Jandakot Bushland

Extract from Hansard

[COUNCIL - Thursday, 20 May 2010]

JANDAKOT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN AND

ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVAL OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

Motion

HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan): I move — That this Council calls on the red—sorry, the Rudd Government —

Hon Ken Baston: The red government!

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Sorry?

Hon Simon O’Brien: The red government; you got that right!

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: It is not red; that is not a typo! The motion reads — That this Council calls on the Rudd government to reconsider its 19 March 2010 approval of the Jandakot Airport Master Plan, and its 26 March 2010 environmental approval of future development at Jandakot Airport, particularly in view of —

(a) the current lack of proper integration between the proposed new development withinthe Jandakot Airport land, and state and local planning in surrounding areas, including in relation to the important issue of protecting communities from excessive aircraft noise;

(b) the unacceptable risks to the quality and quantity of groundwater, and the environmental values of the Jandakot mound; and

(c) the loss of yet more Bush Forever land with the promise of offsets unlikely to adequately compensate for that loss.

I begin by reflecting on the first time I went to Jandakot Airport, which was in 1983. As I am sure members can imagine, the cityscape was slightly different then. I joined a pilot for a flight in his private aircraft because he was trying to increase his flight hours. The land around Jandakot was a sea of green eucalypts. The drive to Jandakot from Kensington was quicker than it is today, because there was less traffic on the roads. From the air, the land around Jandakot was green, but to the north there was a concentration of houses near the city and along the river. Industry was concentrated at the margins. We were flying over the southern part of the city, so Kwinana and Cockburn were the industrial areas, but there was a wide band of bushland between the suburb of Spearwood and the first smoke stack. Hope Valley and Wattleup looked like rural settlements.

The essence of this motion is about development. I think we all acknowledge the need for airport infrastructure in our growing state, but there is a similar imperative to manage our groundwater supplies and to conserve bushland and habitat for Western Australia’s native animals, which is not so boldly upheld. It is equally important to shape our urban landscape to accommodate commercial, business, industrial and residential needs, as well as pubic open space, greenways and conservation reserves.

I will take an overview of the proposed development. On 6 August 2009, Jandakot Airport Holdings Pty Ltd presented for public comment a preliminary draft master plan that updates the existing approved master plan of 2005. A key issue for us arises from the foreword to the preliminary draft master plan, which states —

Funding for further infrastructure investment necessary for the continued growth of aviation at the Airport is only attainable through development of surplus land at the Airport.

I will touch on that issue up-front, but I will also develop it further as I go along. I wonder what local businesses think about the idea that it is considered essential for them to have competitors nearby who are sold premium access to the airport just so that we can fund construction of a little bit of aviation infrastructure that would ideally benefit all businesses and the broader public. It seems to me to be a Barrow Island–argument. In that case, we can apparently protect a vital part of the conservation estate only by giving it over to an oil company, and then apparently we can fund vital research and translocation only by giving up the island to even more development pressure. As the preliminary draft master plan describes it —

This Master Plan retains the principal concepts of the approved Master Plan 2005 with the following revisions:

• The confirmation, provision and location of the fourth runway and associated taxiways;

• A review of aeronautical operations and requirements;

• Provision of road access arrangements to service the Airport;

• A review of conservation values to establish conservation areas where higher environmental attributes are located; and

• A resultant review of commercial land use areas.

I note that the member for South West Region, I believe, Hon Mia Davies, is not in the house today. That is a shame.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: Sorry; she is away on urgent parliamentary business. I hope that she makes it back tothe chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Order! It is worth noting that all members move in and out of the house on various parts of their business.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: That is true; she was just here. She is away from the house at this time.

Hon Sally Talbot: She is the member for Agricultural Region.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: She is the member for Agricultural Region. I note that Hon Mia Davies was involved with Jandakot Airport Holdings as a consultant at some time, so I was very keen to hear her contribution to this debate. Perhaps in raising that matter, she will be able to make a contribution before the time elapses. 

