- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 31 March 2004
Botany Bay National Park (Helicopter Base Relocation) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 4 of 44
| Next Item »
Page: 7843
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 March.
Mr MICHAEL RICHARDSON (The Hills) [12.02 p.m.]: The Opposition will not oppose the legislation. Opposition members, like all other members of this House, strongly support the lifesaver rescue helicopter service, which does an outstanding job. That service, which does not draw on the public purse but is funded entirely from corporate donations and sponsorship, has saved literally hundreds of lives over the years. The current location for the Southern Region SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service, the Prince Henry Hospital site that was utilised from 1988 until recently, is no longer tenable. The Government has closed Prince Henry Hospital and given it over to housing. I do not want to dwell on the problems created by the closure of about 4,700 hospital beds. Suffice to say that this is yet another problem that has been created for the people of Sydney by the Government's mismanagement of the hospital system
The Southern Region SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service, which was established in 1973, operated from Bankstown Airport for two years, then from Mascot for another two years, before going to the Royal North Shore Hospital in 1997. That site proved to be unsuitable because of changes to the Civil Aviation Authority regulations. It was capable of accommodating only one twin-engine helicopter. The service was then moved to the Prince Henry Hospital site, which was ideal for a service of this type. Much of their rescue work is associated with beaches and cliff rescues. I am sure everyone has seen graphic television images of people being winched up the cliffs and lives being saved. I take my hat off to the skill and courage of those involved with the service.
Rapid response is extremely important for such a service. The service has been relocated temporarily to Mascot airport, but that has created significant problems because helicopters must have air traffic clearance before take-off. Even the minutes taken to obtain air traffic control clearance can be crucial in an attempt to rescue someone who is in danger of drowning. The Government employed a consultant, Gary Shiels, to undertake an extensive evaluation process of other sites. He considered 50 sites around Sydney and shortlisted 12—Mona Vale Hospital, Terrey Hills, Long Reef helipad, North Head, Middle Head, Sydney Olympic Park, Granville heliport, Bankstown Airport, Sydney airport, Malabar headland, Potter Point and Port Botany.
It is not just a matter of saying, "We need a site for a helicopter." An extensive range of other issues that were identified by the lifesaver helicopter rescue service in 2000 had to be taken into account. The site had to be on the coast in the eastern corridor of Sydney, and located out of controlled airspace. Helicopters had to be able to clear the helibase on a flight path removed from residential areas. The site had to be approximately one kilometre from the closest built-up residential area; readily accessible to road ambulances; suitable for the conduct and operation of a seven-day, 24-hour aeromedical and helicopter rescue service; suitable for the operation and maintenance of an aviation engineering facility; have adequate services available, including power, water, sewerage and communications; suitable to enable the development to be approved by the relevant authority; suitable to receive Environment Protection Authority approval; and be a regularly shaped and flat land area of a minimum size of 4,000 square metres.
The criteria were expanded in August 2002. The site needed to be located away from noise-sensitive areas; have the ability to operate in all climatic conditions; have immediate clearance available for MED 1 flights, which is nearly all departures; surrounding topography could not interfere with normal operations and would not create an undue risk in an emergency; suitable for running landings and departures; a minimum of two hectares in sizeŻa significant increase; and have no obstacles or natural obstructions, such as mobile telephone towers, power poles, street lighting, traffic lights; and have an ability to expand. Those criteria significantly limited the range of possibilities. It is instructive to go through Gary Shiels' report and consider some of the sites identified. For example, the report on the Mona Vale Hospital site says in summary that based on its draft zoning northern location, insufficient space, proximity of flight paths to noise sensitive areas, lack of accessibility and travel distance to Sydney airport, the site was considered not suitable.
The Terrey Hills site was simply not an acceptable site. The Long Reef site was found, based on its zoning, to have locality restrictions, an inland location and insufficient space, proximity of flight paths to noise sensitive areas, and a lack of accessibility, and to be some travel distance from Sydney Airport, which made it unsuitable. Similarly, the North Head site was found unsuitable, based on planning controls, because of its northern location, insufficient space, flight path proximity to noise sensitive areas, lack of accessibility, and travel distance from Sydney airport. One of the most suitable sites was Port Botany. The report states that although it proved to be the most promising of all the sites that were reviewed, there were problems relating to aviation restrictions by air traffic control, and that was the major reason why that site was not recommended. There has been a significant diminution of options over a long period. I understand the service was becoming desperate. Based on conversations I have had with the chief executive officer of the service, Peter Mangles, I suspect that really has been the case.
