Andrew Leigh

I spoke in parliament today about the changing media landscape, and its impact on those journalists who live in my electorate.

The Changing Media Landscape
21 June 212

I rise to speak about the policy and personal implications of changes in the media. In 1970 there were more daily newspapers sold than televisions in Australia; now for every daily newspaper sold there are four televisions. We used to say of the political coverage in Australia that the media cycle had become a cyclone, but that cyclone now seems to be sweeping across the journalists themselves. My heart goes out to the 1,900 Fairfax journalists whose jobs have been lost in the recent restructure. I am particularly aware of this, representing the north side of the ACT—the ACT being the jurisdiction probably more affected by media losses than anywhere else.

For many other people in this place, they probably only see journalists in the press gallery when they are working, but, as a local member of parliament, I can assure the House that journalists are very much part of the Canberra community. Without naming any names, I am thinking of the Age journalist who lives around the corner from me and whose kids we often play with at the local park, of the News Ltd Sundays journalist who often approaches me to discuss issues about local schools, of the Canberra Times journalist who is working to raise money for maternal health overseas, and of a Sky journalist who recently joined me on a fundraising run to raise money for local charities. Put another way, journalists are people too. The decline of the Canberra press gallery, from 283 working journalists in 1990 to around 190 now, has significant implications on a personal level and on a policy level.

I commend the minister for communications for commissioning the Finkelstein Media Inquiry and Convergence Review, which grapple with some of the issues in a changing media landscape, and I commend the member for Wentworth and the Minister for Communications on joining together to call on Gina Rinehart to sign the Fairfax Media Charter of Editorial Independence.

The concerns about Mrs Rinehart's involvement with Fairfax stem mainly from the concern that she may not be solely concerned with maximising the revenue of the brand. Magnates have of course owned media before but, unlike other media moguls, most of Mrs Rinehart's ownership is not in media, and that raises questions about how mining issues would be reported were Mrs Rinehart to take control of Fairfax. I call on Mrs Rinehart to sign the Fairfax Media Charter of Editorial Independence, which says, in part, ‘full editorial control of the newspapers, within agreed budgets, shall be vested in the editors.  They alone shall determine editorial content and appoint, dismiss, deploy and direct editorial staff.’ Labor's concern with Mrs Rinehart's involvement in the media is that it may threaten our democracy itself and the vibrancy of views that are so essential to an open society.

On Sky AM Agenda this morning, I spoke with host David Lipson and Liberal MP Kelly O’Dwyer. We discussed Gina Rinehart’s refusal to sign the Fairfax Charter of Editorial Independence, the reforms needed to put the Eurozone back on track, why Australia shouldn’t be ashamed of our economic strength, and the fact that Australia will this year join 25 other OECD countries in putting a price on carbon. At one point, Kelly O’Dwyer incorrectly claimed that the Australian carbon price is economy-wide, when in fact it covers around 60% of domestic emissions (you can argue about whether that’s good or bad, but it’s the simple fact).http://www.youtube.com/embed/bS7Hkzi0ZTc

I spoke in parliament last night about the late Frank Walker.

Frank Walker
19 June 2012

Frank Walker did more in public life than many of us can ever hope to do. During his time he suffered more than any of us probably ever will. He lost his two sons, Michael and Sean, to suicide. Both died at age 33, and he found both of them. But he contributed an extraordinary amount to our public life. He spent his first years in a Coogee housing commission home. His family moved to New Guinea in 1948 after his father, Jack Walker—a brickworks dragger and a member of the Communist Party of Australia—was black-listed. He was a campaigner for the underdog, and perhaps part of that was formed by those early years in Papua New Guinea, sitting alongside indigenous children in coastal villages.

In 1950s Australia, at the age of 13, he staged his first political act, sitting with segregated Aboriginals at the Sawtell picture theatre. He joined Charlie Perkins on the freedom ride to Mooree in 1965. He devoted decades of his life to public life, and it was in the latter years that I first came to know him. At university I decided I would write a paper on the New South Wales left. Frank was generous enough to give me two hours of his time sitting in his electorate office. I look back on my notes today and see that on 22 April 1994 I went to the Robertson electorate office and sat with him, talking through some of the old stories of the faction. Perhaps the one that caught me the most was when Jack Ferguson - the member for Werriwa's father - stepped down as Deputy Premier and there was a question as to whether Frank would succeed him. He did not. In somewhat controversial circumstances he was beaten out in that internal ballot.

