Mr LATHAM(3.39 p.m.) —I commend the member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio) for bringing this motion before the House. I commend her for two reasons: first, she has highlighted the government's mismanagement of the second airport issue; and, secondly, she has posed the valid question that, if it is good enough for Holsworthy to be considered as an alternative to Badgerys Creek, why is it not good enough for Goulburn? If it is good enough for Holsworthy to be considered as the alternative airport site, why is it not good enough for the other eight sites that were considered in 1986—everything from Richmond through to Goulburn? I recoil with surprise to hear the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) talking about delays. I recoil with surprise when I consider his cant and hypocrisy in talking about delays.

Mr Cadman —Ha, ha!

Mr LATHAM —The member for Mitchell scoffs at the idea that under this government there will be a 10-year delay in the construction of the second airport.

The member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) throws his head back with surprise. But what he should do right now is march up to the office of the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, Mrs Bishop, and ask her why she issued the following letter to a constituent of mine who resides in Minto Heights. That constituent was writing to the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel asking, if the government were to proceed with an airport at Holsworthy, what would happen to the $30 million construction of the new army hospital at Holsworthy—a hospital that has been relocated out of Ingleburn in my electorate to the electorate of the member for Hughes (Mrs Vale). This is what the office of the minister replied:

If Holsworthy is selected as the site for the second airport, then the hospital would be relocated.

She went on:

This would not be necessary until the airport was operational, which would not be for about 10 years.

There it is from a minister in this Howard government, saying to one of my constituents that, if the airport is to be built at Holsworthy and the hospital needs to be relocated, it will not happen `until the airport was operational, which would not be for about 10 years'.

There is a 10-year delay under this government in the construction of the second airport. So, if the member for Lowe has a concern about aircraft noise for his constituents, if he has a concern about aircraft noise around Mascot, he should go back to his constituents and tell them that there will be no relief under the policies of the Howard government for 10 years and the source of that is the office of one of the ministers who has responsibility. The Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel, who has all those Holsworthy considerations on her plate, has announced in this letter, which I will seek leave to table, that the second airport will not be built for 10 years.

During that decade there will be time to have another five studies into Holsworthy, another five studies into Goulburn and another five studies or more into Richmond. With a 10-year delay, there is time for study after study after study. So why the rush to put the fix on to have this airport constructed at Holsworthy in the electorate of the member for Hughes or, in the event of the government still being keen, at Badgerys Creek? Why the rush? Why the haste? Why the fix to do all this so quickly if you have a minister out of her office announcing that it will be 10 years until it is built?

I challenge the member for Lowe to take this letter back and letterbox it throughout his electorate and surrounding constituencies to let them know that government policy is not to build the second airport for a decade. I challenge the member for Hughes, who is in the chamber, to take this letter to her constituents and ask why there is a need for an EIS within the next six months if the airport will not be operational for another 10 years. Why the rush into Holsworthy if government policy is not to do anything about this for 10 years? I challenge the member for North Sydney to go back to his consultative committee—his gerrymandered, rigged consultative committee—and ask them how serious the government is to do something about aircraft noise in the inner city, when Mrs Bishop has announced in this letter to my constituent that nothing will change for a decade?

The mismanagement, the cant, the hypocrisy, the misguided fools on the government side who cannot get their thinking and their policy straight on this issue! This is, of course, a government led by someone who conned the people of Holsworthy. There was a 12-month debate about aircraft noise in Sydney, and not for a moment did the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) mention, in a word or a whisper, Holsworthy. A few weeks after the election, all of a sudden there is the need for an EIS into Holsworthy.

The member for Prospect has put the very sensible proposition: if it is good enough for Holsworthy, it is good enough for Goulburn. If it is good enough for Holsworthy, it is good enough for the other eight sites that were considered in 1986. There is no rush; there is no fast tracking. We have 10 years to get this right, under the schedule announced by Mrs Bishop. So the motion is a good one in the context of this government's delays.

Mr Zammit —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Werriwa has posed certain questions across the chamber in regard to the letter purportedly sent by the minister.

Mr LATHAM —I will table it.

Mr Zammit —I am not asking you to table it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —Could you please get to your point of order?

Mr Zammit —There is a very big difference between `operational' and `fully operational to maximum use'.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order.

(Time expired)

Mr Latham —I seek leave to table the letter.

Leave granted.