conducting a long fight against the proposed airport expansion.

Barry Wilson, chairman of Brisbane-based lobby group Rivermouth Action Group, today said Mr Rudd must implement a curfew on flights.

"The prime minister, John Howard, managed a curfew for his constituents in (the Sydney seat of) Bennelong, and we would expect no less from Kevin Rudd to stand up for the southside and protect his electorate if were to become our next prime minister," Mr Wilson said.

Mr Wilson said he did not want airport workers to lose their jobs or work fewer hours.

"What we would expect, however, is that the long and almost worn-out promise of all aircraft in and out over the (Moreton) bay to become a reality, at least from 10pm to 6am, on each and every day, if not all day every day," he said.

Mr Wilson said aircraft noise was already so great that residents were forced to stop conversations and schools temporarily halted classes.

He also expressed concerns about the health impacts of more flights.

Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) managing director and chief executive Koen Rooijmans welcomed the government's approval, describing it as a positive outcome for south-east Queensland.

"Brisbane Airport is a vital transport hub and it is critical for its infrastructure and facilities to keep pace with escalating passenger and freight demands as the region's population and economy grows," Mr Rooijmans said.

"Through the NPR (new parallel runway) we will be able to respond to this growth, at the same time creating around 2,700 jobs during construction and injecting up to $5 billion per annum into the local economy and a further 7,800 jobs by 2035."

Mr Rooijmans said the government approval was just the first stage in what would be an estimated eightyear program to bring the new runway on line by around 2015, with work starting in 2009.

Industry group TTF Australia (Tourism & Transport Forum) managing director Christopher Brown said the runway would enable the further growth of the state's booming aviation and tourism industries.

"This is an exciting time for Brisbane Airport, and the development of the parallel runway will ensure that it is well-placed to capitalise on the future expansion of air capacity into Australia," Mr Brown said.

http://www.brisbanetimes.eom.au/news/queensland/rudd-must-impose-runwaycurfews/2007 /09/18/1189881500369.html

BELOW IS FROM THE RIVERMOUTH ACTION GROUP from 24 Oct 1999- they were the people who organised the rally where Kevin Rudd spoke.

Angry march By Rowan Roebig and

Randolph Ramsay

THOUSANDS of people marched down Oxford St on Sunday in an unprecedented demonstration of community anger over the Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd (BACL) parallel runway.

The trendy cafe strip at Bulimba was transformed into a sea of faces and placards as more than 3000 people marched to protest against the BACL's revised master plan, which was approved by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson last Friday.

Ban Aircraft Noise Over Residential Brisbane (BARB) spokesman Jackie Cann, who was expecting only about 500 protesters to attend, said she was overwhelmed by the response.

"This turnout has been absolutely fantastic," Ms Cann said.

Representatives from all sides of the political spectrum came together to voice their concerns, with Federal Labor Member for Griffith Kevin Rudd, Federal Opposition transport spokeswoman Cheryl Kemot, the Democrats' Senator Andrew Bartlett and former Griffith Member Graeme McDougall addressing the large crowd.

BACL communications manager Vanessa Kennedy said the protesters had been misled by politicians using the issue for personal gain.

She said a parallel runway would reduce noise over residential Brisbane.

"There is very high emotion in the community at the moment,'.' she said.

To page 4

Community against runway From page 1

"The people who have politicised the issue are four years too early and the reason for that is the development application for the runway won't occur for four years.

"A master plan is not an approval for a parallel runway."

Mr Anderson said he told BACL to explore runway options before submitting any proposal to build a parallel runway.

"I have approved the Brisbane Airport Master Plan as a land use planning tool only,'' he said.

"My decision does not mean that the BACL will be able to build a second runway without further debate.

"The airport will be required to obtain a separate approval, consistent with the Airports Act, if they want to build a second runway next century.

Mr Rudd said it was time for both the BACL and the Minister to stop hiding behind walls of corporate and bureaucratic silence. He has called for a senate inquiry into the decision- making process behind the approval of the master plan.

Senator Bartlett said the Democrats would support any such moves for an inquiry.

Wit and wisdom of rally marchers "HEY hey, ho ho, parallel runway's got to go."

Thousands chanted that one simple line as southsiders came out in force on Sunday to protest the Brisbane Airport Corporation Ltd's (BACL) parallel runway.

The line of protesters stretched down the length and breadth of Oxford St, surprising the bemused patrons of Bulimba's many cafes.

A broad cross section of the community came out to show its concerns families, elderly residents, couples and children all waving placards and shouting their protest.

"Run away runway", "Hear teachers not planes" and "Over the bay, not my house" were just some of the many placards being waved.

At the front of it all was one lone voice for the parallel runway.

Bulimba resident Damien Freiberg waved his "Yes to Parallel Runway" sign in front of the thousands of marchers as they walked down Oxford St. Mr Freiberg, a Bulimba resident of 12 years, said he had never been bothered by the noise and it was the yuppies who were causing all the fuss.

His protest was drowned by others who begged to differ those who say a parallel runway will drastically lower their standard of living.

South-East Advertiser Wednesday, February 17, 1999. Pages 1 & 4.

Press Release Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Page 1 of2

Press Release Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Member for Cook.

21 December 1998

QUEENSLAND TAKES CONCERNS OVER BRISBANE AIRPORT MASTFR

PLAN TO CANBERRA

The Queensland Government him told Canberra it cannot give its support to the Brisbane Airport draft masterplan.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Steve, Bredhauer said the Queensland Government viewed the Brisbane Airport as being of strategic and economic importance to South-East Queensland.

But the master plan failed to adequately address community concerns about flight paths and noise associated with the proposed runway options.

"The Government believes the site should be developed. However, the draft master plan does not answer the community concern about the lack of information on flight paths and noise associated from the proposed runway options," Mr Bredhauer said.

Mr Bredhauer said he supported representations made by Federal Member for Griffith Kevin Rudd, whose electorate included many of the suburbs that would be adversely affected by the master plan.

Queensland's concerns have been conveyed to Canberra in a letter from Mr Bredhauer to Federal Transport and Regional Services Minister John Anderson.

Mr Bredhauer said the BACL draft master plan had not made a rigorous and open analysis of community concerns over flight paths and noise.

"Under the draft master plan, BACL clearly indicates a preferred option for a new parallel runway which has not had public input since the late 1970s," he said.

"Given the significance of the noise issue and the future volume of air traffic forecast in the current &aft master plan, noise impacts on the community must be more rigorously addressed in the revised Master Plan," Mr Bredhauer said.

Mr Bredhauer said a review of runway options and operational arrangements should be undertaken because community concerns over environmental impacts of air traffic had increased since the original planning for the airport started in the 1970s.

"These issues should be resolved before the start of any development of major infrastructure proposals associated with a preferred runway option," he said.

Mr Rudd said Mr Bredhauer's position was entirely appropriate because the BACL had failed to address concerns about flight paths, noise impact and the absence of any adequate analysis of alternative runway options.

Mr Rudd has campaigned against aircraft noise in Brisbane over the last five years and has been an

http:/ /www.rag.org.au/barb/stategov .htm 6/03/2013

Press Release Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads Page 2 of2

active leader of a community movement against the parallel runway since the release of the master plan in March 1998,

While, the State Government endorsed the intent of BACL to develop the airport site in accordance with the growing needs of South-East Queensland, Mr Bredhauer said the Brisbane City Council and other State, Government departments must have a more direct involvement in developing major project proposals on the airport site.