He was a full participant in some of those very difficult times for the left. He voted for Paul Keating in both the leadership ballots and ran for the ministry without the support of the left. But he took stands on principle. When Prime Minister Bob Hawke spoke on the Iraq war, Frank Walker was one of a handful of members who left the chamber, earning themselves substantial opprobrium in the process.

I remember Frank very much as being generous with his time with me, a young whippersnapper and surely the least important thing on his agenda, but it was a reminder of how those of us in public life should behave when people come to learn from us. I enjoyed very much the story Senator Faulkner told in the other place about when he arrived in his office in Sussex Street to receive a Christmas present from Frank Walker—a New South Wales ALP rule book with every page blank because, as Frank's annotation read, the Sussex Street machine just ignored the party rules anyway. Senator Faulkner has lodged Frank's Christmas present in the National Archives of Australia.

My friend Macgregor Duncan, a family friend of Frank's, said the following:

‘… I would say that Frank lived his life with great dignity and nobility. As has been well documented, he suffered great sorrow and sadness in his life, enough to make most of us resign in despair and unjustified guilt. But Frank never gave into those emotions. He summoned the will to rise above it all. He was loyal, generous and kind to his friends. And he was an exemplary parliamentarian and minister. For a man who'd had so much taken from him, he gave so much back to his friends, family, community and country. And in a democracy, where we collectively rely on the private exertions of our public leaders, it's important that we celebrate those contributions when so noble and hard-fought.’

Vale Frank Walker.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8mDsjYhQAQ

Peter van Onselen hosted Kelly O'Dwyer and me on his Showdown program last night. We talked about the excellent performance of the Australian economy under the guidance of the Gillard Government's economic team, the real spending cuts in the latest budget, and the worldwide move towards carbon pricing.

At one point in the interview, we discuss spending changes in the latest budget. From 2011-12 to 2012-13, spending rose from $373.7B to $376.3B. Kelly O'Dwyer argued that this should be seen as an increase, but when you take inflation into account, it's actually a 1.8% fall in real government spending. Put another way, government spending as a percentage of GDP fell from 25.3% to 24.3%. In over 20 years in office, the Fraser and Howard Governments never once cut real government spending.http://www.youtube.com/embed/5HNKs0pTt90

I spoke in parliament last night about the tax switch on 1 July, which will see taxes rise for polluters and fall for many workers. I also mentioned the Leader of the Opposition's pythonesque scare campaign.

Carbon Pricing
18 June 2012

A few years ago a Prime Minister of Australia said the following:

‘Implementing an emissions trading scheme and setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most momentous economic decisions Australia will take in the next decade. … This is a great economic challenge for Australia as well as a great environmental challenge. Significantly reducing emissions will mean higher costs for businesses and households, there is no escaping that and anyone who pretends otherwise is not a serious participant in this hugely important public policy debate. It will change the entire cost structure of the economy. We must get this right; if we get this wrong it will do enormous damage to our economy, to jobs and to the economic wellbeing of ordinary Australians, especially low-income households.’

Of course Prime Minister John Howard was just reflecting conventional economic wisdom when he said this in 2007. The first emissions trading scheme blueprints were produced in the 1990s.

On 1 July 2012, Australia will undergo a significant tax reform. Taxes on polluters will rise and taxes on all workers earning less than $80,000 a year will fall. In an article in Nature Climate Change, ANU Professor Frank Jotzo discusses some of the key features of the carbon pricing regime that Australia will adopt on 1 July. Our carbon price will cover around 60 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. It will be a fixed price for the first three years, moving to a floating emissions trading scheme in July 2015 'with a fixed number of permits sold at auction, international trading allowed and permits bankable'. There will be 'a floor price starting at $15 a tonne and a ceiling price starting at $20 a tonne above the expected international price'. The policy foresees future linking with the European Union 'ETS and other schemes, subject to mutually acceptable mitigation commitments and compatible design'.