I suppose it could be said that the selected site is not absolutely 100 per cent ideal, but probably there is no such thing as a site that is 100 per cent ideal. My staff inspected the site. I gather that it used to be a rubbish dump but is now a grassed area. It is part of the Botany Bay National Park, but I think I am correct in saying that the area does not have high conservation value. Objections based on conservation have been blown out of the water, and it is interesting to note that the National Parks Association of New South Wales has raised no objections to the proposal. The site is next to a pistol club and is also adjacent to the New South Wales Golf Club, which has raised most of the objections to the Government's proposal. In October last year, Mr Warwick Richardson, who is the President of the New South Wales Golf Club but no relation of mine, wrote to the Minister for the Environment and expressed the club's concerns.
In summary, the club's concerns include safety because the flight path, hangar and parking space are all within 10 to 50 metres of the golf course's fifth hole. The club has stated that that poses a serious concern regarding evident golf course and flight landing issues, and the public's use of the area as a walkway to Cape Banks. The Club was also concerned about noise because the site is within 150 metres of the club's fourth green, fifth tee, seventh green, eighth tee and thirteenth tee, and because of the site's visual impact. As I stated earlier, I doubt that it is possible to find a site that is absolutely 100 per cent ideal for the operation of a helicopter rescue service. However, I know that the Government has been corresponding with the golf club and has not been able to resolve all of the club's concerns. When the public good is weighed against the club's major concernŻthe visual impact of hangars being permanently located next to the fifth teeŻit is hard to make a case in favour of aesthetic considerations.
If the Government had not closed the Prince Henry Hospital, relocation of the site would not have been necessary. However, the Coalition appreciates the importance of this rescue service to the people of Sydney. As I stated earlier, the temporary site for the service is certainly not ideal and the service will not be able to operate from Mascot airport forever. The legislation before the House is very straightforward. It identifies the area that will be revoked from the Botany Bay National Park. Clause 7 (2) provides for the taking off, landing and movement of helicopters used for emergency evacuation, retrieval or rescue, helicopter facilities for those helicopters, and accommodation for the crew of those helicopters, including pilots, medical practitioners, nurses and paramedical workers. The legislation specifically states the use to which the land may be put. The Opposition has no problem with that. As I stated earlier, the Opposition very strongly supports the work of the Southern Region SLSA Helicopter Rescue Service. The Opposition wishes the service all the very best in its relocation to the Cape Banks site and for its future in providing a service to the people of New South Wales.
Ms KRISTINA KENEALLY (Heffron) [12.14 p.m.]: The Botany Bay National Park (Helicopter Base Relocation) Bill has been introduced to excise 1.38 hectares of land at Cape Banks from Botany Bay National Park for the specific purpose of relocating the Southern Region Surf Life Saving Association [SLSA] Rescue Helicopter Service. The rescue helicopter service is an essential element in the statewide aeromedical ambulance and rescue network of NSW Health. The service provides a number of important rescue and emergency services to the people of New South Wales including a 24-hour, 7 days per week airborne response to calls for emergency rescue and medical assistance, a search and rescue service on land and at sea through the use of emergency distress beacons, and search, recovery and rescue services during accidents and natural disasters. The rescue helicopter service flies on average two rescue missions per day.
Relocation of the service to the Cape Banks site will provide many benefits for the service, including the opportunity for a new, purpose-built base that will allow the service to operate from a modern facility that is specifically designed to meet current guidelines and a prompt response to waterborne rescues along the eastern coastline of Sydney. Moreover, the site is on the periphery of Sydney's airspace control zone and the rescue helicopter service will be able to quickly access class G, that is, unregulated airspace, on a flight path removed from residential areas. Ambulance and medical staff at Cape Banks will be able to provide backup to their medical counterparts working with air ambulances at Mascot airport. The Cape Banks site is a suitable distance from established residential areas at Little Bay, which will greatly reduce its noise impact on any surrounding residences.