"As well, other retail and commercial development proposed in the Airport City concept appear to go beyond servicing the airport community and its clients," Mr Bredhauer said.

"This is inconsistent with the South-East Queensland Regional Framework for Growth Management, which was developed by the Commonwealth, State Government and local authorities.

"The Queensland Government cannot give its support to the plan. The Government is also deeply concerned about its ability to influence the BACL to respond to the wider needs of the region in the planning of major airport developments," lie said.

FURTHER DETAILS: Andrew Williams, Media Advisor (07) 32371944 or 0416 107 962 ... Harry Williams, Senior Media Advisor (07) 3237 1949 or 0407 131 654

Scanned image copy with spell check. Accuracy not guaranteed




[email protected]


http://www.rag.org.au/barb/stategov.htm 6/03/2013

Brisbane airport curfew debate takes off Date

December 3, 2009

• • Read later

Tony Moore

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd flies back to Australia this morning at odds with the Queensland Premier and Brisbane Lord Mayor over the need for a night curfew at the city's airport.

A new Aviation Industry White Paper due this month is believed to recommend "periodic reviews" of the need for a curfew at one of Australia's fastest-growing airports.

Only Sydney and Adelaide airports now have night curfews, restricting night flights between 11 pm and 6am.

Premier Anna Bligh yesterday emphatically ruled out the need for such a curfew in Brisbane.

"The Brisbane Airport currently does not have a curfew and we don't think that it needs one," she said.

"Our view is that one of the great strengths of the Brisbane Airport, particularly in an international sense, is that we can bring planes in here at any time of the day or night.

"And realistically if we didn't have those hours available we would miss out on a lot of international visitors."

Mr Rudd, who rose to prominence in his Griffith electorate when he campaigned on aircraft noise, believes it necessary to test the need for a curfew at Brisbane Airport.

The Prime Minister explored the idea as an opposition backbencher, reportedly spending $30,000 of his own money in a court battle against the second runway in 2007.

"The PM supports this [review] process and reviewing the option of a night curfew. The details of the review will be outlined in the Government's Aviation White Paper later this year," according to a statement provided by the Prime Minister's office.

Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said Brisbane Airport's new runway, which was approved in 2007, would extend out over Moreton Bay and eliminate the need for a curfew.

"I would hope that the future development of the airport for the second runway would mean that airport flight paths could be put out over the bay and that would negate the need for a curfew," Cr Newman said.

"The airport has a huge postive economic impact on the city of Brisbane and it is a source of real advantage to it that it does not have a curfew currently," he said.

"And I hope that they can set up their operations so that can continue."

Brisbane Airport Corporation CEO Julieanne Alroe said BAC received 80 noise complaints from 29 people last month.

"But I don't think the number of complaints is always the right guide," she said.

She said she had spoken personally to Federal Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese about the issue.

"We can make the situation much much better by working with Air Services and the airlines to get better flight path planning and get better use of our runways," Ms AI roe said.

"And I have made a personal pledge to the minister that I will lead that process.

"I think there is a lot we can do before we need to start looking at anything as extreme as a curfew."

In Brisbane, there are six kilometres between the end of the runway and the nearest house.

About 6.5 per cent of flights arrive or depart between 11 pm and 6am, with about 90 per cent flying over Moreton Bay.

Read more: http://www .brisbanetim es.com. au/travel/brisbane-airport-curfew-debate-takes-off-20091202-k67n.html#ixzz2MhwEPTaH

Kevin Rudd- slagging off "how the BAC put on the run way"

http://www.theaustralian.eom.au/business/aviation/airport-curfew-a-passion-for-pm/storv-e6frg95x-1225810752134

Youtube link: http://www.voutube.com/watch?v=DRYDIVm3kWY&feature=player embedded#!

Airport curfew a passion for PM • by:Christian Kerr, Steve Creedy • From:The Australian • December 16, 200912:00AM • 47 comments

Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRYDIVm3kWY&feature=player embedded#! -WATCH THIS.

Kevin Rudd on aircraft noise

A 10-YEAR obsession that Kevin Rudd as a backbencher backed with his own money could well become national policy -- a curfew on Brisbane airport.

The campaign Mr Rudd started after he entered parliament in 1998 is set to come closer to fruition when the federal government releases its aviation industry white paper today.

The white paper to be launched in Canberra this morning by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese, likewise an airport-afflicted MP, is expected to recommend an inquiry into a Brisbane curfew, despite bipartisan opposition from Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman.

The nation's privatised airports are girding their loins as they face new rules restricting development on land, stricter planning and consultation requirements and the establishment of a noise ombudsman.

The expected move on Brisbane airport comes after Defence Materiel Minister Greg Combet on Monday slapped a curfew on flights by the Super Hornet jets to be based at RAAF Amberley on Brisbane's southwest fringe.

Brisbane airport, which was the subject of 80 noise complaints from 29 people last month and uses its curfew-free status as a marketing tool to attract airlines from Sydney, is expected to lobby hard against the move.

"Brisbane airport does not have a curfew and we don't think that it needs one," Ms Bligh told The Australian.

"Brisbane airport is next to the river and Moreton Bay and, unlike other airports, doesn't have houses right next door.

"We want more opportunities, more visitors and more jobs from our growing airport, not less."

Mr Newman, a Liberal, described the airport as "vital economic infrastructure".

"I'm hopeful that with new navigation technology available there will be no need for a curfew that could have economic consequences for the fastest-growing region in Australia," he said.

The realisation of one ofMr Rudd's dreams could also come at a cost to the national economy, with warnings yesterday it could lead to a total late-night east coast shut down and the consequences of that for tourism.

Only Sydney and Adelaide airports have curfews, with flights restricted between llpm and 6am.

Industry sources warned a curfew in Brisbane would push flights to Melbourne, increasing pressure for a curfew in the Victorian capital.

"You could have the whole east of Australia shut down each night," a source said.

"You can imagine what that would mean for tourism."

Mr Rudd, whose seat ofGriffith is less than lOkm from Brisbane airport, invested more than $30,000 in a Federal Court battle to stop a parallel runway.

Mr Albanese, whose seat of Grayndler abuts Sydney airport, will also unveil proposals for an ombudsman to address complaints about low-cost carriers, a renewed search for a second Sydney airport, a ban on development projects deemed incompatible with aviation use and restrictions on older, noisier aircraft.

Print Article: Govt flags Brisbane runway to shake Rudd

Govt flags Brisbane runway to shake Rudd Published: October 31, 2007 - 1 0:50AM

Advertisement The federal government has taken on Kevin Rudd in his own backyard by approving Brisbane airport's second runway, which the Labor leader has battled against for years.

;A(c::ess Denied

The $1 billion runway, when completed in 2015, may lead to increased aircraft noise over Brisbane suburbs in the safe federal Labor electorates held by Mr Rudd and his treasury spokesman Wayne Swan.

But federal Transport Minister Mark Vaile said the development would enable more night-time flights to take off and land over water instead of nearby suburbs.

"There will obviously always be aircraft operations from time to time over those suburbs in and around the airport in Brisbane," Mr Vaile told reporters in Canberra.

"This provides an opportunity to get more of them over water."