The draft new master plan also states that the current lessee of Jandakot Airport is Ascot Capital Limited, which is a development company that has no background in aviation. As has been mentioned before, it is a South African company. Zone 5, a proposed site for the development of mixed business, and a proportion of the new fourth runway are located almost entirely within a priority 1 resource zone of the Jandakot underground water pollution control area. Hon Alison Xamon will, hopefully, make a contribution in direct response to the threat to our groundwater supplies. This proposal includes the clearing of 220 hectares of high-quality remnant bushland, including 167 hectares of banksia woodland, 96 hectares of which is for a large, non-aviation development area. The area set aside for the federal government to provide this airport infrastructure is really bushland that is under threat.

I urge members to support this motion for the reasons that I will outline. What is happening with the land at Jandakot Airport and indeed with other federal airport land across the country is a legal anomaly, which has real consequences for the states and the local governments that surround these areas. We saw this most recently at Perth Airport, where an expansion occurred. I will not go into detail about that at this point. In a sense, they are legal bubbles in which very few state laws apply. This results in problems not just for the administration of state and local governments surrounding these bubbles, but also for the community and even the business community surrounding these bubbles. How can there be effective planning, among other things, when we have airports with a vastly different legal status from that of the surrounding businesses, neighbourhoods, transport networks and the like? All stakeholders seem to recognise this as a problem, but the federal government has gone ahead with approving new developments before solutions to this problem have been developed, and the state government has so far expressed little more than support for these federal moves, with the possible exception of the potential impact on a drinking water source.

I hope members do not mind me observing that the airport is essentially free to do whatever it likes. The Airports Act 1996 encourages the airport to adopt a planning philosophy consistent with that of local and state governments. Indeed, the minister in his approval said explicitly that it was to take note of current planning policies in this state. However, we have seen—most recently with Perth Airport—that these policies are not being reflected in the development of airport land. Is it possible that activities within the Jandakot bubble will undermine the efforts of the state government to plan for a better Perth, or undermine the efforts of surrounding local governments to serve their communities? Indeed they will, on both counts. There have been in the past plenty of examples of such problems all around the country, and there are plenty of concerns now in the surrounding community that we will have these problems again.

The state government submission in response to the preliminary draft says things such as, “Notwithstanding that Jandakot airport is located on land owned by the federal government and controlled by federal legislation, consideration of state legislation, planning and standards is important to ensure that adverse impacts are addressed and development is integrated with surrounding land uses”. But how might that be achieved in a meaningful way? The answer is: no-one has worked it out yet. The “National Aviation Policy White Paper” of December 2009 makes it very clear that the federal government is aware of the problem with the airport legal bubbles and does commit to some apparently useful changes to the federal Airports Act, but no solutions are suggested. The white paper states —

Specifically, the Australian Government proposes to work with state, territory and local governments and industry stakeholders to:

•  work with jurisdictions on a national land use planning regime near airports and under flight paths, to minimise sensitive developments being located in areas affected by aircraft operations;

The only concern, therefore, is noise, not things like traffic congestion and the impact on businesses that are outside this magical federal land bubble. Members, we do not know how to fix this problem associated with planning for and around these legal bubbles in a meaningful way, but still the federal government marches on with approvals for an expanded development footprint anyway. Is the answer to all this that there will be no harm associated with these new developments? I am far from convinced. The preliminary draft touts the prospect of a fully developed airport accommodating 250 businesses and 6 870 people. The state government submission simply parrots these numbers. Quite obviously, those businesses will not just appear out of nowhere. They simply will, in the vast majority of cases, relocate from elsewhere. That does not mean new jobs; it means that employees will have to come into this area to work in these jobs. It means relocation. Some businesses will have to buy a premium location next to the airport. Of course, we also have to look at the community impacts, including increased traffic congestion because there is no plan for a rail spur any time soon. Perhaps the Minister for Transport could advise us of the transport infrastructure that is planned to be in place, because there are no current plans that we are aware of.

