Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 5:41:07 to 6:21:05
Discussion focuses on the Melbourne Airport master plan, Brisbane Airport noise abatement, and the regulation of high-powered e-bike imports.
Topics: Infrastructure, Public safety, Procurement
Speakers: Sarah Nattey, Penny Allman-Payne, Matt O'Sullivan, Steph Hodgins-May, Hon Anthony Chisholm, David Pocock, Hon Matthew Canavan, Jessica Hall, Jim Betts, Marisa Purvis-Smith, Megan Scott, Melissa Cashman, Speaker 34, Speaker 36
>> Thank you chair. I want to ask some questions about Melbourne airport third runway and foreshadow that they're quite technical and in the weeds. So um >> do we need to any personnel change? Thanks. Um, so I want to ask questions about the major development plan. Can I just confirm to begin with that this was approved by the Minister for Infrastructure in September 2024?
Senator Sarah Nattey, Assistant Secretary of Airports branch. Uh yes, I can confirm that the minister approved the draft major development plan for the Melbourne third runway September 24.
>> Thank you, Miss Nattey. And my understanding is this approval was made under division 4 of the airports act and so subject to sections 88, 89 and 92 of that act. Um are you able to confirm that's correct? >> Yes, that's right. Um, there are several major changes to Melbourne Airport wrapped up into the one major development plan, including a new runway, which would necessitate the altering of existing runways in a way that will likely change flight paths and potentially extending a runway. Is it usual for them to be combined in this
So, um, Senator, just to, um, take a step back, Minister Katherine King approved the Melbourne Third Runway and it had a number of conditions attached and one of the conditions was to extend the existing East West runway um because it needed to be shortened as a result of um, approving the new Melbourne third runway. Um and that's referred to as the eastern extension project. That project itself is not um uh currently in the inforce master plan for Melbourne airport. And so um APAM as the uh airport lei company needs to put in a new uh master plan that has the uh eastern extension project linked to it because it cannot carry out that piece of work without it being uh within the body of an approved master plan.
>> Thank you. But can I just confirm that only one master development plan there's only one in terms of the third runway?
There is only one major development plan MDP >> um for the third runway but the conditions that are attached to that approval necessitate uh another MDP for the eastern extension
>> Thank you. Um did the department advise the minister that a single MDP may lawfully cover a development containing one or more of the attributes listed in
our process in um providing advice to uh the minister about any major development plan is that u we the department conducts an assessment against the legislation to ensure that all of those um elements uh that need that she must have regard to have been covered. And uh a number of elements that she may have regard to. And our advice to the minister was that on the basis of the information provided um to her in that MDP submission that the the the um department analyzed that it met the requirements of being a major development and that it um contained the information um that she could then use to inform her decision to either approve, approve with conditions or refuse to approve. And the minister chose to approve with conditions.
>> Okay. Yeah, I'm just trying to wrap my head around um this. So, section 891 defines a major airport development as one that consists of a constructing a new runway or b extending a new runway or ba altering a runway. >> Um can you please explain how the department's interpretation of one or more is consistent with the act's use of the word or?
Uh I would like to take it on notice because it's kind of a technicality within the legislation and I would like to um consider that response. Um but for the purposes of the minister's approval um the department u provided advice to the minister that APAM had met the requirements for developing a new
>> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, feel free to take it on notice. Um I recognize it is very technical and um I suppose I just want to flag that the office of parliamentary council publishes drafting instructions that or or um in definition indicates alternatives not cumulative requirements. Um is that would you say can you respond now as to whether that's inconsistent with the interpretation in this case?
>> I'd like to take it on notice. Thank
you. Um, in the minister's statement of reasons, section 89 is paraphrased using commas instead of the semicolon oral structure. Do you know if the department advised that this change um doesn't alter the legal meaning of that provision?
>> I'm not in a a position to talk about any of the um legal advice here, Senator, but be very happy to take your question on notice and see what we're able to provide you.
>> I'd appreciate that. Thank you. Um, I've just got some questions on ebikes, if I may proceed. Thank you. Uh, in January 2021, the federal government removed the requirement for imported ebikes to meet the EN1519, sorry, EN15194 safety standard and then in December last year reinstated this standard through an amendment that commenced on the 22nd of December 2025. Is that
>> Hi, Senator Cashman, the assistant secretary for vehicle safety policy and partnerships. Yes, that is correct,
Senator. Thank you.