Page 1 of2

Mr Rudd has complained the runway will hurt residents' standard ofliving and reportedly spent $32,000 of his own money trying to defeat the project in the courts.

Mr Vaile said after all the opposition leader's protestations, he had to be prompted to make a submission about the runway.

"Mr Rudd didn't see the issue as being important enough, without solicitation, to put a submission into Brisbane Airports Corporation (BAC)," he said.

"That would indicate that it was being used as an issue for political gain at the time, rather than any genuine consideration that Mr Rudd had for people living under the flight paths."

Barry Wilson, chairman of Brisbane-based lobby group Rivermouth Action Group, on Tuesday said Mr Rudd must implement a curfew on flights.

"The prime minister, John Howard, managed a curfew for his constituents in (the Sydney seat of) Bennelong, and we would expect no less from Kevin Rudd to stand up for the southside and protect his electorate if were to become our next prime minister," Mr Wilson said.

Mr Wilson said he did not want airport workers to lose their jobs or work fewer hours.

"What we would expect, however, is that the long and almost worn-out promise of all aircraft in and out over the (Moreton) bay to become a reality, at least from 1 Opm to 6am, on each and every day, if not all day every day," he said.

Mr Wilson said aircraft noise was already so great that residents were forced to stop conversations and schools temporarily halted classes.

He also expressed concerns about the health impacts of more flights.

http://news.smh.corn.au/action/printArticle?id=46071 6/03/2013

Print Article: Govt flags Brisbane runway to shake Rudd

Mr Vaile said the new separated runway, akin to Changi in Singapore, would allow aircraft to land simultaneously in opposite directions, allowing flight paths to operate over Moreton Bay at night.

Under some circumstances, there would be no air traffic over the Brisbane central business district or neighbouring suburbs, he said.

Page 2 of2

It was likely that aircraft noise could be controlled without having to implement a curfew at the airport.

"This development should enable Brisbane to continue to grow, allowing for sensible mitigation of aircraft noise without having to implement a curfew."

The project entails construction of a 3,600-metre runway that will operate two kilometres west and parallel to the existing main runway at the airport.

Construction is expected to take approximately eight years and generate about 2,700 construction jobs, Mr Vaile said.

He said Brisbane airport currently handled 16-17 million passengers a year and this development would permit 23.5 million passengers a year by 2015 and 50 million a year by 2035.

Mr Vaile warned Labor against reversing the decision if it won government.

"Having gone through this application, having looked at the merits of it, and the benefits that it can provide, both economic and environmental ... any future government would be silly to try and tamper with or to try and overturn."

The runway was approved by federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The decision requires the BAC to set aside 285 hectares as biodiversity zones and construct a new nesting site for white-beJiied eagles.

This story was found at: http://news.smh. com. au/nationa//govt-jlags-brisbane-runway-to-shake-rudd-20070918-ljr.html

http:/ /news.smh.com. au! action/printArticle ?id=46071 6/03/2013

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY GOVERNMENT SENATORS

Senator Winston Crane

Senator Brett Mason

Overview

D 1.1 The Liberal members of the Committee, Senator Winston Crane and Senator Brett Mason note with approval that the Committee in its report agrees with expert legal opinion concerning the status of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan (paras. 2.44-2.46). This confirms that the view propounded by Mr Kevin Rudd MP and Mr Wayne Swan MP is incorrect. Liberal Senators also note with approval the Committee's conclusion that the Brisbane Airport Corporation fulfilled all its obligations under the Airports Act.

D 1.2 However, Liberal Senators note their disagreement with some conclusions of the report. Specifically, Senators Crane and Mason disagree with the view that there is any real or practical uncertainty in the Airports Act as to the status of a Master Plan and a Major Development Plan and the relationship between the two. The evidence of all practitioners in the field and the experience of all airport developments carried out under the Act thus far highlight not only the inherent workability of the legislation but also its certainty in practice. Liberal Senators observe that any uncertainty surrounding the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan was largely cultivated for political gam.

D 1.3 Liberal Senators also disagree with the proposition that the Brisbane Airport Corporation should have done more by way of public consultation than it was required to under the Act. Liberal Senators also question the observation that in those circumstances the Minister should have approved the draft Master Plan only after more adequate public consultation. Hence, Senators Crane and Mason cannot support Recommendations 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7. What follows is the Liberal Senators' evaluation of these points of disagreement with the conclusions of the majority of the Committee.

Background

D 1.4 On 23 August 1999 the Senate referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report:

"The development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway, with particular reference to:

a) whether the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) failed to adequately investigate all runway options, including the adequacy of the BAC's methodology for evaluation runway options, including the economic,

54

social (for example, comparative numbers of households affected by noise), environmental, public health and public safety impacts of each;

b) whether the BAC failed to release flight path information to the community and, if so, why;

c) the role of Airservices Australia and any conflict of interest which may exist between its BAC consultancy role and its obligation to provide advice to government;

d) the adequacy of public consultation undertaken by the BAC; and

e) why the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson) proceeded to endorse the BAC Master Plan."

D 1.5 The option of a western parallel runway was foreshadowed in the plans of the Brisbane Airport Advisory Committee as early as 1971. It was included in the Brisbane Airport's first Master Plan in 1983 and has been a part of subsequent Master Plans ever since. For almost 30 years the parallel runway was an uncontroversial part of the proposed development of the Brisbane Airport; it attracted little attention.

Dl.6 This all suddenly changed in 1998. A campaign against existing aircraft noise, in which Mr Kevin Rudd MP, Federal Member for Griffith, and Mr Wayne Swan MP, Federal Member for Lilley, played a leading role in the run-up to the 1996 federal election, became in the run-up to the 1998 federal election enmeshed with the campaign to dissuade the Minister for Transport and Regional Services from approving the BAC's Master Plan, which included a parallel runway. The issue of existing aircraft noise is not part of the committee's Terms of Reference. The valid concerns of residents affected by noise pollution around Brisbane Airport undoubtedly deserve a proper forum and an appropriate response. Their plight, however, is not helped by confusing separate issues and politically motivated scare-mongering.

D 1. 7 So what changed to suddenly make the parallel runway a controversial issue in Brisbane south-east and north-east suburbs after almost 30 years of silence? Evidence from Mr Rudd and Mr Swan was that what changed were the terms of the Airports Act 1996. According to Mr Rudd "[The Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 and the Air Navigation Act 1920 did] not contain any reference to Master Plans having any particular legal or administrative status. This is in radical contrast to the Airports Act which contains specific and elaborate provisions about not only the content of a Master Plan, but the grounds on which Master Plan can be approved and also the decisive role of a Master Plan in the overall decision-making process prior to actual runway construction." (Mr Rudd's submission, vol.2, p.l36, para 26.1) In essence, the argument ran, the Master Plan that had until this time simply been a planning document now became a document, which "decisively" bound the government.

Dl.8 According to Mr Rudd this "radically changed" (Committee Hansard, 10 December 1999, p.181) the legal status of the Master Plan and set in concrete the Master Plan's inclusion of a western parallel runway as the future development.