Last, but by no means least, is the critical issue of noise. This is a pretty technical area and I do not want to address it in detail; I will simply say that the current approach to noise management around airports is highly contentious. We would all know that from watching the media. People exposed to unreasonable aircraft noise might well be the most passionate activists there are, and with good cause. There is no point having a home as one’s castle if it is under sonic assault from above at unreasonable times or levels.

Hon Max Trenorden interjected.

Hon LYNN MacLAREN: That is alluding to the film, yes. Well picked up, Hon Max Trenorden. The white paper I referred to earlier acknowledged that the aircraft noise exposure forecast—ANEF—system needs fixing. My colleague Senator Rachel Siewert is also concerned about this area and has been agitating for change. We know that the system of measuring aircraft noise is broken, but rather than waiting for this system to be fixed, the federal government has approved significant new developments anyway. City airports need wide buffers to protect residents and nearby businesses from noise and as a safety measure. These buffers present a perfect opportunity to protect and conserve urban bushland and to provide habitat for native species that are being threatened by urban sprawl.

With the time available to me, I cannot go into the groundwater risks and the risks to the environmental values of the Jandakot mound. But I will note that on 13 October last year there was only one aspect of the proposal that the state government agency was able to clearly articulate an opposition to, and that was the water issue. Time also will not permit me to deal with the environmental costs associated with this new development. However, members will note that for some time I have been asking questions of the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Planning about precisely those issues.

I have already mentioned the 220 hectares up for the chop with this new master plan; this includes 53 hectares that will be retained for a while but will ultimately be lost. Of the 167 hectares to go in a staged way in the near term, that area contains at least 40 grand spider orchids—we believe there are many more—and four glossyleafed hammer orchids. I say “at least” because although, under the preliminary draft plan, these areas were lined up for destruction, the biological survey work is yet to be completed. It is said that 14 000 hectares of potential Carnaby’s black cockatoo habitat exists within 20 kilometres of the airport land. I have met with the Mayor of the City of Canning and he is very concerned that that habitat is not going to be found nearby the airport as an offset. It is very interesting that 1 800 hectares of that is in Beeliar Regional Park, which is under the pump from a separate ill-considered proposed road to nowhere.

Returning to the Jandakot bushland, it was recognised under the system 6 process as dense, largely undisturbed and of regional significance. Later it was included in Bush Forever. But, in the end, much of it will end up as “bush only for a little while longer”. Minister Garrett of course has come up with a complex range of conditions to try to ameliorate the loss of this habitat. I hope that Hon Alison Xamon gets an opportunity to talk about those conditions. However, I will just say for now that, as with many other offsets that get thrown up from time to time, there is no way to get something for conservation that will make up for what is lost. Honestly, members and Mr President, if we were to look at offsetting 1 600 hectares of wheatbelt bushland or woodland for this area, it would never be adequate for the habitat that will be lost. We know that the Carnaby’s black cockatoo will be left with less foraging habitat in the city.

Minister Faragher has said in this house as recently as 1 April this year that the state and federal governments are working on a strategic approach to the impacts of development along the Swan coastal plain, but we have been given exactly that line plenty of times before by the previous state government. In the meantime, the clearing continues more or less unabated. It is for those various reasons that the Greens (WA) seek to draw a line in the sand for this particular set of new environmental, social and even business impacts. It is of course federal land that we are talking about, but it would be a serious political statement for this house to say to the Rudd government, “No; let’s move slower on this set of proposals and get the framework right before reissuing these kinds of major approvals.” I commend the motion to the house.

HON MAX TRENORDEN (Agricultural): I am obliged to say some words today. I chair a task force in the name of the Minister for Regional Development, Brendon Grylls, which is looking seriously at aviation matters. I would like Hon Lynn MacLaren and a few other members to listen to what I have to say. I have got a part solution for members. It has little to do with the direction outlined.