The rescue helicopter service previously operated from the former Prince Henry Hospital site when the spinal and rehabilitation care facility was located at that hospital. The decision to close the hospital and locate spinal and rehabilitation care in a new facility at Prince of Wales Hospital was based on professional medical advice that patient care would otherwise suffer. Landcom purchased the former hospital site from NSW Health and is in the process of redeveloping the site for a range of residential, commercial and community uses. This, combined with the location of existing housing close to the Prince Henry Hospital site, resulted in the need for the relocation of the rescue helicopter service's base.
As an interim measure Landcom has leased a hangar at Mascot airport and office space at St Peters until October 2006. Mascot airport and St Peters are both part of the Heffron electorate. My electorate is pleased to have been able to provide an interim basis for the rescue helicopter service. The interim site has provided the service with a temporary operational and administrative base and has allowed Landcom to proceed with the redevelopment of the former hospital site. However, in the long term the Mascot airport base will not be suitable for the rescue helicopter service as the site is located in controlled airspace. At Mascot airport there is high potential for the rescue helicopter service to experience delays in obtaining air traffic clearances for emergency and rescue aircraft missions, and there may be an adverse effect on the operations of Mascot airport, particularly during peak periods.
In consultation with the rescue helicopter service, Landcom investigated some 50 sites for the relocation of the rescue helicopter service's base. These included sites at Port Botany, Terrey Hills and Cape Banks, which is located on the northern shores of Botany Bay in Botany Bay National Park. Apart from Cape Banks, all other sites investigated were found to be unsuitable for a variety of operational and environmental reasons. The Cape Banks site ultimately was determined to be the most suitable site for the relocation of the rescue helicopter service. It should be noted that this bill will permit the Cape Banks site to be used only for helicopter emergency and rescue services that are undertaken by the rescue helicopter service, and for no other purpose. The excision of 1.38 hectares of land from Botany Bay National Park at Cape Banks which will be facilitated by the introduction of this bill will provide the best possible opportunity to safely relocate this essential and valuable facility of the rescue helicopter service. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr THOMAS GEORGE (Lismore) [12.20 p.m.]: The Botany Bay National Park (Helicopter Base Relocation) Bill enables the relocation of the Southern Region Surf Life Saving Association Rescue Helicopter Service from the former Prince Henry Hospital site to an area within Botany Bay National Park by revoking the reservation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 of certain land as part of Botany Bay National Park, vesting the land as Crown land within the meaning of the Crown Land Act 1989, and facilitating the use of that land for the purposes of a helicopter base for emergency aerial evacuation, retrieval and rescue. Clause 6 revokes the reservation under the National Parks and Wildlife Act of that land as part of Botany Bay National Park. Upon revocation the land becomes Crown land.
However, the bill excludes the operation of section 35 of the Crown Lands Act with respect to the lease of, or granting of a licence in respect of, land for the taking off, landing and movement of helicopters used for emergency evacuation, retrieval or rescue; helicopter facilities for those helicopters; and accommodation for the crew of those helicopters, including pilots, medical practitioners, nurses and paramedical workers. In addition, an environmental planning instrument cannot prohibit, require development consent for, or otherwise restrict, the development of land with respect to those functions I have mentioned. Honourable members may wonder why a member representing an electorate far from the Botany Bay facility would want to speak to this bill. I indicate at the outset that I am a past director of the Northern Region Westpac Life Saver Rescue Service. I am proud of that and proud to support the wonderful surf life saving rescue helicopter services throughout the State.
In my electorate of Lismore, we went through this same process and built a special complex to enable the housing of the rescue helicopter service. The Lismore electorate is very proud of the hangar and facilities that have been built. The rescue service needs to be housed in a facility that provides professional headquarters and suitable work environment. I have read a document that stated that Mascot is an acceptable location and that the facility should be provided in the Botany Bay area. As the Minister responsible for the National Parks and Wildlife Service is in the Chamber, I ask him to indicate that approval for the relocation will be granted far more quickly than approval for a Telecom phone tower in the national park at Yabbra; we are still awaiting that approval.