55

Dl.9 Both Mr Rudd and Mr Swan stood by their own selective (and hence incorrect) interpretation of the Act. In his submission to the inquiry Mr Rudd said:

"Section 94(5) of the Airports Act is important in defining the interrelationship between airport Master Plan and Major Development Plans. Section 94( 5) states "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" (my [Mr Rudd's] emphasis). In the case of the present debate about the future of Brisbane Airport, the implications of Section 94 (5) are as follows:

The final Master Plan that is currently in force for Brisbane Airport (approved by the Federal Minister in February 1999) recommends the construction of a western parallel runway. On the basis of Section 94 (5), this means that whatever subsequent major Development Plan is proposed by the BAC, the Minister must not approve such a Major Development Plan unless it is compatible with the Master Plan recommendation to construct a parallel runway." (Vol.2, Submission 92, p.126-7)

D 1.1 0 Mr Swan argued similarly in his submission to the inquiry:

"Despite the Minister's claims that the Master Plan did not set in concrete a parallel runway, it quickly became clear this was indeed the case. It should be noted that the 1998 Master Plan is unlike those which proceeded it. For the first time BAC flagged that additional airport capacity would be required by 2006. As such the option it proposed- the 01L/19R parallel runway- is a concrete proposal that is imminent. With construction likely to take three years a Major Development Plan will need to be prepared in the next 12 to 18 months. Since the Major Development Plan must be consistent with the approved Master Plan the proposed 01L/19R runway is now the only option on offer." (Vol.4, Submission 146, p.64) [emphasis added]

D 1.11 While Mr Rudd's and Mr Swan's understanding of the Master Plan under the Airports Act 1996 is incorrect (see below) that is not really the issue. The issue is why a former Director-General of the Queensland Cabinet Office and a former State Secretary of the Queensland ALP propounded their view in numerous articles and letters to the community and constituents without adequately checking on the legal status of the Master Plan. Mr Rudd launched a campaign not only without bothering to seek a legal opinion on the central point of his case, but also in the face of official government advice from Minister Anderson dated 18 February 1999 (as well as earlier advice from Minister Macdonald). Mr Rudd never took the time to seek advice to check what he sees as the "radical change" in law underlying his entire public campaign for this Senate inquiry.

The inquiry

D 1.12 The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry focus principally on the activities of the Brisbane Airport Corporation and its actions in adequately investigating runway options; releasing flight path information to the community; potential conflict of interest with Airservices Australia; adequacy of public consultation and, finally, the

56

Minister's reasons for endorsing the BAC's Master Plan. The Senate inquiry was to be focused on the question of consultation and provision of sufficient information and, thus, a meaningful choice for the residents affected by development. In Mr Rudd's own words:

"No alternative runways or flight paths have been advanced, and the proposition that the bulk of use ... of take-offs and landings will be over Moreton Bay again remains unproven. It is for these reasons and these reasons alone that, 18 months into the process, we have been left with no alternative but to advance a Senate inquiry to get to the truth of this matter. We require an independent examination against five sets of criteria of all the runway options which are possible." (House of Representatives, 23 August 1999) [emphasis added]

D 1.13 The opening statement of the Terms of Reference, however, sets the scene for much of the Committee's difficulty over the course of the inquiry: "The development of the Brisbane Airport's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway with particular reference to .... " [emphasis added] The embedded assumption (subsequently supported by much of the non-expert witness testimony given before the Committee) is that it is the Master Plan that finally determines the development of new runways. This is not borne out by the law.

D1.14 Not surprisingly then, considering the initial confusion, the inquiry to a very large extent has revolved around the question of the legal status and consequences of a Master Plan approved under the Airports Act. Essentially, Messrs Rudd and Swan argued that the approval of such Master Plan by the Minister sets in concrete development options for the airport, and any subsequent Major Development Plan cannot propose development that is inconsistent with the approved Master Plan.

D 1.15 The Department and the Brisbane Airport Corporation have argued consistently before as well as during the inquiry that section 78 of the Airports Act allows a Master Plan to be amended so that a Master Plan and a Major Development Plan are consistent. Thus any development options canvassed by the Master Plan approved by the Minister in February 1999 are by no means final.

Failure to seek legal advice

D 1.16 The views expressed by Messrs Rudd and Swan in the run up to the Inquiry are incorrect. They are based on the personal opinion of Mr Rudd and his staff, and on unspecified (and untendered) legal advice obtained by Mr Swan (Committee Hansard, 15 December 1999, p.l06, 107).

D 1.17 When discussing the interpretation of the Act in Parliament, Mr Rudd stated:

"[M]y reading of the act suggest that, if a master plan is approved, it fundamentally constraints the parameters within which the major development plan can be developed." (Adjournment speech, "Brisbane Airport Corporation", House Hansard, 11 February 1999, p.2607) [emphasis added]

57

D 1.18 Again, at the Committee hearing Mr Rudd was evasive in answering the question put to him as to whether he did obtain any independent legal advice to support his position. Mr Rudd said, in part:

"I am me. I am a private individual, I am a member of parliament and I have three staff The department of transport have thousands of staff, they have a legal division and they have the Australian Government solicitor to call upon. The Brisbane Airport Corporation is a billion-dollar-plus company and it has its own legal team. Then you have the resources of the Airservices Australia. What you are looking at here is me and 125,000 people whose livelihood I have a moral and legal responsibility to stand up for. This is what I am doing." (Committee Hansard, 10 December 1999, p.182-3)

Dl.19 Mr Rudd was notified as early as December 1998 that his interpretation of the Act was incorrect. Letters from Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald, Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (dated 24 December 1998) and from the Hon John Anderson MP, Minister for Transport and Regional Services (dated 18 February 1999) both clearly stated, in response to Mr Rudd's representations, that the BAC's Master Plan did not pre-empt a subsequent Major Development Plan. Both letters represented a consistent (and correct) legal position. While Mr Rudd is under no obligation to necessarily agree with the Department's interpretation of the Act, his actions in continuing to promote to the electorate his own personal opinion, without apparently obtaining any independent legal advice to check its accuracy, are less than might be expected from a responsible Member of Parliament.

Scare-mongering in the community

D 1.20 Despite receiving advice from Ministers Macdonald and Anderson, and despite a self-confessed failure to obtain legal advice to support his own personal interpretation, Mr Rudd has consistently presented this incorrect and incomplete view to the public over the course of the year prior to the inquiry (for the full text see the attached letters at the end of this chapter):

"The Minister, under the Act, has until25 February to either accept or reject the [master] plan. If he accepts, the Parallel Runway will be irreversible." (Mr Rudd' s letter to residents of Griffith, 10 December 1998) [emphasis added]

"A large part of [the discussion with the Federal Transport Minister] turned on the question of whether the Minister's decision on 23 February would be final. His advisers have argued that even after the approval of a Masterplan the Commonwealth Government will gave a 'second bite of the cherry' when the Major Development Plan (MDP) for the Airport is subsequently developed. I argued that under the Airport's Act 1996 if a Minister approved a Masterplan, it was impossible for the MDP to consider alternative runway options which were incompatible with those contained in the Masterplan." (Mr Rudd' s letter to residents of Griffith, 3 February 1999) [emphasis added]

58

"[Proceedings ofthe inquiry] confirmed my argument for some time nownamely that if the Master Plan approves a particular runway, it is not possible for the major development plan to recommend for approval a runway options which is inconsistent with the Master Plan." ("My evidence before the Senate inquiry" Kevin Rudd Reports, a column in the "South East Advertiser, 15 December 1999, p.4)

D 1.21 By presenting this incomplete and thus misleading picture of the legal status of the Master Plan, Mr Rudd created within the community a false understanding. He asserted that following Ministerial approval of the Master Plan the development of the parallel runway is now unavoidable. Mr Rudd has only told the people of his electorate half of the story - the half that was politically convenient to him. What he failed to mention was that preparation of a Major Development Plan (which is required under the Act before any construction work can commence) entails its own, very detailed and comprehensive consultation and assessment process, at the end of which the canvassed option might be deemed inappropriate and thus not receive Ministerial approval. More importantly, that the Master Plan itself can be amended if the need to do so arises.