Fifteen to 20 years ago the Wheatbelt Development Commission undertook several studies and found that the best growth industry for the central Wheatbelt is aviation because there are no planes in the air and there is no objection from the people of the central Wheatbelt to aviation—in fact there is appreciation. Merredin has, and has had for 15 years, 200 Chinese students training at the China Southern West Australian Flying College. That is going gang busters. We need to look at these matters because some of the perceptions are really important. In conducting the inquiry and from speaking to people in the industry, people in the industry say that no students want to be in Merredin. In Merredin—only China Southern trains in Merredin—students do their course, which is a much more comprehensive course than a general aviation course, six months quicker than can be done at Jandakot Airport. The main reason for that is: women, alcohol and nightclubs! When a person goes to Merredin, he or she is in Merredin —

Hon Kate Doust: There are no women, alcohol or nightclubs.

Hon MAX TRENORDEN: There is no nightclub in Merredin yet.

Hon Kate Doust: I know a pretty good dance is held there once a year.

Hon MAX TRENORDEN: I am not knocking Merredin. I am almost from that part of the world. I am a Merredin fan. Students in Merredin know that they get really high-class instruction and complete it much quicker than at Jandakot Airport. Jandakot has no public transport and no accommodation. Jandakot Airport is 70 per cent training and 30 per cent general aviation. Some people at Jandakot Airport will tell members—not all people, because many of them are involved in training—the future for Jandakot Airport is general aviation. Taking away the planning argument, if we just look at the airport the future for Jandakot Airport is general aviation. The takeoffs and landings are training. The problem right now for training at Jandakot Airport is that students pay for the hour of training. A quarter of an hour to 20 minutes is spent on the tarmac trying to get in the air. A person will not get value for money at Jandakot Airport if he or she trains there.

There are other significant issues. I turned up at my electorate office two Fridays ago, after having lunch with my staff, which I tend to do—I love to have a good relationship with my staff—and an Indonesian politician was there. I had no idea he was going to be there. There were also four politicians from West Papua, whom I had no idea were going to be there, and several public servants from Papua. They are in Western Australia looking for someone to train their pilots. I do not have to tell members that Western Australia is the other side of the Australian map for West Papua. It is the best place for the aviation industry to come to because of all our natural resources. There are synergies in the east that do not quite work. Amongst all of this is the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. CASA is another federal agency that will have little impact. CASA is gradually changing the rules on general aviation. The argument seems to be, from people in the industry, that in the near future fly in, fly out workers will not be able to fly out of any other airports in Western Australia other than Perth and Jandakot. They say that Busselton will have to shut down. They say that Geraldton will have to shut down. They say that Port Hedland will have to shut down. Under CASA’s proposed regulations, fly in, fly out arrangements will have to be the same as general aviation; that is, luggage will have to be checked through security and there will be gate requirements that other regional airports do not have.

I will not say this is etched in brick, but I have been told that about 100 students a week are turned away from general aviation training in Western Australia. I have no way of determining whether this is true, but I read an article out of the USA recently that stated that the two pilots who flew from South Africa to Paris and went into the Atlantic Ocean, died because they did not understand the technology in front of them. The technology that went wrong in that plane was not complex. It could have been fixed on the flight but the pilots did not know how to do it. Members would have to agree that the risk of flying per flight per person is minimal. A range of people have told me that what is wrong with the aviation industry right now is the people who have taught everyone up to now were Second World War pilots. The article said that the man who flew his jet into the Hudson River— there is almost no doubt about this—had accrued something like 3 000 helicopter flying hours and up to 15 000 pilot. When he realised he had flown into a flock of birds and lost his engines, the control tower was telling him to head to strip 103 or whatever the number was, but he knew he could not make it. He knew, as an experienced pilot, he could not make it so he put the plane into the river.

