2016-02-11
Senator RICE: I wanted to ask about the Melbourne Airport third-runway proposal and how that is rolling out. I understand that the airport's 2013 master plan lays out the third-runway proposition, amongst many other plans for the airport. Specifically, is there going to be a new environmental impact statement carried out for that aspect of the airport?
Mr Wilson: I will start and then Ms Horrocks might add some more detail. In regards to the additional runway, you are correct; it is in the approved master plan. It has been in the airport's master planning documents for some considerable time. They have now selected the orientation of the runway. There are currently in the process of developing their major development plan—the documents associated with the actual construction of the runway, for the minister's consideration. As part of that process, that document will incorporate the environmental impacts of the construction of the runway and will go out for consultation. I am advised that that document, including a full, detailed environmental assessment, will go out sometime later this year, with the expectation of a document to be considered by the minister for his approval in, I think, the second quarter of 2017.
Senator RICE: Will the environmental assessment included in that major development plan be as detailed as a full environmental impact statement—
Mr Wilson: Yes.
Senator RICE: and have the same criteria and the same processes being assessed?
Mr Mrdak: It is done under the EPBC processes.
Senator RICE: All right. So essentially you are saying there will be a new environmental impact statement included as part of that major development plan?
Mr Mrdak: That is right.
Senator RICE: Good. Some of the residents will be happy to know that. Last estimates, we discussed the interplay between Avalon and Melbourne airports, and your advice was that Avalon and Melbourne were operating in different markets and you referred to the Melbourne Airport master plan as the guide to that. But I am wondering about the way that the aviation white paper of 2009 lays it out; is that relevant?
Mr Wilson: With all due respect, Senator, I actually do not recall what the words in the aviation white paper of 2009 referenced between the two airports, so I cannot honestly answer the question.
Senator RICE: I will help you out. The 2009 aviation white paper said: … Avalon Airport largely serves the same market as Melbourne Airport and will be treated as part of the greater Melbourne market.
Mr Wilson: That is correct.
Senator RICE: So you still concur with that statement?
Mr Wilson: As it is written, yes, Senator.
Senator RICE: I am interested, then, in how the infrastructure at Avalon will be taken into account as part of that assessment of the additional runway at Melbourne Airport—given that they are largely serving the same market—in terms of the need for that third runway.
Mr Wilson: Whilst they serve the same market, they are competing airports. In terms of Melbourne Airport's operating capacity, it is getting to the point where it believes it needs, and it warrants, additional capacity. So, in that sense, the capacity that is available at Avalon will not, I do not believe—without having seen the document— be referenced in the Melbourne Airport third-runway major development plan.
Senator RICE: Even though they are serving the same market? That does not seem right. If you have these two airports serving the same market, for meeting capacity it seems very relevant to me.
Mr Wilson: But they are competing entities. They compete within the same marketplace.
Senator RICE: They may compete but, in terms of the need for a third runway, they are both providing capacity.
Senator Colbeck: Coles and Woolworths serve the same market but then they compete in the market. It is a decision for them as to whether—
Senator RICE: They are not major city-shaping infrastructure.
Senator Colbeck: Actually, I do not see how they are not. They are both commercial operations and they will make decisions as to whether they need additional infrastructure.
Senator RICE: But it is up to the government—
Senator Colbeck: Melbourne Airport has quite clearly made a decision that it wants additional infrastructure, so it is proceeding down that track.
Senator RICE: With respect, the government clearly has a role in regulation of whether we need to have major airport expansion, whether you have competing airports or not. So I cannot see why extra capacity at Avalon is not being taken into account when considering the need for extra capacity at Melbourne Airport.
Mr Mrdak: While Avalon Airport serves the broader Geelong market and part of the Melbourne market, Avalon itself is a limited facility—a single runway, very limited terminal and unimproved facilities.
Senator Colbeck: And there is clearly demand for access to Melbourne Airport. That is a—
Senator RICE: That may be the case. It may be that when you look at this capacity you say there is clearly the need for it, but what I am questioning is whether that capacity at Avalon will be taken into account in terms of the assessment at Melbourne.
Mr Mrdak: Certainly when you look at the growth of Melbourne and at the projections for the growth of Melbourne, you can see that Melbourne will need additional runways at Tullamarine as well as Avalon. If you look at, say, the greater Brisbane area you will see that Brisbane is now completing its parallel runway. At the same time you have had expansions of the Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast. That simply reflects the growth of operations in that—
Senator RICE: Mr Mrdak, you are making an assessment to say that, yes, there is the need for this extra capacity. My question is whether that assessment of the broader capacity of both airports, including Avalon, will be considered as part of the assessment in terms of the need for a third runway.
Mr Wilson: I would have to check in terms of the regulations and the requirements that are in place. As I said, I will take it on notice. But I do not believe that there is a regulatory requirement for Melbourne airport, in the development of its major development plan, to take into account capacity offered by another airport.
Senator RICE: Even in the same market?
Mr Wilson: Even in the same market. As I said, I will check, but I do not believe—
Mr Mrdak: Having said that, as you are aware, in any environmental impact statement we do look at options and alternatives. Melbourne airport will have to look at how it sits vis-a-vis the total market as part of any options assessment as part of an EIS.
Senator RICE: Can we have a commitment for that to occur, on behalf of the residents who are represented here tonight?
Mr Mrdak: That will depend on the guidelines that are in place at the time. Normally you do look at options assessments as part of the environmental impact statement.
CHAIR: It is probably that real estate is worth more than landing aircraft