D 1.22 There is no legal advice that has been either tendered to the Committee or obtained by the Committee that accords with the views expressed by Messrs Rudd and Swan as to the legal status of a Master Plan. Quite the contrary, the legal advice obtained by the Department of Transport and Regional Services (from the Senior General Counsel, Australian Government Solicitor) and the Brisbane Airport Corporation (from Mallesons Stephen Jacques) and presented to the inquiry, as well as legal advice obtained by the Committee from Professor Denis Pearce, clearly contradicts the selective presentation of the law by Mr Rudd and Mr Swan.

Does the approval of the Master Plan restrict development options?

D 1.23 The Committee Report states that "The proposition was put to the Committee in a number of submissions and by several witnesses that under the current legislation an approved Master Plan prevents the consideration of other development options" (para 2.25) and that "both Mr Swan and Mr Rudd asserted that s.94(5) of the Airports Act 1996 has the effect of preventing substantive changes to an approved Master Plan at the Major Development Plan stage." (para 2.31) [emphasis added] Both positions not only evidence a subtle shift of Messrs Rudd's and Swan's position in the face of overwhelming legal opinion to the contrary, but are also irrelevant to the issue at hand. This is for two reasons.

Dl.24 First, the production and approval of the Major Development Plan entails its own exhaustive process as specified under the Act. The Major Development Plan, being far more specific and detailed a document than the Master Plan (as it refers to a specific development at the airport), among other differences, involves much more extensive public consultation as well as a much greater onus to be satisfied by the airport developer in terms of issues such as environmental impact studies.

59

D 1.25 If for any reason the Minister, at the end of this extensive process, finds the specific development unacceptable he or she can withhold approval. It is, therefore, totally incorrect for Labor Senators to assert that the "assumed ... view of the principal participants in this debate is that the BAC, having an approved Master Plan, is entitled to proceed to construction in accordance with the Plan." (para 2.52) As previously argued, the Master Plan is a general planning document that canvasses, among other things, various development options for the airport over the next 20 years. It does not give airport developers any right to "proceed to construction."

D 1.26 The second reason is that the Master Plan itself can be amended (section 78) to canvass a different range of option for the next 20 years of the airport's operation. The Master Plan is in reality no more than an attempt at present to foresee and plan for the contingencies of the next two decades. With the pace of technological, economic and demographic change it is quite logical to assume that the Master Plan will need a more constant on-going revision than just once every five years as envisaged to occur under the Act under ordinary circumstances. Quite apart from that fact, considering the time frame involved, the next draft Master Plan, due in 2003, will almost certainly have to be developed and approved before any Major Development Plan examining a new runway is prepared.

D 1.27 Labor Senators have in fact acknowledged this reality by adding paragraph 5.14 to the Report, stating that since a staggered parallel runway is not an option canvassed under the Master Plan currently in force the BAC will have to amend the Master Plan before it produces a Major Development Plan for that option. By adding that paragraph Labor Senators acknowledge that there is very likely to be another two rounds of public consultation before any construction work begins - another Master Plan, and a specific Major Development Plan. This acknowledgment contrasts strongly with Labor's previous misplaced assertion that any particular option has been effectively set in stone.

Consultation

D 1.28 The Airports Act provides for "public comment" as part of preparations for the development of a Master Plan (section 79). No evidence was presented to the Committee that the BAC failed to fulfil its obligation under the Act. Quite the contrary, the Committee agrees that the BAC has done more than is required of it by way of consulting interested parties and the public generally. In particular the BAC has:

• conducted 51 personal meetings,

• distributed 100,000 brochures to residents,

• set up displays at 1 7 prominent locations around Brisbane,

• placed advertisements in "The Courier Mail" and seven Quest newspapers,

• set up a special telephone info line (The BAC submission to the inquiry, vol. 3, p.l71)

60

In light of this, the BAC's duty under the Act was more than fulfilled, showing the often heard cry of "no consultation" to be misplaced.

D 1.29 It is spurious to argue that the BAC was under some sort of "moral" obligation to do more, or that more was expected of it as a "responsible corporate citizen." Whether or not the law, as it currently stands, provides for appropriate levels of consultation is a question for separate debate. It is for the legislators to recognise that "legislation is deficient in the area" (para 3.49) - if that is indeed the case - and to remedy the situation appropriately. To criticise private individuals and organisations for failing to recognise the inadequacy of legislation and therefore failing to do more than the legislation requires is an example of bad faith. This sort of thinking makes mockery of the concept of certainty of the law.

Conclusion

D 1.30 The inquiry Report states:

"The Committee notes that under the Airports Act, an airport master plan is a planning document designed to identify the options for future development at an airport. However, the Committee is concerned that the Act is silent on a purpose statement for an airport master plan - one of the major deficiencies of the Airport Act is that it does not state the precise purpose and impact of a master plan, but clearly is open to interpretation. The absence of such a statement has led to significant confusion within the community and stakeholder groups about the purpose and status of airport master plans." (para 5.8)

D 1.31 Whether the Airports Act, on its reading by a lay person, is clear as to the legal status of a Master Plan and a Major Development Plan, and the inter-relationship between the two, is a matter for argument. It is, however, irrelevant to the current inquiry. There is no evidence whatsoever of any confusion from stakeholders directly connected with preparing and implementing the Master Plan - the Brisbane Airport Corporation, the Department, planners and legal advisers. There is also no evidence of confusion in any of the other seven Australia cities (including Melbourne, Perth and Townsville) where airport Master Plans have been prepared over the last three years in accordance with the Airports Act.

D 1.32 While Mr Rudd might argue that he is a "private individual" the standard required of him as federal parliamentarian is much higher than that of an average person reading the Act. Given that the validity of the whole inquiry essentially hinged on the question of the legal status of the Master Plan, someone in Mr Rudd's position of responsibility and public trust should have sought advice in order to clarify the situation, instead of calling for a Senate inquiry for that purpose. Even assuming that there exists some legal uncertainty surrounding the Airports Act (and there is no evidence of that) it was reckless of Mr Rudd, the former Director General of the Queensland Cabinet Office, to demand an inquiry to resolve an issue that would have been settled for him by any competent lawyer had he chosen to seek legal advice. The

61

resources of the Senate and the Committee - both financially and in terms of time -have been largely wasted in this crude political exercise.

D 1.33 It is arguable that whatever public confusion exists regarding the legal status of the Master Plan it has been to a large extent, if not wholly, created within the community by Messrs Rudd and Swan. Without the benefit of independent legal advice, they proceeded to make airport re-development a political issue, and stirred up public sentiment by misinforming the residents of their electorates as to the legal status of the Master Plan. This was done in order to scare the electorate and create anti-Government sentiment in the run-up to Federal election.