In Sydney, three or four training agencies have been condemned because they were taking overseas students and training them to a very poor level. In my report, which I am writing right now, I suggest that if we want to attract students from West Papua into Western Australia, we have to lift the quality of training so that people can be assured, if they are trained in Western Australia, that the quality of training is at a level at which the students can be guaranteed that the $85 000-plus fees—because that is what it costs—will get a result. There is a contract available right now to train 100 people to fly. A small business operator, to take on a contract to train 100 students to fly, would need 20 instructors and 20 aircraft. If we add in the capital for that, it cannot be done. I would like Hon Lynn MacLaren to consider this when my report is tabled some time in the future. It is a nebulous argument. I think it is questionable when the state gets involved in private enterprise. The member may like to meet people at Jandakot Airport. Something needs to be available so people can get the capital to get the business so they can move it to Wyalkatchem, Wongan Hills, Bruce Rock or Wagin. All those communities want the industry. We can dramatically remove the takeoffs and landings at Jandakot Airport, we can create a significant industry in the central Wheatbelt, but it will take capital. I suggest the capital that the honourable member talks about would be better spent creating an industry where people want it.

HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan): One of the really good things about bringing forward these debates is sometimes we get some really interesting responses. I thank Hon Max Trenorden for his contribution to this debate. It provides a complementary side; an interesting alternative perspective. Quite a lot of interesting thought went into the honourable member’s contribution. As Hon Lynn MacLaren anticipated, even the time allocated to a mover of a motion during non-government business does not permit much detail to be provided on a few key matters. I intend to deal with the issues of water and urban bushland in a little more depth. I will start by underlining the two key points made by Hon Lynn MacLaren in describing this new development proposal.

Zone 5 is a proposed site for the development of mixed business and a portion of the proposed new fourth runway is located almost entirely within a priority 1 resource zone of the Jandakot underground water pollution control area. This is a proposal to clear 220 hectares of high-quality remnant bushland, including 167 hectares of banksia woodland—96 hectares of which is for a large non-aviation development area. Yesterday, I asked a question of the Minister for Water about this matter and the answer was very interesting. In October 2008 the then director general of the Department of Water, Kim Taylor, wrote to the Jandakot Airport Holdings consultant in the following terms. I will quote from these papers, but these papers were tabled yesterday so they can be easily referenced. According to my notes, the letter stated —

Previous management plans for Jandakot airport land in the UWPCA —

The underground water pollution control area —

have been aligned to reflect WA’s drinking water source protection requirements. This alignment is reflected in the undeveloped bush land still present in Area 2. The DoW strongly supports ongoing aligned protection of this vulnerable area through the Jandakot airport master plan.

In conclusion, given the information available to me at this time, the DoW does not support your proposed development. The only avenue available for this advice to be reconsidered would be if an independent hydrogeological assessment … showed that groundwater flows below Area 2 would not enter the capture zones of the Water Corporation production wells.

In April 2009, the Department of Water wrote, noting that the desired independent study had been engaged, but that the study had not been concluded, or at least had not been presented to the Department of Water. The Department of Water noted that since its October 2008 letter, further encroachments into the designated P1 source protection area were now being planned. Minister Peter Garrett’s final Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act decision—I have it with me for tabling if members wish—requires the airport to develop a Jandakot groundwater mound management plan. That plan must be approved by Minister Garrett, but Western Australia’s Department of Water and water minister will not get a direct say. We are highly dubious about the prospect that the management plan will allay our concerns. I should add that we are often frustrated by development approvals that leave all of the important details to future management plans.