Professor Jotzo points out:

‘… that most lower-income households will be overcompensated for the increase in living costs, whereas households and higher-income brackets will bear most of the net costs.’

He also points out that the package involves tax reform. He says this is rare in practice, much less at this scale. He says:

‘Most cap-and-trade schemes have handed back the bulk of the revenue to emitters, missing out on the efficiency benefits from tax reform.’

Australia is not missing out on those benefits.

The impact of the carbon price will be around 0.1 percentage points per year on Australia's average income growth and, according to Treasury modelling, that will still see average incomes grow strongly under carbon pricing, increasing by about 16 per cent from current levels by 2020. Delaying global action by three years adds another 20 per cent to the first year global mitigation cost.

Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition has been going around the country running a scare campaign. After Norsk Hydro's announcement that it would shut down its aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri, Mr Abbott said that this was the fault of the carbon price. After assistance, the impact of a carbon price will be about a dollar on a tonne of aluminium. Meanwhile, the world aluminium price is down $1,000.

The Leader of the Nationals told parliament in May that the cost of servicing a domestic refrigerator would go up by $300 a year. As the Minister for Climate Change has pointed out, that would involve calling technicians to the house about every five days to replace the entire refrigerant gas.

Senator Joyce has said that the carbon price will cause the price of a leg of lamb to go up to $100, to which I can only say: Pull the other one, Barnaby.

The Leader of the Opposition has said the tax is forever; the compensation is just for today. He misses the fact that there will be regular increases in payments and that pensions, allowances and family benefits are automatically increased for the impact of any future increases in the carbon price because they are indexed in line with the consumer price index.

The Leader of the Opposition has spent the last 16 months telling businesses they face electricity price rises of 25 to 30 per cent but the Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, has said he cannot see any circumstances in which this would happen.

Mr Abbott is saying 'it's going to be a python squeeze rather than a cobra strike', but as the Minister for Climate Change has pointed out the only thing pythonesque about this is the Leader of the Opposition's Monty Pythonesque hyperbole. He should in fact be more worried about the dead parrot that is their Direct Action plan. As the member for Wentworth pointed out on Q&A on 25 July 2010:

‘You won’t find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.’

I spoke in parliament tonight on same-sex marriage.

Marriage Amendment Bill 2012
18 June 2012

This is the fourth occasion on which I find myself speaking on same-sex marriage. I spoke in favour of same-sex marriage in this place on 13 February of this year, the day before Valentine's Day; on 24 August last year I reported back to parliament on the views of my constituents; and on 30 July last year I spoke to the ALP ACT national conference on the issue. So I wanted to use the opportunity today to read into Hansard some of the stories of my constituents which I have received over recent months. Daniel Edmonds writes to me:

'When I was young, I asked my grandmother what her view would be on having a gay grandchild. Her response was steadfast: "I could not support it," she said. "It would be against God, and against everything I believe in." Years later, I came out to my family before leaving home to move to university (an economics degree!). My grandmother was unsteady in the knowledge that she now had a gay grandchild, something that was seen as uncommon in North Queensland at the time.

'It was years before she was able to bring it up in conversation with me. However, when she finally did, it really moved me. "I want you to know that I will always support you, and love you, no matter who you love." Ever since, she has met my partners, opened her arms to them as part of the family, and consoled me when those relationships didn't last. I am very lucky to still have my grandmother, but I only regret that in all likelihood my grandmother will not be able to attend my wedding day. I appreciate you fighting for the right of future grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters to be able to attend the wedding days of their beloved family members.'

Ian Brown wrote to me:

'My partner, Roger, and I have been together for (gulp) 40 years and were 'civilly united' in 2006 under UK law, as he holds a UK passport.

'We had our ceremony in the British consulate in Sydney—they said we could have a maximum of six guests so naturally we invited 30!

'It was one of the most exciting days of my life and I will always remember my late mother's tears of joy on our finally being 'married' after a 34 year 'engagement'!'

Another constituent, Bill, from Ainslie, wrote to tell me of his experience watching an interview with Bishop Pat Power on 7.30 last Friday. In that interview Bishop Power said:

'... where two people have that definite commitment to each other and if they make the decision before God well I would say that their blessed in that life that they're living and they do that with honour and respect for one another ... I would want those people to feel at home within the life of the church.'