Dl.34 Mr Rudd's and Mr Swan's campaign seems even more ironic in light of the fact that the Airports Act 1996 was originally drafted by the ALP. While it was enacted by the Coalition Government after coming to power in 1996, it was done with the complete support of the Labor Opposition.

D 1. 3 5 This Inquiry has achieved nothing for the residents in the electorates of Griffith and Lilley, except to prolong uncertainty and contribute to public confusion. In the end, the construction teams are not ready to move - and for quite some time yet. The residents concerned about the impact of airport redevelopment will be given ample opportunity to put their views across when the Major Development Plan is being considered.

Dl.36 In the meantime, by sowing confusion in the community Mr Rudd and Mr Swan have succeeded in fermenting public dissatisfaction for their own political ends, and causing fear and uncertainty to rise as the property values in their electorates have dropped. If this is what goes for credible and sensible political representation, then the electors of Griffith and Lilley have been badly let down by people in the highest positions of public trust.

Approach to Addressing Issues Raised in Submissions

In categorising and responding to comments made by submitters on the Draft EIS/MDP, the approach taken in the Supplementary Report is to group and respond to substantive issues raised in the submissions under the main

chapter headings of the Draft EIS/M DP

Accordingly, Chapters 3-6 of this Supplementary Report are organised under each of the four Draft EIS/MDP volumes:

All validly made submissions received during the public comment period were reviewed by BAC and common issues

raised were grouped (where practicable) to form the substantive issues addressed in this Supplementary Report.

As shown in the Table of Contents, Chapters 3-6 of the Report have been divided into the various Chapters (A 1, A2,

A3 ... ) under each Volume. Under each Chapter section, is a list of one or more issue-based sub-sections.

For some Chapters of the Draft EIS/MDP there were no corresponding issues raised by submitters. In these cases, no

change to the Draft EIS/MDP is required and reference to these Chapters does not appear in the Table of Contents.

For issues that relate to multiple chapters within a Volume (for example concern by a submitter about water quality as

addressed in Chapter BB, its impact on ecology covered in Chapter B5 and the proposed water quality monitoring

programme outlined in Chapter B 14), a lead or main chapter is identified for the issue and related chapters and

sections are cross-referenced.

3.1 Submission Identifiers

To create a link between the individual submitters and the issues raised in their submissions, each of the 196

submissions received during the public notification period for the Draft EIS/MDP were allocated a Submitter ID

number and entered into a database.

A list of all the submitters and their corresponding ID number are listed in section 3.3.

In characterising the author of the submission received, submitters were further identified as being representative of

four major groups:

• Community. Consisting of individuals making submissions as residents or small business owners.

• Government. Consisting of submissions from the Australian Government, the Queensland State Government and local governments such as Brisbane City Council.

• Non-Government Organisations (NGO). Consisted of submissions lodged on behalf of an organisation or group. Submitters from this category included the groups representing residents in a particular suburb, conservation groups, and industry groups such as the commercial fishing association for Moreton Bay.

• Elected Representatives. Consisting of submissions from local government Councillors, State Government Members of Parliament and Federal Members of Parliament.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP I SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT- APRIL 2007 Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited I ABN 54 076 870 650

3.2 Template Layout of the Supplementary Report

As outlined above, under each Chapter heading, there are issue-based sub-sections that make up the body of this

Supplementary Report For each of these, a standard template has been applied which identifies the submitter issue and provides a response to the issue raised.

To assist in reading Chapters 3-6 of the Supplementary Report, a description of the headings and information contained within this standard template is included below:

Issue:

<<eg. Runway Separation- describes the issue as raised by the submissions>>

EIS reference:

<<Lists the relevant chapter(s) and sections of Draft EIS/MDP where this issue is discussed>>

<<This section also includes background text outlining the issue to be addressed, the submitter who raised them and identification of related issues addressed elsewhere in the Supplementary Report>>

Submitter Issues:

<<Lists specific comments, concerns or recommendations in dot point form as made by submitters with respect to the issue>>

<<For complex or multi-faceted issues, the dot points are grouped into sub-headings>>

<<For issues that have a large number of submitters attributed, reference is made at the end of each dot point to the proportion of submitters that made comment on the issue i.e. '3/12' at the end of a dot point comment means 3 of the total of 12 submitters on the issue raised the particular sub-issue>>

Raised by:

<<This table cross-references the Submitter ID Number (refer discussion in section 3.2 above) with the issue raised and provides the reader information about both the total number of submitters for the issue and the breakdown of submitters between the four stakeholder groups>>

BAC response:

<<This section includes the response to the issue raised in the 'Submitter Issues' section above. This will generally be separated into sub-headings to assist in readability. The responses have been prepared by BAC and its consultant team>>

Addition/Omission to Draft EIS/MDP:

<<This section indicates either:

a. No change is proposed to the Draft EIS/MDP based on the issue raised and response; or

b. That the Draft EIS/MDP is to be modified through adding or omitting information and if so, listing the relevant section where the change is proposed>>

<Note that additions or omissions to the Draft EIS/MDP are shown in red coloured text to assist the reader in identifying proposed changes>


3.3 Draft EIS/MDP Submission Identifiers

• Represents 66 signatories " Represents 112 signatories

Moreton Island 193

Protection

Committee

Dodd

Hafner

Joseph &

Marie

Rupert

Keith

Council

On behalf of 207**

Nudgee Beach

Residents

Moreton Bay 143

Environmental

Alliance

194

Brisbane City 114

Council

OLD Tourism

Industry Council

215

164


Keep Sandgate

Beautiful

Queensland

Conservation

Council

Alliance Airlines

Pty Ltd

Study Group

Port of Brisbane

Corporation

Council

State

Government

Australian

Catholic

University

Brisbane Campus

State

Development

Co-ordinator

General's Office

183

41

153

201

221

242


Purcell MP Patrick

Rawlinson Peter

Reichmann Keith

Roberts MP Neil

Singfield Jennifer

Singfield Jennifer

Smith Julie &

Graham

Sutton Shayne

Association

Queensland

Government

Pine Rivers Shire

Council

Department of

Primary Industries

Queensland

Government

Queensland

Government

Australian

Government

Australian Marine

Conservation

Society (Moreton

Bay Branch)

Tinchi Tamba

WPSQ

Airservices

Australia

Brisbane City

Council

Taylor Matthew

188

Templeman Craig

185

191

127

184

155

166

30

203

141

Government

Pinkenba State

School

Air Freight

Council of

Queensland Ltd

Residents

Association of

Moorooka

Moreton Bay

Seafood Industry

Association

Brisbane North

Development

Forum

Nudgee Banyo

Northgate

Citizens Action

Inc.

NEW PARALLEL RUNWAY DRAFT EIS/MDP I SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT~ APRIL 2007 Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited I ABN 54 076 870 650

156

226

78

113

223

92

125

231

Courier Mail 26-05-2006

FISHERMEN, still bitter at being thrown out of their Cribb Island homes to make way for Brisbane Airport in the 1980s, now fear losing one of their few remaining fishing spots.

A petition and protest meeting to oppose plans to fill in Jackson's Creek as part of the second runway development is planned for this weekend.