Hon Lynn MacLaren also mentioned that there are at least 40 grand spider orchids and four glossy-leaved hammer orchids. Minister Garrett’s solution was to basically just pick them up and move them. Translocation seems to be getting more and more popular, which is a real worry because sometimes it cannot be done successfully and is badly managed. Hon Giz Watson spoke recently about Barrow Island mammal translocations—translocating orchids is different again to that process. Hon Lynn MacLaren asked a question of the Minister for Environment on 6 May, the answer to which showed that the Roe Highway stage 7 grand spider orchids seemed to be steadily dying off—it was more concerning that none had yet set seed. If they do not, then the entire translocation will have been unsuccessful. We have that theme again of approving things and proposing mitigating measures that do not seem to be working.

I am aware that other people want to speak, so I will talk briefly about the broader banksia woodland targeted for loss. Apart from being Bush Forever land, it is also described on the Register of the National Estate as being one of the best remaining examples of banksia woodland on the Swan coastal plain. Minister Garrett’s solution was to put some money aside for rehabilitation of other banksia woodland—which should be happening anyway— but the key offset for the Carnaby’s black cockatoo foraging habitat is the acquisition and protection of land that could be anywhere in the state and is not necessarily even going to be banksia woodland. It need not even be on the Swan coastal plain. We could have Carnaby’s as far inland as the Wheatbelt, which might benefit from this decision.

Hon Sally Talbot interjected.

Hon ALISON XAMON: But those on the Swan coastal plain can just suffer. I note Hon Sally Talbot’s interjection that perhaps the Carnaby’s cockatoos may end up in Merredin, along with the training students proposed by Hon Max Trenorden.

Hon Sally Talbot: They’ll distract the students!

Hon ALISON XAMON: This whole situation is a sad indictment on the Rudd government. Members recall that I spoke in March about 2010 being the International Year of Biodiversity. It seems that the Rudd government— along with this state government—does not seem keen to support that international year in the way that it deserves. I call on this house to support this motion so that the state upper house, at least, can speak out in favour of appropriate levels of biodiversity conservation.

HON DONNA FARAGHER (East Metropolitan — Minister for Environment): I say at the outset that I certainly do not intend to ever speak on behalf of the Rudd government in this place; however, I think it is important to outline some of the issues from a state perspective.

As has been said—obviously it is part of the motion—Jandakot Airport is on commonwealth land, so the reality is that the environmental assessment and decision-making process that was undertaken was entirely within the purview of the commonwealth Minister for Environment Protection, Hon Peter Garrett, MP. Having said that, the state government, quite properly, made a submission to be used as part of the assessment. That was a whole of- government submission that was prepared and sent by the Minister for Planning, Hon John Day. That was in response to Jandakot Airport Holdings’ preliminary draft “Jandakot Airport Master Plan 2009”.

The state submission noted support for the expansion of Jandakot Airport, given its role in Western Australia’s aviation and transport infrastructure. The submission also highlighted that compliance with state legislation, planning and standards was important to ensure that adverse impacts were addressed, such as those related to the environment—I will come to those in a moment—that development be integrated with surrounding land uses, infrastructure and services, and that appropriate emergency service standards were met. As has been mentioned the commonwealth minister approved the expansion on 25 March.

I will now talk to a couple of the aspects of the motion. With regard to matters surrounding water issues, in its submission the state government relayed its concern about potential water quality impacts and, therefore, the need to ensure the protection of the water quality of the Jandakot underground water pollution control area, which is an important source of drinking water for the Perth metropolitan area. I understand that the commonwealth approval includes a condition that Jandakot Airport Holdings prepare a Jandakot groundwater mound management plan that will minimise any environmental impact on the groundwater mound. In addition, I have been advised that the Department of Water will be undertaking further discussions with the proponent on best practice water quality protection measures such as bunding and spill management procedures.

From an environment perspective, the state government’s submission, as has been referred to by Hon Lynn MacLaren and Hon Alison Xamon, stated that the proposed expansion would impact on conservation areas and flora and fauna species identified within the airport boundaries. Those include the grand spider orchid and the Carnaby’s black cockatoo. It is true that Minister Garrett, in making his decision, required a number of commonwealth-mandated offsets—albeit that they now become primarily the responsibility of the state Department of Environment and Conservation. The reality is that Jandakot Airport Holdings will be clearing 167 hectares of land.