Bill had written to me previously to say that he did not support same-sex marriage. He wrote to me after seeing that interview and said:

'Good Morning Andrew,

'For what it's worth and just to let you know, after hearing Bishop Power speak and having met and spoken to several Gay people myself I have now changed my mind and support Gay marriage.

'I felt that you treated my position then with respect and I appreciated that. I'm sure there are many others in the community who are wrestling with this issue and who will, with time and reflection, come to see the justice of the homosexual case.'

There are many people of faith who have taken the view that we should support same-sex marriage. Writing in the National Times, the Reverend Harry Herbert, the Executive Director of UnitingCare NSW.ACT, refers to the fact that in the latter part of the 19th century there was a campaign to remove from marriage acts the restriction that a man could not marry a sister of his deceased wife. When it was proposed by colonial governments in Australia to remove the restriction, churches led the charge against it. Reverend Herbert quotes the Reverend Adam Cairns, who at the time described the proposed change as a 'deliberate treachery to the cause of truth' and said, 'By the unchangeable word of God such marriage is incestuous.' Reverend Herbert points out that this seems to be a selective reading of the Bible because the Book of Deuteronomy in fact enjoins a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. But the broader point that the Reverend Herbert makes is that churches should not impose on nonbelievers a vision based on faith.

In his I have a dream speech, Reverend Martin Luther King spoke of the promissory note that African-Americans were bringing to be cashed. In that speech he said that America had defaulted on her promissory note as far as her citizens of colour were concerned but that they did not believe that the 'bank of justice is bankrupt'. The same principles bring gay and lesbian Australians to this House to call for us to support same-sex marriage laws. I do so with a respect for those who disagree but with a passionate belief in the justice of this cause.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KRJK8EmQ96Q

I spoke in Parliament today about the late ABC journalist Alan Saunders, a polymath of the airwaves. My radio listening will be poorer for his passing.

Alan Saunders
18 June 2012

ABC's Radio National is one of Australia's great public institutions, and I rise to speak about the late Alan Saunders, who died unexpectedly last Friday. Alan Saunders spent 25 years with Radio National. He moved to Australia in 1981 to pursue research at the Australian National University's History of Ideas unit, where he received a PhD. He received the Pascall Prize for critical writing and broadcasting in 1992. He contributed to programs about food, design and philosophy. As Amanda Armstrong put it:

‘He was equally at home talking about Plato, the role of vampires in popular culture or the history of the restaurant. He wrote like an angel, and had a deep knowledge of music, among many other areas, including philosophy, gastronomy, architecture, design and film.’

I knew Alan Saunders mostly as a listener - delighting particularly in the By Design program - although I did get a chance to speak with him on Australia Day last year about social capital and some of the ideas in Disconnected. The topics to which Alan contributed are important. Others, such as Elizabeth Farrelly and Tim Soutphommasane, discuss design and philosophy, but none so gracefully as Alan. He will be greatly missed.

I moved a private member's motion in the House of Representatives today on the strength of the Australian economy, and the need to approach economic debates with facts rather than fear (avoiding phobophobia).

A Strong Australian Economy
18 June 2012

I move: That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) by historical standards, unemployment, inflation and interest rates are at very low levels;
(b) for the first time in Australian history, Australia has a AAA rating from all three major credit rating agencies;
(c) Australia's debt levels, despite the hit to revenues from the global financial crisis, are around one tenth the level of major advanced economies;
(d) OECD Economic Outlook 91 confirms that the Australian economy will significantly outperform OECD economies as a whole over this year and next; and
(e) the IMF has said of Australia: 'we welcome the authorities' commitment to return to a budget surplus by 2012-13 to rebuild fiscal buffers, putting Commonwealth government finances in a stronger position'; and
(2) calls upon all Members to approach economic debates with facts rather than fear, and to put the national interest first when discussing the strong Australian economy.

Economic reform in Australia has never been easy. In the postwar decades, the conservatives built up a tariff wall that helped make Australian industry uncompetitive and kept consumer prices high. In 1973, Gough Whitlam began the long process of breaking down Australia's tariff walls—the 25 per cent across-the-board tariff cuts.

