Page 3526 - Week 11 - Thursday, 14 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It proposed to centre in Melbourne and Brisbane all ACU operations in Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, that means that an aeroplane flying over Tuggeranong or Belconnen would be controlled by air traffic controllers in Melbourne. It means that an air traffic controller in the ACT will basically have control over aircraft only within a 10-kilometre radius - - -
Mr De Domenico: It is now.
MR LAMONT: Mr De Domenico, do not again this afternoon display your ignorance. It is not already done from Melbourne. If you wish to be educated again, I will seek an extension of time and do so this afternoon in some detail. You will not understand it again, but I will do it anyway. What is being proposed by the Civil Aviation Authority is absolutely ridiculous. It has been resoundingly condemned by such eminent business persons as Dick Smith - a former head of the Civil Aviation Authority and an internationally renowned aviator - who in no uncertain terms has said that the proposal being put forward by the Civil Aviation Authority is dangerous and unnecessary.
It is interesting to note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that in taking account of the public comment the Civil Aviation Authority has now resiled from its original position. It has said that, because of the public and community concern, because of the concern from the air traffic controllers and because of the concern from the international and national carriers as well as the smaller operators and independent fliers such as Mr Kaine, it has decided to put on hold the change to the ACU operation everywhere around Australia except for Canberra. I understand that the only other place they will continue to use this new system will be at Coolangatta. Coolangatta will be controlled by Brisbane Airport - by an airport not some 250 or 300 nautical miles away, but about 40 or 50 nautical miles away. This is an absolutely preposterous position for any international carrier seeking to use Canberra as a base upon which to launch itself or to service an international market. Access to international markets by manufacturing industry here is being severely disadvantaged by this policy of the Civil Aviation Authority.
The second body I mention is the Federal Airports Corporation. The Federal Airports Corporation says, "We have $10m that we can spend if you can find us an end user. We have already done the plans. Here they are in the cupboard. Here is the model. There is not a problem. We can proceed next week". But here is the rub: It says, "What you have to do to get us to spend this capital is to have signed, sealed and delivered guaranteed, confirmed end users to be able, on day one, to justify the capital expenditure that we put in". Such a proposition has not existed in the establishment and development of any other airport in this country. For the Federal Airports Corporation to adopt this sort of attitude, in my view, is reprehensible and anti-Canberra. It is not only anti-Canberra but also against the south-east region, for such development would allow business in the south-east region of New South Wales and in the Australian Capital Territory to take advantage of growing markets, particularly in the South East Asian region. Mr Deputy Speaker, this capital city, internationally, is a joke as far as its transport links are concerned. It is about time that those organisations recognised that and assisted the development of business in the ACT by allowing the Canberra Airport to become an international airport.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is grounded.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .