Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that a lot has been made of the front page of The Daily Telegraph today when it comes to the vexed issue of Sydney's second airport. A lot of people seem to suggest that the Prime Minister has picked up on the concerns of Western Sydney and will now consult with people about the location of the second airport.

I do not buy this for one minute. The Prime Minister is trying to extract himself and the government from a home-baked mess, which is that the people within the coalition who are spruiking for the creation of a second airport have been leaking and backgrounding for a solid period of time now about the fact that this airport will be constructed, even though last January the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said, 'We have absolutely no plans for a second airport at Badgerys Creek.' Then, last week, we saw the suggestion splashed across the papers that an airport decision would be made in cabinet this week. So, to get himself out of it, the Prime Minister had to cobble together this grouping of Western Sydney MPs he allegedly was going to consult with about the airport.

It is interesting that when in government Labor, under then Minister Albanese, brought together a cross-party group to discuss the issue of airport needs. It was made up of members of the coalition and of Labor. In this one we have the Prime Minister bringing together just Liberal Party members to consult with. What is interesting is that one of the members who will be most affected by the airport as proposed in previous plans, the member for McMahon, is not involved. However, the member for Mitchell, who is at least three or four electorates away, has been brought in. I note that the member for Reid, potentially, is going to be brought in, and he, too, is three or four electorates away from the site. And I would not be surprised if they put the member for Barton in. But the member for Barton does not even know what side of the chamber he is sitting on, so, if he cannot locate himself on the right side of the chamber, I do not know what he will bring in terms of consultation on the location of an airport.

What gets me going is that if you are going to be fair dinkum about this you are going to broaden the debate out and you are going to involve people in this decision. You are not going to have the decision rammed through on the people of Western Sydney. What I am also interested to hear about is the cajoling and bullying of Western Sydney on the issue of the airport. We are being told that the economic development and growth of Sydney is being affected because Badgerys Creek has not been built. If people are serious about that, why is there no discussion, for instance, on the curfew that exists at Sydney airport and the caps that are put on the number of flights that are allowed every hour at the airport? We have sunk all of this money into the infrastructure there. We have airlines that want to be based there and we have the fact that passengers want to be close to the CBD of Sydney. Yet no thought has been given to increasing the number of flights allowed per hour or the bandwidth in which they are allowed to land at Sydney airport. But we are being told that we can put millions of dollars and potentially billions of dollars into this airport in Western Sydney, and we have to cop that development without looking at the funds to be made.

What is also interesting is that there are rumours around the place that Qantas is going to be cutting out more jobs. Qantas is under all sorts of pressure. We do not have money for SPC Ardmona and we do not have money for Holden, but we have money to help Qantas, potentially, by providing a 24-hour-a-day airport right in the middle of Western Sydney. Coincidentally, there is money to be found to reduce aircraft noise for the member for North Sydney and southern area MPs, but they will force an airport the size of Brisbane's out in Western Sydney. It is simply not good enough.

The people of Western Sydney have been insulted by the lack of consultation about this airport. Their MPs are not being involved, and this group being brought together by the Prime Minister has been brought together simply to ram through in his own party room a decision on this airport and break a promise that Prime Minister Tony Abbott made when he said he had absolutely no plans. The people of Western Sydney, especially those who are represented by the members for Lindsay and Macarthur, and the Labor members in Western Sydney, will be railroaded, and the wishes of Western Sydney will be denied. (Time expired)

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take up the member for Chifley on his kind invitation to speak about the committee the Prime Minister has established to ensure there is proper consultation with government members and with Western Sydney communities. I fully endorse the Prime Minister in this orderly process he has put together to ensure the views of communities, community leaders, businesses and members or parliament are heard.

We really did not hear the audacity of hope from the member for Chifley did we? What we really heard was a continuation of the last 30 years of governments squibbing an important decision about the future of the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our country. This game playing has to end, these politics have to stop, and the government is looking at addressing this critical economic decision in the very near future. It is important that we move on from this era, that the member for Chifley just so adequately represented, where even in his own party, just today, the Manager of Opposition Business said to television cameras that he supports a second airport at Sydney. When back in opposition they are back to opposing the airport, just to get some votes and just to stir up trouble.

What we ought to be discussing are the details of how an airport can best be constructed in Western Sydney that minimises the impact. I absolutely agree that this should not be a 24/7 airport and that it should have the same standards applied to it as Kingsford Smith Airport. These are the kinds of important discussions and feedback that should be had, rather than the cynical political game-playing that has been happening. Yes, there was an all-party working group in the last parliament and I attended one of the meetings with Minister Albanese, and of course no decision ever arose from it. This is the game played between governments over 30 years that has prevented this important decision from being made for our biggest city.

Perhaps we can break out of this. Perhaps you could read The Audacity of Hope, and get a bit of inspiration. It is time for us to make this decision and move on, and the government intends to make this decision after a proper process of consultation. This government has a principled approach to consultation. I agree that there is a diversity of views, there is a range of factors that need to be considered. There are ways of constructing an airport and putting the right infrastructure in place that will ensure many of the concerns of the member for Chifley and his community are addressed. We can do this, we can have the jobs, we can have the economic benefits, and we can also minimise noise and environmental impacts and ensure we have a suite of infrastructure that benefits the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our nation. This can be done.

I think the member for Chifley is very cynical when reflecting on the Prime Minister's establishment of this committee. Yes, there is a diversity of views in government members, and there is no problem with having a diversity in views. The people impacted also have a diversity of views. They need to have certainty about the type of airport; how it will be conducted; when it will be conducted; what guarantees will be in place; that there will be appropriate insulation arrangements, just as there would be at Kingsford Smith Airport; and that curfews will ensure that any impacts are minimal.

I also think it is especially cynical to raise Qantas on a day we hear there are some issues in relation to employment matters at Qantas. If the member for Chifley wanted to assist Qantas he could consider putting a motion into the House to amend the Qantas Sale Act, to allow Qantas to source the capital it needs to do business. It is not asking for government capital or government underwriting. It can do this with private capital, and it can arrange its own arrangements as the business it needs to be. Simple amendments to the Qantas Sale Act will remove the restrictions that are in place on the business that do not allow it to compete. You can join us on this. There is a solution to the problem you raise.

So if you want to come forward and propose amendments to the Qantas Sale Act, we are here to receive them today, member for Chifley. But if you are here just to play the political ping-pong of the last 30 years—we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it, we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it—that game has to end. This decision has to be taken in the interests of the people of New South Wales, of Sydney and of Western Sydney in particular. It has to be taken so that we can move on with the site of Badgerys Creek. Either we are going to build an airport, or we are going to allow more housing, and do the things that need to be done. I believe this is a government that will make this decision.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley.

I believe they will do the things they should do—that is, make a decision in the best interests of Western Sydney and our economy and do the things that need to be done and take into account the real concerns of many community groups. We can do both.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley.

We can build this airport, we can take into account their considerations, but we can not do it if we have the politics of cynicism and negativity, if we continue this 30-year game of ping-pong that gets played between governments.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 187.

Mr Husic interjecting—

That word is not parliamentary word and you will leave the chamber under standing order 187.

The member for Chifley then left the chamber.

This government and this Prime Minister are doing the right thing by consulting with government colleagues, they are doing the right thing by consulting with the western Sydney community, and I fully support the Prime Minister and the government.