What did those opposite do? They came into this place and attacked him for it. Ralph Hunt, Michael MacKellar, Ian Sinclair and others criticised it. Victorian Chamber of Manufactures condemned it. Yet nearly 40 years on, no-one is arguing for the tariff wall to be rebuilt.

This, in a nutshell, is the story of economic reform in Australia—argued by Labor, often opposed by the conservatives and in the end becoming a part of the Australian social fabric. The result of reform is the prosperity that Australians now enjoy: four per cent growth rates, five per cent unemployment, two per cent inflation and the RBA cash rate of 3½ per cent—economic circumstances the rest of the world would give their eye teeth for.

The Opposition

But when those opposite speak about the economy there is only one place where they seem to be willing to tell the truth and that is London. When the opposition leader was in London recently he said:

‘… Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.’

When the member for North Sydney went to London he referred to the fact that Hong Kong, where debt levels are twice Australia's, had moderate government debt. He was certainly telling the truth and this clearly indicates his belief that Australia has low government debt. It is passing strange that it is only when they go to London—when they are in the 'mother country'—that those opposite can tell the truth about the Australian economy. It makes you wonder what is going through their heads. I think it could be something like, 'I did but see her passing by; I cannot tell an economic lie.'

It would be easy to spend 10 minutes talking about the protectionism of Barnaby Joyce, the DLP-style intervention of Tony Abbott, the backflips of Joe Hockey on the Parliamentary Budget Office and the opportunism around the debt ceiling. Those opposite would not know a Pigouvian tax if they tripped over one and they are the only ones in Australia who seem to think that royalties are better than a profits based tax for taxation of mining.

Back when they were introducing the GST, the coalition liked to point out that almost every OECD country had a GST. By 2015 there will be national or subnational emissions trading schemes in every OECD country but one; but now coalition MPs have changed their arguments. They say we should be lone wolves rather than running with the pack. Yet, as George Megalogenis reminds us in his most recent book, here is John Howard on 3 June 2007 promising:

‘This will be a world-class emissions trading system more comprehensive, more rigorously grounded in economics, and with better governance than anything in Europe. Implementing an emissions trading scheme and setting a long-term goal for reducing emissions will be the most momentous economic decision Australia will take in the next decade.’

Similarly, a profits based mining tax is no more a left-wing idea than a good one. It was the Hawke government which introduced the petroleum resource rent tax and a profits based tax on uranium but it was conservative Sarah Palin who put a profits based tax on petroleum when she was governor of Alaska. It was the Northern Territory conservatives who were responsible for the profits based mining taxes that have worked so well in the NT. Profits based taxes are just a smarter way of taxing mining. They make sure that when world prices rise taxpayers share in the windfall.

The current Liberal Party leadership has more in common with the DLP than the market oriented party of John Howard, Brendan Nelson and the member for Wentworth, Malcolm Turnbull. The current National Party leadership has more in common with the all-round protectionism of Black Jack McEwen than the reforming party of Tim Fischer and Mark Vaile.

Economic Challenges

But, rather than dwell on the coalition's economic illiteracy, I want to talk about the challenges and opportunities for Australia. With the rise of China, Australia sees great opportunities for our exports not only of goods but also of services. Australian finance and architecture firms are engaged with the Chinese boom. As we move to a more open economy we need to make sure that we keep investing in infrastructure and education. We know that boosting the quality and quantity of Australian education is absolutely essential as we move to a more open and technologically savvy world. We need to boost productivity. There was some reference last week to the Productivity Commission ‘to do’ list. Lost in that debate was the fact that on that list are things such as efficient water pricing, harmonised building codes and quicker processing of applications for major resource projects—all of which the government is pursuing. We also need to make sure that we help build an entrepreneurial culture. I pay tribute to Australia's latest Nobel laureate, Brian Schmidt, for his enthusiasm in making sure we develop more scientists and researchers.