These offsets include: the purchase of 1 600 hectares of Carnaby’s black cockatoo foraging habitat; the rehabilitation of a 110-hectare section of a City of Canning sand mine adjacent to the airport, or, if rehabilitation is not agreed to by 30 June 2010, Jandakot Airport Holdings is to provide the Department of Environment and Conservation with $9.2 million for rehabilitation and conservation of other areas; and funding of $150 000 a year for five years for research and recovery actions for Carnaby’s black cockatoo.

Jandakot Airport Holdings must also prepare and implement a commonwealth-approved management plan for the retained bushland on the airport site. This includes threatened orchid research, management and translocation in concert with the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority—a very experienced authority on these matters—which will receive more than $700 000 over five years for this purpose; management of the retained areas of bushland at the airport; and fauna management for the western brush wallaby, Carnaby’s black cockatoo and other species.

I do not intend to speak for much longer, because I know that the opposition would like to say a few words on this matter. But I reiterate that this decision was determined solely by the commonwealth environment minister. Having said that, the state government did, quite properly, make a submission to the commonwealth in which we identified a number of matters that needed to be addressed from the state’s perspective. Now that the commonwealth has made its decision, the state agencies will require that standards be met in terms of compliance with state regulation and state planning frameworks. In my case as Minister for Environment, the state environment agencies, particularly in this instance obviously the Department of Environment and Conservation, but also the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, will work closely with Jandakot Airport Holdings to ensure that we gain the best environmental outcomes consistent with that commonwealth approval.

HON SALLY TALBOT (South West): No-one on this side of the house would choose to put an offsets program in place as a first preference when it comes to the area of land in question around Jandakot Airport. However, when a proposal of this kind comes up for consideration, a number of questions need to be addressed. We on this side of the house believe that in Western Australia we need to support development programs, and we need to cater for our growing population. But at the same time we need to make sure that sustainability is at the top of the agenda. I put it to this house that when we consider the various questions that are raised by this proposal, we can come to a conclusion that supports the way forward that has been suggested by the commonwealth for this development. The questions that need to be asked can broadly be categorized as follows. The first is whether there is compliance with the state planning scheme. The second is the impacts on the local community of a development of this size and dimension. The third is the provision of infrastructure. The final question—but of course in many respects the most important—is the environmental impacts of this proposed development.

On the question of compliance with the state planning scheme, it is clear from the announcements by Minister Albanese that the commonwealth intends to work with the State Planning Commission to ensure that all the state requirements are satisfied. It will be incumbent on the Barnett government to make sure that is the case. On the question of impacts on the local community, we would need to consider things such as aircraft noise; the benefits of such a substantial construction project for the surrounding environment; the projections for increased traffic in the region; and, as other speakers have pointed out, the potential impact on local retailers. I am satisfied that all these considerations have been addressed by the commonwealth. I will come a bit later to the specific ways in which those matters have been addressed.

On the third question about the provision of infrastructure, there are some very important matters that need to be considered. I refer members to a very interesting report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is report 3222.0, titled “Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101”. The report states, in part — Perth is projected to experience the highest percentage growth (116%) of Australia’s capital cities, increasing from 1.6 million people at 30 June 2007 to 3.4 million in 2056.

The growing population of Perth and of the non-metropolitan areas of Western Australia is a very important consideration when looking at a proposal of this size. That growing population will bring with it increased demand, in a number of different aspects. In the short time that I have left in this debate, I will point to just one of those aspects—that is, the provision of emergency services. The projected population of 3.4 million by 2056 will include substantial growth in our regions. Our regions are serviced by organisations such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service. It is essential that we take that into account when we look at this proposal to expand Jandakot Airport. The possibility that the RFDS might need to relocate its operations to Perth Airport would have serious consequences for the provision of that service, not only because of the limited capacity of Perth Airport, but also because of the need to manage aircraft noise over the surrounding suburbs.