>> Uh, sorry, the first part of your
so in January 2021, the federal government removed the requirement for imported ebikes to meet that standard. >> Um, can the department confirm whether the shipment of Fatboy ebikes imported in January 2026 comply with EN15194 as required under the amended determination?
Senator, the determination sets out a range of vehicles that are definitely not road vehicles. Uh the road vehicle standards legislation that we administer is uh for the purpose of regulating the supply of road vehicles. So that determination sets out vehicles that are definitely not road vehicles. There are other vehicles that may not meet that definition that that determination but which are also not road vehicles. So the specific bikes that you're talking about, I couldn't say. Uh but we have a process by which people can report to the department vehicles that have come in as purporting to be ebikes but which people believe are road vehicles and we have a an investigative process that we can look at those those devices or if we come across that information some other
>> Thank you. So so who would make that determination? Um would you need to investigate first? I
might hand over to my colleague in the operations >> shortly. Senator
>> um Amanda, assistant secretary. >> So um my team will if they receive reports would investigate um these matters and as for receiving um an approval to input either not a road vehicle or a road vehicle. My team will undertake those assessments.
>> Thank you. And do you know about that fat boy example that I just >> Not specifically? No. Sorry. I have to Thank you. Um, so they can be permitted to be imported as electric power assisted cycles without knowing if they comply with the safety requirement.
Right. So, Senator, we we only regulate road vehicles. So, if a a genuine ebike is not a road vehicle, the department, this department on the legislation we operate under does not set standard for those devices.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, I guess what I'm saying is that is they aren't legitimate ebikes. If sorry, if they're not legitimate ebikes, um, is the department aware that these bikes exceed the 250 watt power limit um, allow speed and power unlocking through consumer codes and can be operated without pedaling? And if so, is that consistent with the federal definition
to know, Senator, whether the vehicle met the definition of a road vehicle. that is the the type of thing that we um that we regulate. So, uh if uh um as Miss Milarik said, if we can get the details of those um bikes, we can have a look into those specific ones. Um otherwise, states and territories set have their own laws about what can operate on the road outside of being a road vehicle or not a road vehicle. And then as consumer goods, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission oversees the their general safety as consumer products as well.
>> Okay. Thank you. And so is that something you can look into now or do you need a complaint or something to initiate that or is that is this
>> we would just have well sorry I'll let answer
>> um yeah we can look into that um we will have to go back through um we may have applications that we've received for them to receive an advisory notice saying it's not a road vehicle um or an application to to get an approval to import a road vehicle. So we would need to look into the specific example you're referring to.
>> Okay. I appreciate. Yeah, appreciate you doing so. Thank you. Um, and if they are later classed as road vehicles that don't meet the safety requirements, what enforcement or corrective actions would be available?
>> Um, so we have a few mechanisms we can use. Um, if we deem it is a road vehicle and it's been imported into Australia without an appropriate approval. Um, through our investigations. Um, examples of enforcement action can be infringement notices um, as a penalty. We also look at um intram injunctions to um prevent them from bringing any further um road vehicles in without approvals, those types of things.
>> Okay. Thank you. I suppose um perhaps to the minister, do you have concerns that these vehicles are potentially being um imported and sold right now uh given potential for death or I think death has occurred as a consequence of
these? Uh I'm not I'm not aware of those specific uh bikes that you're talking about, Senator, but I I do know that this is an issue that's increasingly concerning to people right across the country. Uh I know that uh Minister King has taken action in regards to this. did mention the reinstatement uh of the uh EN15194 which is significant uh after the previous government got rid of it uh and also added this as an agenda item to uh the meeting of transport ministers around the country because there's obviously some crossover between the federal and state responsibilities. I heard Minister Graham, the New South Wales transport minister, uh on the radio this morning talking about it following some instances that I saw in the media over the weekend in Sydney as well. So, uh, it is something that Minister King is concerned about and has taken action on and we'll continue to work with our state colleagues, um, to deal with this in the best way that we can, knowing the risk to safety of those people in the vicinity, but also those people writing them as well.