Academic Research

When the Leader of the Opposition was asked why he could not find a single academic economist to back his command and control climate policy over Labor's market alternative, he responded by saying that this said something about 'the quality of Australia's economists'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Australian academic economics is as strong as it has ever been. Let me take a moment to note for the House some of the important research taking place. At the Australian National University, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis has established a ‘shadow Reserve Bank board’ to look at uncertainty around monetary policy. The shadow board comprises Paul Bloxham, Mark Crosby, Mardi Dungey, Saul Eslake, Bob Gregory, James Morley, Jeffrey Sheen, Mark Thirlwell, and Shaun Vahey. I acknowledge the work that Warwick McKibbin has done at the Australian National University to build CAMA into such a powerhouse.

At Deakin University, the Deakin Policy Forum is aimed at stimulating high quality discussion of economic policy. At Griffith University, the Economic Policy Analysis Program aims to foster economic research, particularly in the area of macroeconomics. Simon Ville and Glenn Withers are currently editing the Cambridge Economic History of Australia—because it is only by understanding your economic past that you can build good policies for the future. At the Melbourne Institute, the HILDA surveys facilitate hundreds of academic studies including work on employment, health, inequality, mobility, crime and happiness. Victoria University of Technology is hosting the Australian Conference of Economists from 9 to 12 July and I am looking forward to speaking and listening to some of the quality presentations at that conference. The ANU Crawford School's Economics and Environment Network was an important contributor to the development of an emissions trading scheme through its support for Professor Ross Garnaut. The Crawford School is also hosting a public policy week from 16 to 20 July, which will include a roundtable on the Henry tax review with James Mirrlees. The University of New South Wales has set up a Centre of Excellence in Population and Ageing Research involving economists and demographers. Monash University recently hosted a major development economics workshop supported by AusAID and involving Abijit Banerjee from MIT. Next month, Monash is hosting a joint conference with Warwick University on superannuation. The University of Queensland is running the 2012 Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory conference.

Conclusion

When Labor put an assets test on the pension in the early 1980s opposition leader Andrew Peacock called it an 'assault on the elderly' and promised to repeal it when the coalition won office. A decade after floating the dollar, the Leader of the Opposition still thought it was a bad idea.

For every reform, there will always be someone standing against it, but the thing is that history will forget the naysayers. History remembers the doers. Eventually, history will forget the doers and the parliamentarians who spoke for reform; it only remembers the things they did. The things we do in this place will outlast us. Reforms like an emissions trading scheme, a profits based mining tax, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, school infrastructure that will stand the test of generations and the National Broadband Network will be here long after those of us in this place have moved on.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/dg5cxhCsGeE

I spoke today about the issue of aircraft noise, responding to a private member's motion moved by Judi Moylan.

Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011
18 June 2012

I rise to speak on the Air Services (Aircraft Noise) Amendment Bill 2011 to highlight a range of government initiatives significantly improving aircraft noise management around Australia's airports. I do so as a member with the Canberra airport in my electorate. In rising, I acknowledge the hard work being done by the Canberra airport to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on the surrounding suburbs. As a father of two little boys who enjoy looking up in the sky and seeing aeroplanes flying overhead, I am aware that my views on aircraft are probably different from those of many of my constituents who, while aircraft noise is not as severe in Canberra as in other cities, do note the impact of aircraft. I am in ongoing conversations with Canberra airport to make sure the impact of aircraft noise on Canberrans is minimised.

In the aviation white paper of December 2009, the government set out a path for improving the management of aircraft noise around Australia's airports. As Australia's first ever comprehensive national aviation policy statement it identified solutions, the industry's current challenges, and aimed to guide its growth over the coming two decades. The white paper was the product of more than 18 months of consultations and there were hundreds of submissions made during that process. Prior to the release of the aviation white paper in 2009, the government released an issues paper in April 2008 and a green paper in December 2008.

Federal Labor has a strong record on aircraft noise. One of the important decisions we made since coming to office was to ban the older and noisy jet aircraft such as the hush-kitted Boeing 727s from Australia's major airports because they contributed to unacceptable levels of noise around those airports. The government gave effect for amendments to the aircraft noise regulations in May 2010. From 1 July 2010, no new services using those types of aircraft were allowed in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns, Gold Coast, Essendon, Newcastle, Williamstown, Avalon and Canberra airports. From 1 September 2010 all existing services using those hush-kitted Boeing 727s ceased at Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth.

