Senator BOB COLLINS (Minister for Primary Industries and Energy) (10.41 a.m.) —The gymnastics Senator Parer has just been performing were extraordinary indeed in trying to portray this amendment of his as not directing the people who actually operate Sydney airport how to operate it. It absolutely confirms what I said yesterday: this is really one of the loopiest pieces of legislation that has ever been brought to this parliament. I am sorry it has got the imprimatur of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), the guy that wants to be Prime Minister of Australia.

Senator Margetts —The amendments are not too special, either.

Senator BOB COLLINS —It is the amendment I am talking about. That is legislation. The opposition's amendment that has been brought in here for legislative change is loopy. As Sir Humphrey Appleby would have said, it is a very courageous piece of legislation indeed.

  Senator Parer has delivered a whole lot of highly inaccurate stuff in the last 10 minutes, which he is well aware of, including the absolute whopper—it is nonsense—that I as minister directed that international operations should cease using simultaneous operations. That is nonsense. I did not run air traffic control, nor would I presume to. That is what you are doing. That is nonsense.

  I remember the day very well—I will not forget it—when that conflict nearly occurred on that intersection because of simultaneous operations. I will never forget it. I was minister at the time. I know exactly how you would have felt if you had been sitting in that particular seat.

  I tell you what, it gives you a different perspective about these issues, and I freely admit it. I spent 10 years in opposition and during those 10 years I was shadow minister for almost everything. It gives you a whole new perspective when you are actually sitting in the seat and you are a minister. It is a completely different situation.

  It was not a happy situation, as you described it, Senator Parer. Airservices Australia, or the then Civil Aviation Authority, did not happily operate simultaneous operations with potential conflicts on the ground and in the air at Sydney airport. In fact, it cannot be said any better than by them. Senator Parer tries to insist that this amendment does not interfere with how Airservices Australia operates Sydney airport from a safety and capacity point of view. The statement they made this year says:

Air Services Australia today reaffirmed that while parallel runways were available at Sydney airport it would not be prepared to restore simultaneous, independent runway operations using the east-west runway in intersecting operations with parallel north-south runway systems.

That is their position, which this amendment seeks to direct them to change. The situation is that, yes, you can operate simultaneous operations on intersecting airports—they do around the world—but, as the evidence that has been given to your committee and was certainly given to me in the three years I was minister indicates, it requires a greater degree of constant diligence and professionalism, which is always there, by both pilots and air traffic controllers in order to do so, particularly when you are going to operate with frequencies of up to 80 movements an hour, which is going to happen at Sydney airport.

  The reason this happened, as Senator Parer knows, is that a lot of the airports around Australia and around the world which have this expensive infrastructure have got intersecting runways because they date from the days when aircraft could not do anything else except land directly into the wind.

Senator Parer —So does Sydney.

Senator BOB COLLINS —That is correct. They are old airports. They have been continually upgraded and continually strengthened instead of being rebuilt. They are leftovers from the days when the aircraft's performance did not allow anything other than a direct landing into the wind for the safest landing. The high performance aircraft that are available now do not have to operate in such tolerances. That is why most of the new airports established around the world, including Badgerys Creek, have got parallel runways instead of intersecting runways. The aircraft available can now use parallel runways. They do not have to fly in the same tolerances they had to 20 years ago when all these other airports were built.

  Why do you then have simultaneous operations? This is the huge hole in the coalition's position, and they know it. They just wash their hands and say, `Oh well, we're not actually telling them how to operate the east-west runway.' Although you will not admit it, Senator Parer, if you operate the east-west runway in the way you are suggesting—that is, without simultaneous operations—then you absolutely destroy the capacity at the airport; you slow it down. Simultaneous operations are implemented in order to increase frequencies. Yes, they can operate.

  The cold, hard facts are that intersecting runways increase the number of potential conflict points between aircraft both on the ground and in the air. That is a fact. Parallel runway operations reduce the number of potential conflict points. I am glad that you have said that, Senator Parer, because you are absolutely correct: it is all relative. Parallel runway systems are safer than intersecting runway systems. Single runways are safer than—

Senator Parer —That assumes no use of the east-west.

Senator BOB COLLINS —You are right. I am agreeing with every word you have said. It is all relative. In respect of no runways being safer than single runways, I give Senator Burns 10 out of 10 for his observation that that would not be the case if you were trying to actually land on one. It is true and I agree with you, Senator. Parallel runways are safer than intersecting runways if you have got them to use—we now have them at Sydney, but they were not there in 1991—and a single runway is safer than having more than one runway, whether it is parallel or intersecting.

  I want to lay to rest this nonsense that was put earlier in this debate—I notice it has not been run lately—that the second parallel runway does not actually cross the east-west runway and, therefore, you do not have to worry about whatever complications would be caused by now operating simultaneous operations with two parallel runways instead of just one intersecting runway. Of course, that is nonsense.