>> Yeah, thank you. Look, it has been raised by a number of constituents who are concerned about the the um the risks, but also that perhaps there's not the level of preemptive um, investigation happening on these issues. But thank you for your response and
>> Ch. Um, thank you for your time. I've got some questions about the CRA to Sydney rail. Um, not highspeed rail, just faster rail right people. >> It's an outcome one question, >> but we'll do our best and we may take stuff on notice if we don't get the relevant experts here.
So, if you ask the question, we'll do our best, but the people who do deal with infrastructure have been dismissed.
just interested what what current work
Um, Senator, if we've received any um uh work from New South Wales or um ACT at the moment in regards to upgrading the rail track um or passenger rail at the moment.
>> Okay. And so if there's no uh request from the ACT on New South Wales, that
We usually wait for the states and territories to come forward if they own the track and if they want to um bring forward um investment into that. Obviously from a freight perspective um ARTC looks at um track from a um freight perspective and ARTC will be here later you can talk to them about that. Um but um uh usually we wait for um uh uh the states to come forward. They also have their 10-year plans and we also work with Infrastructure Australia on what is a priority as well. >> No, Senator, that would be a state responsibility. New South Wales or the >> AC. I'll double check with my team. I'll go back and I'll come back to you, but not recently. No, not that I'm aware of.
>> All right. Thanks, Senator P. into the >> Can I ask about the maritime single Thank you. According to the 2526 MAO, the Commonwealth allocated 1 million to continue development of the MSW platform. Can the department confirmed that a maritime single window digital reporting platform has been in development with the Comwalth since m uh since 2023?
>> Megan Scott, assistant secretary, question, Senator. Uh that's correct. A million dollars was provided in my EFO to continue our work to a first pass
government for consideration.
And >> and so can you confirm that 1.2 million was allocated in the 2324 budget?
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> So is this in addition to that?
>> This is in addition to that. There was also $2.4 million provided in 2425.
>> Okay. So what's the million what's the extra what's the extra money for?
uh further development of the first pass business case working across government um with our partner agencies to um develop the legislative framework that's required as well to deliver the um project.
>> Okay. And I understand there's a requirement that all international maritime organizations, IMO member states, which includes Australia, are required to use an MSW to streamline information collection from ships. Is that right?
>> That's correct. That obligation has come into effect.
>> Yeah. So that was on the 1st of January 2024.
>> Correct.
>> So we are now behind schedule or or we're not we're not currently compliant
with that. We don't have an operational maritime single window but we are continuing to develop the work required to deliver one.
>> What are the ramifications of not having that under our obligations internationally?
>> Uh at this stage not all countries are in fact compliant. So we remain one of a batch that are working to uh deliver single windows. Um noting that some countries have more complex uh legislative border arrangements and we are one of them. We want to get it right. Uh so it has taken us a little longer to get to this stage.
>> Senator, if I might add, sorry, Paula Stagg, first assistant secretary, surface transport emissions and policy. Uh the IMO has a process where we can notify them where we're working to come into compliance with obligations. So Australia has also completed that notification process to the IMO that we're continuing to develop the uh the system, but that we don't yet have it in place. And that's a fairly standard process for the IMO where nations can notify where we work towards compliance.
I don't I'm not completely familiar with what it's doing, but it am I right in assuming that it's it's a real productivity benefit? So, it's it's it's streamlining the the amount of reporting that a ship needs to provide and and >> making is that is that correct?
>> Yes. Currently there's a number of uh manual forms that uh ships need to provide and this will provide a digital way for them to um deliver those forms through one >> uh point and then government at the back end will um manage their various entry and exit processes.
So according to Shipping Australia, shipping agents spend about 30 or over 35,000 hours per year on reporting. Uh which does seem like quite a um an impost and bottleneck. uh what I imagine that then is is essentially passed through to the cost of shipping and and the cost of we're you know very dependent uh nation on importing and and exporting. Uh so what uh what does that do to our what can you quantify at all the the the impost and the and the cost of not seeing this delivered uh sooner rather than later?