The final question that needs to be addressed when considering a proposal of this nature is the environmental impacts on protected species and on valuable conservation areas such as the banksia woodlands. Other questions that must be considered are the impact of ground-based noise on the surrounding environment; soil quality; and ground water. Both Hon Lynn MacLaren and Hon Alison Xamon have talked about the impact of this proposal on ground water. Yesterday, the Minister for Environment tabled some documents that indicate the level of concern of the Department of Water about protecting the Jandakot ground water mound. Another concern is heritage issues. When it comes to protected species, my colleagues in the Greens have given an adequate account of the need to protect the orchids, the Carnaby’s black cockatoo, the quendas and the western brush wallaby. Where we part company from the Greens is on the question of whether we can ensure that the potential adverse impacts of this proposal are addressed. My proposition to this house is that the commonwealth has put suitable provisions in place to address those questions. It will be incumbent on all members of this house to make sure that the Barnett government comes good on the undertakings that it has given and the encumbrances that have been placed upon it. Like my colleagues in the Greens, we in the Labor Party would have hoped—I think I speak for all members of the Labor Party in this respect—for more conservation areas, and we would have hoped for less clearing. Nevertheless, Minister Peter Garrett is offering an unprecedented package of offsets in terms of the history of putting offsets in place. Jandakot Airport Holdings will be required to buy and protect 1 600 hectares of Carnaby’s black cockatoo habitat. That is enormously significant. Of course we will need to be vigilant about how that promise is delivered. I was of course joking when I said that if we look at relocating Jandakot Airport to a place such as Merredin, it will distract the aviation students, as well as be a highly unsuitable area. Nevertheless, the provision of 1 600 additional hectares of Carnaby’s black cockatoo habitat is very significant, and we on this side of the house welcome that.

An amount of $150 000 a year will be provided for five years for work on cockatoo recovery areas. Again, that is a substantial contribution towards protecting that endangered species. On the question of the rehabilitation of the 110 hectares of land adjacent to the airport, I understand that there are serious reservations about whether that can go ahead. The minister referred to the provision of $9.2 million to the Department of Environment and Conservation. We will need to make sure that that money is allocated to projects that go toward offsetting some of the impacts of this Jandakot Airport development. An amount of $700 000 has been allocated for the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority rare orchid program, and $60 000 has been allocated for the provision of an orchid research greenhouse. I understand that that proposal has been endorsed by Kingsley Dickson, who is the BGPA resident expert on orchids. That is a most significant point in connection with his offsets program that needs to be noted.

Hon Ed Dermer: He is a very fine scholar.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: Indeed, he is a fine scholar.

Hon Kate Doust: He used to work with Ed.

Hon SALLY TALBOT: If he used to work with Ed, those credentials are enough for me.

I understand that there is also a genuinely committed program to relocate the protected orchids away from the areas that will be developed at Jandakot. Again, I emphasise that nobody on this side of the house would opt for this as a first preference. Nobody is talking about this being the preferred way of protecting species. We have to weigh up the demands on infrastructure and the demands of providing proper services for our growing population with absolute imperative to put sustainable conservation practices in place. I believe that is what ministers Albanese and Garrett have offered us the chance of doing. I note that Minister Garrett has stipulated that no chemical-dependent businesses or businesses that involve the storage of chemicals will be allowed to operate above the Jandakot groundwater mound; again a very significant move. I want to conclude by noting the provision—I am not sure whether it has been referred to by other speakers—of the community consultation process that Minister Albanese has put in place. It is worth noting that not only are the people who will be involved local representatives and aviation representatives, but also it will be chaired by an independent chair.

Debate adjourned, pursuant to temporary orders.