  The aircraft have to cross the east-west runway at a particular point sooner or later to get to the airport terminal. This means that you have got an aircraft crossing that runway about once every 45 seconds, Senator Parer, whether you like it or not. What is unarguable is the fact that parallel runway operations reduce the potential conflict points. Sure, there are potential dangers; of course, there are. If pilots do not turn the way they are supposed to turn, then there will always be problems. But the number of potential conflict points with parallel runways, both in the air and on the ground, is significantly less than the number of potential conflict points on the ground and in the air with intersecting runways.

  Let me show how threadbare the argument of the opposition is on this matter, and Senator Parer knows it. I know that he would be horrified if this amendment got up and became law. He knows that it is not going to get up, and I know that he is secretly grateful for that. This is a political stunt of significant proportions. It is designed to try to con the people of Sydney, and I am sure it will not succeed. But let me show how threadbare this attempted con was.

  Senator Forshaw interjecting—

Senator BOB COLLINS —Yes. When I left this chamber yesterday, Senator Parer said in respect of the report from the FTA, `Oh well, you haven't caught up with the second report they've given us. You've only quoted their first report.' As soon as I left here, I said, `Where's their second report?' There is no second report, Senator Parer. What there is—I have it here and I read it last night—is a five-page fax sent to dear old Tony Williams, whom I have not seen for a while but who has made a lifetime career out of this particular operation—

Senator Forshaw —We have seen a lot of him lately.

Senator BOB COLLINS —I saw a lot of him then. It is not a report at all, Senator Parer, and you know it. There has been no new work done, no new analysis, since 1989. Tony Williams contacted FTA asking them to send him five pages of discussion, and that is your so-called report. It does not do what you assert it does, as you full well know. The new paper contains no new analysis. It is the same data that was used in 1989. Indeed this discussion paper says that the previous analysis would have to be updated and expanded to recognise the current and projected future situation at KSA. I am quite sure that FTA would be very grateful for the work, if they were given a consultancy to do it. All that discussion paper does is draw again on the 1989 computer modelling.

Senator Parer —What is wrong with that? It is all computer modelling.

Senator BOB COLLINS —What is wrong with it? As I said yesterday, it is a computer model based on an actual situation that does not exist—that is, with the main terminal buildings at Sydney airport being located between the two parallel runways and fast exit taxiways and all the rest of it. That is what is wrong with it. The computer model does not reflect the situation that actually exists at Sydney airport. I would have thought there were a few holes in that. As far as the capacity problems are concerned, as I said yesterday—and it is true—the FTA paper supports what all the other experts have said about those operations; that is, it would result in a reduction in capacity at Sydney airport.

  I can tell you from the horse's mouth, Senator Parer, how happy everybody was with simultaneous operations, from me down, including the Civil Aviation Authority and the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation. I sat in the seat and got the advice. You can do it, Senator Parer, and you know you can do it. Pilots and air traffic controllers, being the incredible professionals they are, operate in a highly technological and professional occupation that places enormous demands on their skills and so on. That is why they have such early retirement ages and a high frequency of burnouts, particularly the air traffic controllers. It is a very stressful occupation, particularly when something goes wrong.

  That is the other problem with reintroducing the east-west runway and simultaneous operations. Simultaneous operations are difficult enough and it requires—the evidence has been given before your committee and it was always given to me—a very high degree of application by both pilots and air traffic controllers when every minute or so aircraft are on a potential collision course both in the air and on the ground. That is how they work. When there is something wrong and pilots have to keep going around and aborting landings, it makes the operation even more difficult and stressful. That is also a fact, Senator Parer, and you know it.

  I can tell you that there was a sigh of relief around the place when those international operations were suspended at Sydney. They have never been restored. The only operator that was ever allowed to come back internationally operating Simops at Sydney airport was Qantas. The ban was never lifted from the day that it was imposed after that incident at Sydney airport.

  What I said to Senator Parer was not simply political rhetoric—and he knows it—about royal commissions and so on. As I am sure most ministers do, when you go through the accident reports that you get from BASI and you go over to BASI and get briefed on all the incidents—I think of Seaview, Monarch and all those dreadful tragedies—particularly when you fly as often as we do, you can't help going over it in your own head when you take-off in situations that you really shouldn't be flying in.

  I remember a particular flight I made in a Beechcraft Baron about two years ago from Canberra at night across mountains in bad weather. No doubt it was technically safe but I was very happy when I got on the ground at the other end. Our take-off was late because cabinet was delayed. We were supposed to be flying in daylight hours. You mentally sit in the aircraft and construct the accident report that is going to be written afterwards where BASI puts forward all the systemic things that went wrong that day that added up to a problem at the end of the day.

  I can tell you that I have never seen anything asking for that like this loopy amendment. You have got the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation saying that you should not do this, you have got the people that run air traffic control at Sydney airport saying that you should not do this, and you have got Senator Parer and the people who want to be members of the government of this country telling us that the parliament should tell everybody they can do it. It is irresponsible and it should not be supported.