>> Uh yes, you're correct. There is um a significant administrative impost um on shippers um because of the complexity of the forms that they have to complete and the various uh locations they have to send them to. Um it can increase dwell times um while they're waiting for a slot to come in um to port and can delay some of the clearances of cargo as well.
>> And and has that been costed? Like can what that co you know what it's actually costing?
>> We haven't done a dollar cost but we do speak about it in that 35,000 hours administrative hours.
>> And so what's your time frame when when do you expect to have it operational?
>> Uh that would be a matter for
>> Right. Minister, can you shed any light
uh not really in terms of any specifics other than uh it is something that the government continues to work on uh and any sort of decision would be a matter
So we were under the agreements with the International Maritime Organization. The was it a requirement or or it was a request to have it implemented by by 1 of January 2024?
>> It is a requirement under the FA convention. That's correct.
>> Right. So So Minister, we're now 2026 >> the decision of government. I mean, we're signed up under this agreement. So, why why are we not expediting it?
through the work that we're doing on it. Uh, and any future decision will be a
so shipping accounts for over 99% of Australia's international trade and maritime industry, around 3.5% of GDP. Is the department aware that many major trading partners and IMO members have had uh MSW or equivalents for several years in place already. Uh Singapore's digital port for example was implemented in 2019. UK's MSW pilot uh was 2016 and the US adapted a system was in 2018.
>> We're aware of that. Yes, Senator. So
can the department explain why other countries have had their systems in place for years but Australia is still developing it? Can we not borrow? Can we not learn from their experiences?
>> We have worked with our our partners to understand how their systems operate um against their border arrangements which are potentially different to ours. But again it remains a decision of government whether or not to take forward the build of the system.
So if the government can't deliver on the systems that are necessary to increase productivity in industry, then how does the department expect Australia's trade and maritime industry to compete on an international level?
>> Now that would be a hypothetical question, Senator.
>> Well, it's not hypothetical that we're behind and we don't have it in place. We are operating in an international
You're asking for my opinion, Senator, and I can't provide that.
>> sorry, would you mind repeating the
>> My question is, if the government can't deliver on systems that are needed to increase productivity for industry, how does the government expect Australia's trade and maritime industry to compete on an international level?
>> Well, I don't think that's an accurate reflection of the evidence that's been >> the work that the department outlined the work that's being uh going uh with the uh business case uh being put together uh and it'll be a matter for a future government decision about uh how that is implemented.
>> So Minister Singapore had theirs in place in 2019, the UK in 2016, the US in 2018. we're competing with these countries in terms of getting products out to market uh and indeed inbound as So why why is the government not treating this as a priority to improve the efficiency of shipping for this
>> Well, they're your words not mine, Senator Sullivan. I think the department have given you a summary of the work that we've been doing. Uh and that is uh something that is important and obviously it'll be a matter for
So uh so you've said that it's up to government in terms of the time frame. So you haven't been given a mandate from government yet in relation to when this needs to be delivered by.
>> It will be brought forward when the government uh advises the department that they're ready.
Well, we're hearing that it's government's not quite there yet. Um uh can you tell me the total life cycle cost of the MSW project including the funds allocated to date? >> So I think you took me through to the
>> Senator those would be subject to future decisions of government around >> oh today yes sorry
>> uh to date uh $4.6 6 million has been appropriated and our actual spend to date is 3.3 million.
>> Are you familiar with that what other countries have spent?
>> Uh no I'm not Senator.
>> Okay. Uh and then in terms of the future allocation that that's a decision. Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll move to another
have questions? >> Sorry.
>> So this this block around airport stuff.
>> What? Yeah. Okay. >> Have you got many? Did you want to swap t? Are you swapping subjects?
>> I'm swapping subjects. So I'm happy to
>> 10 minutes.
>> Sure. Thanks. >> Thanks.
>> Thanks, chair. Let's try not to break my iPad. Um, so my questions relate to uh Brisbane Airport Corporation's 2026 I know we've spoken about this before um but I have some more questions. Um, I understand that that master plan has been out for consultation, but it is due soon. So, I guess my first question is, has Brisbane Airport Corporation's final 2026 master plan been submitted to the transport minister?