The facility will provide an essential professional helicopter rescue service. The community willingly supports that service financially. Although we all hope that we do not have to use the service, it is comforting to know that it is there. I am proud to recognise the work of the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service throughout the State and compliment it on the work it does. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
Mr MALCOLM KERR (Cronulla) [12.25 p.m.]: I am pleased to support the bill.
Mr Tony Stewart: Don't mention the shire.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I am advised to not mention the shire. I am surprised at that interjection, because the bill directly touches on the shire.
Mr Tony Stewart: Everything does.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: Yes, everything does, as honourable members often point out. Botany Bay bounds the shire to some extent. The honourable member for Strathfield would know that Councillor Kevin Schreiber, when mayor of Sutherland shire, worked with the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils to save Botany Bay from pollution. The provisions of the bill are quite important and I acknowledge the efforts that have made this bill possible. The Legislation Review Committee reported on the bill, and found that 30 alternative sites were reviewed, but all were deficient in some way. I have been informed that 50 sites were reviewed, and all were found deficient. Finally, a site was found within the Botany Bay National Park, which brought about a number of problems.
The Parliamentary Secretary noted a number of those problems in his second reading speech, such as vesting of native title, and said that the interests of other competing users of the park had to be addressed. The solution suggested by the Carr Government was a reduction of national parks. In fact, Cabinet approved the excision of land at Cape Banks from the Botany Bay National Park and provided that such excision is only for the purpose of providing the rescue helicopter service. That service should be a source of great pride to people in Sydney and across the State. I am informed that 20,000 missions have been flown by the service and, importantly, at no cost or obligation to any member of the public. That should endear the service to the Treasurer, because it has been funded by donations and corporate sponsorship as well as by contractual arrangements with the New South Wales Department of Health.
The honourable member for Heffron outlined the array of facilities and disciplines that have been required over the history of this service. The honourable member for Lismore said earlier that none of us would like to avail ourselves of this service. However, we all know that some of our fellow citizens have been and will be injured in the future and that they will require emergency services. For that reason honourable members should support the bill. A considerable amount of work has been done to address the problems that have arisen. The honourable member for Heffron outlined the problems that we would have encountered if this legislation were not amended.
For those reasons I fully support the bill, and I believe it should enjoy the support of all honourable members. I commend the work done by those people who reviewed the 51 available sites. That work was essential to ensure that the service was located on a site that met all its needs. However, problems might arise in the future. The Government must at least review this legislation at some time in the future to ensure that all the needs and requirements of the service are met. This legislation was examined by the Legislation Review Committee, which referred to a number of issues and, in deference to the work that is being done by that committee, I will refer to some of them. In its report the committee states:
The proposed Act is to commence on a day or days to be appointed by proclamation.
For the benefit of those Government members who might not be aware, the committee draws attention to the fact that bills have to be proclaimed. The committee goes on to state:
The Committee notes that providing for an Act to commence on proclamation delegates to the government the power to commence the Act on whatever day it chooses, or not to commence the Act at all.
Government members should also be aware of that provision. The committee also states:
Whilst where there may be good reasons why such discretion is required, the Committee considers that, in some circumstances, it can give rise to an inappropriate delegation of legislative power.
That is another important matter. I appreciate that honourable members might like me to draw attention to a number of other issues.
Mr Tony Stewart: You mentioned the shire only 10 times.
Mr MALCOLM KERR: I could make a few more references to the shire, but I will conclude my contribution so the business of the House can proceed.
Mr TONY STEWART (Bankstown—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.34 p.m.], in reply: I thank all honourable members for their contributions to debate on this important legislation. It is great to see co-operation on a common goal. The Opposition's support of this legislation is important. The honourable member for The Hills said he has read the bill and he has been involved in discussions elsewhere in relation to it. His perusal of the bill and his discussions all led to the same conclusion: this is the best option for the helicopter rescue service. I share his point of view. The honourable member for Cronulla, after mentioning the shire only 10 or 11 times, referred to the main issue in this debate: the overall importance of this service to our region, and the wonderful work that is being done by the helicopter rescue service.