Banyo Fishing Club president Graham Glover, who learned to fish while growing up in the area, said filling in the creek-- which runs from the mouth of Nudgee Canal into airport land-- would destroy vital mangrove breeding grounds and highly productive local fishing and crabbing spots.

"The fishing's been off around here since they put the airport in and Jacko's is about the only place where you can still get a decent feed," he said.

Mr Glover said many of the club's 25 members as well as hundreds of families used the creek every week and some camped on the banks while crabbing with their children.

"Every second person round here caught their first fish in Jacko's and they're just going to wipe the place out and kill everything in there," he said.

Runway project manager Cam Spencer said a detailed environmental impact study was being conducted and would be released in September.

He said local concerns about stocks in the area were unfounded, but an identified sea eagle's nest would be relocated.

"I understand that we will be undertaking a process of removing and re-releasing everything we can in the upper reaches of the creek," he said.

Mr Spencer said authorities would continue to "allow access" in the rest of Jackson's Creek after it was filled by 2009.

The Banyo Fishing Club will meet at the Nudgee Boat ramp, Nudgee Rd, at 8am on Sunday

ENDS

Courier Mail 29-05-2006

ANGRY locals have vowed to fight to the end Brisbane Airport's plans to fill in Jackson's Creek as part of the second runway development.

About 100 protesters gathered at Nudgee boat ramp yesterday morning to form an action group to inform the community about the airport corporation's plans, which they say will severely damage the local environment.

Banyo Fishing Club president Graham Glover said the area the airport corporation intended to wipe out by 2009 to make way for the new runway was a highly popular local fishing spot and seafood breeding ground.

Mr Glover said the fishing club's hastily organised petition contained several hundred names.

Local councillor Kim Flesser said he and local state and federal Labor members Neil Roberts and Wayne Swan were in favour of moving the runway SOOm closer to the existing tarmac.

He said the present distance of 2000m between the two was intended to allow for future development of shops rather than for than safety issues.

Mr Flesser conceded that locals were fighting an uphill battle: "But if we do nothing then they'll just go ahead and do exactly what they want".

ENDS

Labor undecided on Brisbane Airport curfew- ABC News (Australian Broadcasting C ... Page 1 of 1

Labor undecided on Brisbane Airport curfew Posted Wed Sep 19, 20071:41pm AEST

The Labor Party says it will not be rushed into deciding whether or not to push for a curfew at Brisbane Airport.

The Federal Government yesterday approved a second runway and some community groups are calling for a flight curfew to minimise noise.

MAP: Brisbane 4000

Map data ©2013 GBRMPA, Google

Labor treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says the party will weigh up all the information before it makes a decision.

"The Airport Corporation is claiming the level of noise would not justify a curfew," he said.

"When we see what happens with the airport and it's impact, we'll either lobby for a curfew or not. It's that simple."

But Liberal frontbencher Mal Brough says Kevin Rudd cannot make a tough decision.

"If you have a stand, you actually commit to something," he said.

"Here we have a local issue- something important to Brisbane.

"He doesn't say unequivocally 'I will bring in a curfew, I will take a stand.' He says 'ah look, I will investigate it'."

Topics: alp, air-transport, government-and-politics, federal-government, brisbane-4000

http:/ /www.abc.net.au/news/2007 -09-19/labor-undecided-on-brisbane-airport -curfew/6... 6/03/2013

Print Article: New runway for Brisbane airport approved

New runway for Brisbane airport approved Published: November 13, 2008- 4:35AM

The federal government has approved the construction of a Advertisement new runway at Brisbane airport. Access Denied Transport Minister Mark Vaile said the development would take approximately eight years and cost $1 billion.

It would also generate about 2700 jobs, Mr Vaile said.

"The commonwealth government is granting approval to the major development plan that has been put forward by Brisbane Airports Corporation," Mr Vaile told reporters.

The project entails construction of a 3600 metre runway that will operate parallel to the existing main runway at the airport.

The airport plan will affect the electorates offederal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and his treasury spokesman Wayne Swan.

Page 1 of2

Mr Vaile said Mr Rudd was elected as member for Griffith after conducting a long fight against the airport expansion plan.

"T understand when the Brisbane Airports Corporation was engaging in their community consultation process and before the closing date arrived for submissions, they actually had to contact Mr Rudd and encourage him to put a submission in," he said.

"That would indicate that it was being used as an issue for political gain at the time rather than any genuine consideration that Mr Rudd had for people living under the flight paths."

Mr Vaile said the government took the issue of aircraft noise very seriously.

But he said Brisbane was not the same as Sydney where suburbs abutted the airport boundaries.

Mr Vaile said this would not necessarily mean more aircraft over Mr Rudd's electorate.

"The most affected seat is probably Lilley," he said.

"There will obviously always be aircraft operations from time to time over those suburbs in and around the airport in Brisbane. This provides an opportunity to get more of them over water," he said.

Mr Vaile said Brisbane airport current handled 16-17 million passengers a year and this development would permit 23.5 million passengers a year by 2015 and 50 million a year by 2035.

He said the new separated runway, akin to Changi in Singapore, would allow aircraft to land simultaneously in opposite directions and allow flight paths to operate over Moreton Bay at night.

Under some circumstances, there would be no air traffic over the Brisbane central business district or neighbouring suburbs, he said.

Mr Vaile said it was likely that aircraft noise could be controlled without having to implement a curfew at the airport.

http://www. theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=280781 6/03/2013

Print Article: New runway for Brisbane airport approved Page 2 of2

"This development should enable Brisbane to continue to grow, allowing for sensible mitigation of aircraft noise without having to implement a curfew," he said.

Mr Vaile said based on the economic and environmental merrits of the development any future government would be "silly" to overturn it.

"Having gone through this application, having looked at the merits of it, and the benefits that it can provide both economic and environmental... any future government would be silly to try and tamper with or to try and over turn (it)."

AAP

This story was found at: http:/lwww.theage.eom.au/trave/ltravel-news/new-runway-for-brisbane-airport-approved-20081113-60nh.html

http://www. theage.com.au/action/printArticle?id=280781 6/03/2013

Print Article: Rudd's car dealer friend helped pay legal bill Page 1 of2

Rudd' s car dealer friend helped pay legal bill

Richard Baker, Philip Dorling and Nick McKenzie Published: June 25, 2009- I :57PM

The businessman at the centre ofthe OzCar affair was involved in fund-raising efforts to help Prime Minister Kevin Rudd meet a $32,000 legal bill.

For several days, The Age has sought a response from Mr Rudd over whether Brisbane car dealer John Grant and other members of Brisbane's elite 51 Club filled two tables at a May 2002 dinner to raise money to help Mr Rudd pay legal costs associated with a campaign on aircraft noise at Brisbane airport.

The Age also asked Mr Rudd whether he had raised Mr Grant's business interests regarding the importation of white-goods to Australia while on any ofhis trips to China.

But Mr Rudd's office has refused to discuss either matter, with his spokesman saying:"All of Mr Rudd's interactions with Mr Grant have been entirely appropriate."

Advertisement

Access Denied

Mr Grant is believed to be the president of the high-powered Brisbane club. Mr Rudd is listed as a member, alongside businessmen, politicians and military figures.

The opposition has been questioning whether Mr Grant, who supplies Mr Rudd with a ute to use in his electorate, has received special attention under the OzCar financing scheme for car dealers.