>> Senator, um, yes, it has. The minister received that on the 23rd of January, 2026.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um my understanding is that air services has to provide a noise impact endorsement along with the master plan. Is that correct?
>> That's right.
Um has that also been submitted to the minister?
>> Yes, it's part of the package.
>> So it went on the 23rd. I guess one of my questions in relation to that master plan then is that in the master plan that went out for consultation. Um there were no noise forecasts in that master plan. Um so I'm interested to know how exactly air services can give that endorsement if they haven't consulted on that.
>> So um there are a number of steps and I'm happy to take though take you through them um if you'd like Senator. >> So were you talking about the um exposure draft or you were talking about the preliminary draft? >> Okay. So at the exposure draft period which is the step before um the preliminary draft um the there are a number of um different parties who uh examine that material and that includes the airport building controller, the airport environment officer, air services Australia, um Australian border force home affairs department of agriculture, the Australian federal police, the civil aviation safety authority, the department of climate change, change, energy, the environment and water um and any internal stakeholders. So at that point those organizations have an opportunity to look at the um exposure draft and to um form a view about it before um the preliminary draft goes out for uh the 60 business day um public consultation. And between that period and when the draft um comes to us um there's an opportunity for the public to put in its submissions. And then at the draft stage um again uh all of those um a forementioned parties have another opportunity to provide information to help inform u Minister King's decision over whether to approve approve with conditions or refuse to approve the
master plan. So, are there noise forecasts in the master plan in the final master plan?
>> Um, I I'll take it on notice and double check for you, Senator, but that's my understanding.
>> Okay. Um, I understand that Earth Air Services are also in the middle of reviewing all of their flight paths as part of the postimplementation review of the new runway. Mhm. So I guess I'm interested to know if that review isn't complete, how can they give accurate noise forecasts out to 2046? If that >> might be a question better for Air
Services Australia, Senator,
>> that's not something given that you have oversight over air services that you
>> if you're asking about the accuracy of the noise exposure forecast um endorsement, that would be a matter for air services.
>> Okay. and it wouldn't be a concern to the department that they've given forecast notwithstanding that they're still conducting a review that's not complete.
>> As I said, Senator, there's an opportunity at the draft master plan stage for air services and other parties um to inform the minister's decision before she takes it.
given that air services previously failed to forecast and consult the communityly community accurately which required um tracks to be brought in. Will the department be conducting any independent assessments of the noise for forecasting in the master plan that's been submitted to the minister?
>> It's not a role of the department to um to do the noise forecasting. We don't have that expertise.
>> Okay. So, how will the minister maybe a question for the minister given that it was not accurate last time um how is the minister going to ensure that it is this
>> My understanding of the process uh senator is that the department prepares advice before the minister would make a decision. Uh I don't think that process has uh that step hasn't been taken before it goes to the minister as yet.
>> The department's just said that they
don't do that. uh they do prepare advice on the master plan uh before it goes to the minister. That step hasn't been taken is my understanding.
>> So can I just get some clarity on that because my question was that last time there were failures to forecast and consult the community accurately which meant tracks had to be brought in. My original question was will the department be conducting an independent assessment of the noise forecasting um this time round? I thought what you said was that's not something the department does, but minister, you're saying you're relying on the department's advice. So, who is checking that the forecasting is accurate?
>> Um, my understanding is that as part of that advice, air services and CASSA feed into that process before it goes to the minister.
>> So, air services is checking that it's accurate.
>> Um, all I'm saying is I'm talking about the general issue of advice on the master plan. Air services and CASA
checks and balances anywhere in the process to ensure that that is accurate?
>> Senator, if I can um just clarify my comments when you said would the um department make an an independent assessment. I thought you mean meant of um the technical aspects of the noise exposure forecast. We do assess that the information has come from air services as a technical experts um in the same way that we ask um CASSA to be the technical experts over any of the safety elements of master plans. Um and that we then ensure that that is uh that the act the obligations under the act have been met >> um rather than the development of any technical um assessment itself which is the role of air services.
>> Okay. So it's entirely reliant on the work that air services has done. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um given that the minister has been given uh the master plan, the 2026 master plan, maybe this is a question for the minister. Um do you have a timeline on when the minister will making decisions
around that? Uh I'm sorry Senator and I suppose the point I was making before is that yes the master plan has been received but my understanding is that the department now do the work on providing the advice on the master plan before the minister makes a a consideration.