The honourable member for Heffron also referred to those issues. She mentioned the work that was done to ensure that the bill was considered in a bipartisan way, after consultation with major stakeholders. Following discussions that were undertaken by Landcom, the Cape Banks site proved to be the most suitable site on which to relocate the helicopter rescue service base. That site has now been cleared. The site is slightly contentious in that it is part of a national park, and concern was expressed about that issue. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, which has carefully examined all these issues, investigated the site and consulted with major stakeholders. It has come to the conclusion that this service would not denigrate or work against the amenities that are available in the national park.
Issues such as native title have also been addressed. Discussions have been held with the local Koori community, land title issues have been carefully examined, and full agreement was reached with all stakeholders. The interests of competing users in Botany Bay National Park have also been addressed, and various stakeholders have had input. The helicopter service base will not include the New South Wales pistol club, but the concerns of that club have been addressed. The options suggested by club officials were canvassed and the bill addresses all those issues. The car park, which is utilised by visitors to Botany Bay National Park, provides the only public access to this area.
The interests of anglers also had to be addressed. Whale watching is now a growing interest in that area—the best coastal strip in Australia. This is one of the cleanest harbours in the world, which is why whales are returning to it and we are able to see them. My children will be able to visit this national park every year and witness the great whale migration. When I grew up I did not have that opportunity as the harbour was not as clean and the environment was not as sound. I thank the Carr Labor Government for cleaning up our harbours. A successful barometer of that is the return of the marine life that once frequented this area. Whale watchers and bushwalkers will not be handicapped by the implementation of this service. Honourable members would be aware that I made a decision to walk across the Himalayas.
[Interruption]
Opposition members would know that the bush exists up to about 4,000 metres. I started bushwalking in the Botany Bay National Park and that gave me the inspiration to tackle other areas. The bill will not affect the rights, access, and needs of bushwalkers. The car parking area in the national park will not be affected. All the people in that area were consulted before implementation of the service. Accordingly, it is not proposed to excise this section of the park, which remains within Botany Bay National Park. Importantly, the bill does not excise the access road that runs adjacent to the proposed helicopter rescue service base. This road is the main route used by officers of the Department of Environment and Conservation and emergency services to access the coastal section of Botany Bay National Park. It is also the main, although not the only, pedestrian access to the coast. It is an important pedestrian thoroughfare and we do not want it to be affected by the establishment of the helicopter rescue service. The service road will remain in use in response to public need, and it will be retained within Botany Bay National Park.
The New South Wales Golf Club also benefits from the excision, which enables the accommodation of an existing minor encroachment near the fifth tee. In fact, this development will assist golfers, a number of whom had complained about the encroachment that allows access to drainage works and so on. The excision will assist the average golfer at the New South Wales Golf Club. Although some concern was expressed about the dimension of the development and how it might affect existing amenities and the way in which the golf club operates, agreement was reached on those issues following consultation.
All those concerns have been fully addressed. Landcom has invited the golf club to participate with it and the helicopter rescue service in a project control group. That is an important move, and it is part of this Government's consultative approach to all issues. This group will be responsible for the preliminary planning and design of the proposed base and will determine the best location for the hangar and landing pad on the site, taking into account noise and risk hazard considerations. A joint relationship management plan is also proposed to cover the day-to-day operations of the base and the golf course. Six houses located west of the proposed base are understood to have some World War II heritage significance and are under the control of the Department of Environment and Conservation.
[Interruption]
The honourable member for Lismore, as an old-timer, should be interested in this. These houses are not in the proposed flight paths and will not be affected. The Cape Banks site has been occupied and used by Scouts Australia. I commend that great organisation, particularly its New South Wales branch, for its hard work. The scouts have advised the helicopter rescue service that they are happy to work in partnership regarding the use of the site. I congratulate them on taking that approach. The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 does not permit Botany Bay National Park to be used for the purpose of a helicopter rescue facility so it was determined that the simplest and most effective method of facilitating the relocation of this helicopter rescue service base to Cape Banks was by introducing the Botany Bay National Park (Helicopter Base Relocation) Bill, and I commend it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:42:41 : Update this page