The white paper also recognised airport operations have a major impact on community. Issues such as aircraft noise, traffic congestion and pressure on public transport all require cooperative management between airport operators, all levels of government and local communities. I am very much aware of that in the ACT where the federal government in the latest budget put $144 million into the Majura Parkway, an arterial road that will link up the Federal Highway to the Canberra airport thereby minimising the impact of the airport on traffic congestion. That will be the largest road building project in the ACT's history. I am pleased that the ACT government has contributed fifty-fifty to that road building project, setting, I think, a good standard for other states and territories.

There has been a positive response to the government's initiatives from the community and the aviation industry. Airservices Australia, our national air traffic services provider, and industry continue to express concerns over this private member's bill even as amended. In response to the aviation white paper, the 19 federally leased airports have established local, independently chaired Community Aviation Consultation Groups to help discuss and examine a range of community related issues, including aircraft noise. These are now underway at all 19 airports.

Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented and is actively briefing all of these groups. These local groups are helping to address planning and development issues and a range of other operational matters, such as aircraft noise, allowing parties to exchange information and examine concerns raised by residents. Local residents are represented by community members on these groups, and Airservices Australia is represented on all of these groups.

Coalition members are attending these groups: the member for McPherson has attended the Gold Coast consultative group; and the member for Herbert has attended the Townsville consultative group. Of particular note for the member for Pearce, is the establishment of the Perth Community Aviation Consultation Group and the healthy engagement by a diversity of people on that committee.

Another key white paper initiative was the establishment of an Aircraft Noise Ombudsman to examine and make recommendations about noise complaint and information handling issues. The Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, respected former Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Ron Brent, is already making a difference. For example, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's 2011 report on complaints handling made 18 specific recommendations for improvement, all of which Airservices Australia is implementing. Similarly, Airservices Australia has accepted the seven recommendations made from the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's review on noise information and complaint resolution for Perth completed in November 2011.

This government has strengthened the environmental focus of Airservices Australia. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has provided a strategic direction to the Airservices board last year under section 17 of the act, which requires that Airservices effectively consult with the community on any significant developments or changes to its services.

The Airservices Australia board has itself responded by setting up a dedicated board environmental subcommittee. There are also sound governance provisions in place for Airservices Australia, including corporate plan provisions requiring the board to consider the government's objectives, which include assisting the implementation of environmental initiatives in relation to aircraft noise management.

Another white paper commitment is the planning coordination forums which are underway at every major capital city passenger airport. These are the vehicle for constructive, ongoing dialogue on matters such as master plans, proposed on-airport developments, regional planning initiatives and off-airport matters.

Minimising the impact of aircraft noise is a joint responsibility of airports and local planning authorities. It matters for long-term planning in our major cities that developments do not proceed where they will lead to public safety risks or unacceptable levels of aircraft noise. That is why the government has engaged with all states and territories to develop a set of principles for safeguarding airports from inappropriate developments in surrounding areas.

We are not aiming to constrain development but to make sure that airport and government planners work together more constructively than they have in the past and, through the Community Aviation Consultation Groups, there is now an independent ombudsman to direct further difficulties to and Airservices Australia are being proactive in their engagement with communities.

It is in this context that we must question the value of the member for Pearce’s bill. Compared with ongoing government aircraft noise initiatives, the bill offers a ministerially-imposed, taxpayer-funded community adviser scheme with the potential to make community consultation more polarised. It also proposes a reopening of established safe flight paths at Perth and unwieldy and unnecessary additional consultation and reporting arrangements.

Lessons have been learnt on better consultation on complex air traffic issues, since air traffic changes were made to address emerging safety issues in 2008. These air traffic changes were approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and since then Airservices Australia has carried out a post-implementation review of the changes to see where improvements can be made to assist in reducing impacts on the community.

This government has established a strong platform for better aircraft noise management and consultation arrangements at our airports.   We have put a white paper together when those opposite had over 10 years to do something. The frustrations around this bill were created a long time before we come to government, and the government's aviation white paper set out the initiatives for better consultation and better information to the community in relation to air traffic and aircraft noise management issues. This is exactly what is being delivered through the work of the Community Aviation Consultative Groups, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and the increased engagement of Airservices, airport and airline operators.