>> Okay, if I may I can clarify that uh under the act it's a 50-day consideration period by the minister. Okay. um and that only just commenced in January, >> noting that the 50 days can be paused if at any point the um department uh on acting on behalf of the minister um wants to request further information um through to Brisbane Airport Corporation. And if that's the case, it triggers a stop the clock. So 50 days isn't necessarily from the day after it's received 50 straight days. It is 50 working days but they are the um they may be interrupted by RFIs.
>> Okay. Um noting then that it was received on 23rd of January and the clock has started running. Have there been any pauses put in place as of yet?
>> Yes, it has.
>> Okay. And so can you give me a time frame on how long those pauses are or that's entirely dependent on information that has to then come. entirely
dependent on the information that we're seeking from Brisbane Airport Corporation >> and the clock will restart the day after that information is provided.
>> Okay. Are you able to give um any indication of what the nature of that further information is that's required?
>> I haven't got that with me, but I'm
happy to take it on >> notice. Yeah. Thank you. Um just a little bit more on flight noise. Um and you'll have to forgive me because I'm not an expert around this stuff. So, I'll do my best to ask the question in a way that you know what I'm talking about. Um, my understanding is that Brisbane airport has a self-imposed nighttime curfew from 10 till 6. Um, it's their noise abatement procedure for the new parallel runway. Um, and it prevents the use of that um runway apart from emergencies and closure of the legacy eastern runway. Um and previously Brisbane airport has advised advised the community that that noise abatement procedure won't ever be lifted. Um however I note that Air Services Australia released a proposed flight path option in package three last year um for aircraft to depart over land from the new parallel western runway and then to immediately make a left turn out to the ocean. And I guess the crux of all this is that to implement that package three option, they would actually need to lift the noise abatement procedure, which they've previously said they won't. Um, so I guess I'm interested in some insight on how the noise abatement procedure was permitted to be put in place in the first place given that it advantages and disadvantages various parts of the community. So what is the process for that being given permission to be put in place?
>> Senator, um it's before my time and I'm I'm obviously happy to try and answer the question. I think it goes largely to a question for air services again >> um because of the nature of the work that it is doing on um delivering package 3. Yeah. Yeah. Uh what I can say um is that Minister King established um the Brisbane Airport Airspace Advisory Board as a mechanism for um the community to be able to ask questions directly of air services. Y >> um I am involved um as the department's uh representative on that board. Uh senior air services people who I know will be here later today are also involved. uh Brisbane airport and a representative of airlines as well as community members and um chaired by an independent chair. So um what I can say is there is a mechanism that is available to ask questions directly of air services about these exact matters. >> Um but I'm afraid I'm not able to answer any of the details about the noise abatement procedure that was originally put in place.
>> All right. So is your suggestion that those that question be put to air services this evening? >> Yes, it is. Okay. Um, just in terms of process, um, if the nighttime U-turn was to be implemented, does the minister have the power to cancel the noise abatement procedure?
>> I don't know the answer to that question. I'm happy to take it on
>> Okay. If you could, that'd be really a question for the minister given that Brisbane airport has this strict self-imposed noise abatement Is this just community consultation theater on the package 3 U-turn option given that one would appear to not be able to be implemented with the other?
>> Well, very very cynical of you, Senator Main. I think the work that Minister King has done in terms of uh ensuring that the community voices are heard uh in regards to these difficult matters has been an important one. >> Uh it's a vast difference to what we saw under our predecessors. Uh and it's one that I know that Minister King uh is particularly passionate about.
I guess it's more about I guess is is the minister aware that we've had these instances along the way where there's been purported consultation um but then clearly not because it's had to be gone back and either checked or or redone and given this what would appear to be a clear inconsistency that you can't do one thing and have the other. So, are these issues that the minister is still alive to? I guess because the community is telling us that they still have concerns.
>> I'm I'm sure uh the uh fantastic local member for Griffith, Renee Coffey, uh would be ensuring that the minister is well aware of community views uh in
>> All right. Thank you. That's all. Chair