A 51 Club member present at the 2002 event at Brisbane's high-class Italian Otello on Oxford restaurant has told The Age that Mr Grant and other business figures connected with the club organised to fill two tables at the fund -raising event being hosted by community group Ban Aircraft over Residential Brisbane (BARB).

"I didn't think it was a secret," the 51 Club member told The Age. "There were a couple of tables organised by business people including John Grant. There were probably about 30 or 40 tables at the event."

It is believed members of the 51 Club also bought auction items at the event to assist with fund-raising efforts.

Mr Rudd's spokesman said the BARB group had covered the Prime Minister's legal costs incurred in his protracted legal battle against the Brisbane Airport Corporation over a proposed second parallel runway that would lead to an increase in aircraft noise for his electorate.

"These legal costs amounted to $32,396.03 ... (and) were disclosed in the registry of members' interests on 2 September 2003, and were also referenced by Mr Rudd in Parliament on 11 August 2003," he said.

Mr Rudd's 2003 declaration of interest referred to the payment of his legal bills by BARB, but did not reveal details of contributors to the fund-raising campaign.

Mr Rudd's spokesman suggested Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was responsible for the information about the role ofMr Grant and the 51 Club in the 2002 fund-raising event.

"lfMr Turnbull is alleging anything else, then he should put his allegations on the public record, and put his name to them," he said.

Mr Grant did not return calls.

http://www. watoday. com. au/ action!printArticle ?id=603 55 9 6/03/2013

Youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRYDIVm3kWY&feature=player embedded#!

Rudd: "I've never argued that Brisbane Airport should not be expanded. I've always argued

that the debate lay where and how it should be expanded and what the BAC have done

from day one is just plum for one option, that is, the western parallel runway despite the

fact that that is the option that delivers the worst impact to the surrounding communities

and I represent one of those communities."

Questioner: "Well what are the other options?"

Rudd: "Well the ones that we've always argued that they should properly test are an

eastern parallel runway, an enhanced cross run way, or furthermore a parallel cross runway

out into the bay. What they've never done- they've never had the guts to do to be quite

honest- is provide a cost impact analysis of what would be the financial cost of each of

those construction proposals, what would be the aviation impact in terms of how the

airport would operate, but on top of that what would be the relevant impact for noise for

the surrounding communities. They've never done that so we don't have a comparative

basis for looking at which in fact of these four possible options would be best for the future

overall."

Questioner: "So it would be quite possible to have a Sydney-style or Hong Kong-style

runway right into the sea- right into Moreton Bay?"

Rudd: "We argued right from the beginning that that's what they should have tested against

the other options and I never said at that stage that one option was necessarily better than

the other. What I did say is that we didn't have any data to make any such judgement and

anyone credibly looking at such a big development as this which has huge economic

implications for the city, for the state, such huge social implications for the people that I am

paid to represent, we needed that data to make an intelligent decision. They never

produced that data, neither did the Federal Government through the various transport

Ministers of the Howard Government. As a result, they have gone for this option, they've

now got it legally approved, it's been reinforced in the courts, and therefore the position I

now find myself in is not one of opposing the construction of this runway now, because I've

lost that action in the courts, but instead to seek to minimise its impact now as far as noise

for Brisbane's south side is concerned."

Questioner: "Now the Brisbane Airport Corporation argued two things. Firstly, that there's a

Skm buffer zone between the end of the runway and any residential houses so therefore

planes will be well into the air or still in the air over residences and the noise would be

minimal. They also argue that aircraft are getting progressively quieter. Do you accept those

arguments, or not?"

Rudd: "Not at face value no and part of the reason for it is that I've learnt over a long period

of time not to accept anything at face value that the BAC has had to say. For example a long

time ago they said that we should all be happy with this western parallel runway because it

will enable the corporation to run what is called simultaneous operations over the bay. That

is that aircraft would come in over the water on one run way and depart over the water on

the other runway- that is, the parallel runway. Well ifthat was the case we'd all pop our

champagne corks and go home. The truth is, and they knew it was the truth at the time, is

that weather conditions and wind conditions don't permit that and for a large slice of the

time will therefore have operations over the suburbs as well. It's for these reasons that I'm

quite distrustful ofthese sort of ball statements that the BAC have to make because I think

they are more driven by public relations concerns than the actual truth of the impact of

what happens on the ground if you're on your back veranda at Bulimba, Hawthorne, Cannon

Hill, Morningside, Coorparoo or the other tens of thousands of households that will

potentially be affected by this."

Questioner: "Now you're concerned about some procedural issues at the moment, one of

which is that the Air Services Australia and the Brisbane Airport Corporation publish the new

flight paths so that people can at least see what they have to argue about and secondly that

there is sufficient community consultation. Are you worried that this will be a rushed

process?"

Rudd: "I am concerned about how deep this consultation will be. If BAC for example, the

airport corporation is saying 'look Kevin, don't worry, it's all going to be fine, a Skm buffer

zone, there will be no impact over your suburbs.' Well my response to that is 'okay guys,

show us the draft flight paths. Where are they going to go? If you think it will be innocuous

in its impact let all the people that I represent know precisely where these plans are going to

go.' Then you see the blood visibly drain from their face when you put that proposal to

them. I will be very interested to see what draft flight path information they actually put out

to the community. I've told them that I expect it to be real, to be concrete to show where

the plans are going to go so that people in the community can react in a knowledgeable

way. Not just some glossy brochure which says 'planes will take off towards the south'."

Questioner: "There has been, there is a view amongst some in the community that if you

translate the existing flight paths 2km west-ward there the other runway would be, that

there would be planes coming in over suburbs such as Hamilton and Ascot and so on. Is

there credence in that view?"

Rudd: "Well at this stage we just don't know how they are going to operate it- which of

these two new runways is going to be used in benign weather conditions used for takeoffs

and which is going to be used for landing, which will be used for operations towards Sydney

and Melbourne and which will be used for operations towards ports in North Queensland

and East Asia. All of this is up in the air at the moment so frankly, flight paths are this stage

could well go anywhere. That's why all people in the community, north of the river, south of

the river, should have available to them this basic information that they are in a position to

provide an intelligent response to the government about what the impact will be for them

and their schools and their community organisations and their churches."

Questioner: "Finally, BAC says the Skm buffer zone between the edge of the runway and the

residences should be enough to address concerns of overhead aircraft noise. Is that

credible?"

Rudd: "I don't believe it is credible that's why I remain active in this fight. I've lost the fight

to stop the parallel runway, that was defeated in the courts, I spent years fighting it in the

courts, my job now is to minimise the impact ofthis thing onthe residents who I am paid to

represent. But when they say that Skm should be fine and dandy they are about to bring

these things called VLA's- very large aircraft- BAC tell you that they are going to be

quieter. Well, I remain to be convinced how an aircraft with double the carrying capacity of

a 747 is going to be quieter than a 737. I mean, pardon me for being sceptical, I grew up in

the country, I went to a State School and maybe I just haven't learnt to read and write yet,

but I am a little sceptical about those bald face propositions and the other thing is the sheer

volume of aircraft movements are such that however they use this runway in the future an

increasing physical number of flights will be made over the suburbs, both south and north of

the river. My job is to act as the communities representative and I intend to do that to the

bitter end."

ENDS

queensland parliament · a draft master plan for the airport, which included the recommendation for...

Documents