Mr ZAMMIT (6:13 PM) —I do not propose to oppose the suspension of standing orders to allow the member for Hindmarsh (Mrs Gallus) to bring her bill on. By agreement I will be speaking for about 10 or so minutes on the issue of aircraft noise and aircraft emissions. Hopefully, that will allow the member to take her bill through all stages.

The issue of aircraft noise and emissions will affect more and more people all around Australia; and, more specifically, with the huge increase being predicted in tourism, it particularly will affect Australian airports. In that context, I must say how disturbed and disappointed I am that the government has chosen to give priority to this bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill, by bringing it forward, when the Adelaide airport is very small when compared with Sydney airport and the effects of aircraft noise and emissions on the people of Sydney—the one million people of Sydney—have been well documented and brought to the attention of everyone in the government. I have been concerned for my constituents in the electorate of Lowe for a period of two years, during which time I have been trying desperately to get the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to honour his `categorical assurances', as stated by him repeatedly to the electorate of Lowe prior to the election on 2 March 1996.

My efforts to bring my bill before the parliament have been frustrated by the actions of the government. I know that some people may say, `If you were part of the government, it might have been different.' But the point I would make is that, when I was part of the government, I tried for two whole years to get the Prime Minister to see reason and to honour his `categorical assurances', as he put it, to the electorate of Lowe prior to the last election. But nothing has happened. So I have no choice. Whilst it was the Prime Minister and not me who made those promises, I have had to take responsibility for them because I am a man of integrity.

In speaking about my Sydney Airports Bill, which I put before this parliament for its first reading a little over two months ago, I would just like to put on the record that I have received a tremendous degree of support for it from various groups, and I want to put their names on the record. The first is Save our Skies, which is a community group representing the residents of the Sydney's inner west. It is a very well organised and a very committed group of people. That group states:

Thumbs up for Zammit Airport Plan . . .

The group also states:

Mr Zammit's Airports Bill is what Sydney residents need and deserve. It is one of the few rational and fair proposals concerning Sydney Airport's noise problems to surface in a long time. SOS—

that is, Save our Skies—

fully supports the Zammit bill.

Also, a letter from the North-West Residents Airport Group, NWRAG, states:

Dear Mr Zammit—this letter is to express the support of the North West Residents Airport Group for your initiative in Parliament yesterday in putting forward the Sydney Airports Bill 1998.

Additionally, I have a press release issued by the Eastern Coalition of Airports Groups, ECAG, which formally represents the councils of Waverley, Willara, Randwick and Botany. That press release states:

Eastern Suburbs supports Zammit's Private Member's Bill to establish the Sydney Airports Commission.

So I want to put on the record in this parliament the dismay of the people of Sydney at being treated so shabbily by the government and by the Prime Minister in not allowing this bill to come forward for debate. What does the government have to hide? What does it have to say about what has been said by these community groups, who believe that my bill will go a long way to solving some of the problems that they have experienced over a long period of time?

To any of the member of the government who feels comfort in the fact that they might be part of the government and that may well be protected by the government in the event that the coalition were to win the next election, I would just say that they need look no further than me in the seat of Lowe. I feel that the people of the Lowe electorate and I have been treated in a very shabby way by the Prime Minister.

I also want to put on the parliamentary record that only yesterday the Prime Minister got up in this parliament and said—and I do not have the actual quote, so I will paraphrase him—something along the lines of the people of Lowe being some of the greatest winners in regard to the matter of aircraft noise. Let me just remind the Prime Minister of the promises he made, and I will reiterate them. This is what he said in a press release on 8 February 1996:

I want to state categorically that those who have not been affected by disruptive and loud aircraft noise in the past in the seat of Lowe will not be affected in the future . . .

That is a broken promise. The Prime Minister then went on to say:

I wish in particular to state that upon reopening the east-west runway, there will be no new flight paths over Ashfield, Burwood, Concord, Concord West, Homebush, Mortlake, North Strathfield Road, Strathfield, Strathfield South or Strathfield West . . .

That has been broken. The Prime Minister goes on to say that, additionally, the coalition's policy will result in `a dramatic reduction in flights over the electorate of Lowe with consequent benefits to the health and lifestyle of the affected residents'—and that has been broken as well. There is one further item from that press release I would put on the record, and that is where the Prime Minister said:

I denounce the scaremongering tactics employed by the ALP who are relying more and more on half-truths and lies to bolster their tenuous position.

For that to be said by the Prime Minister is interesting because a lot of people have used the same words about the Prime Minister's `categorical assurances', as he put it, to my electorate prior to 2 March 1996.

I am very concerned about the health and welfare of aircraft noise affected people. I have been trying to raise in, and point out to, this parliament the dangers involved with aircraft emissions and their effects on people's health.

I raised the issue of pollution over Sydney in regard to aircraft emissions. The minister said that there is nothing to worry about; that it is no more than two or three per cent. I think that either the minister did not know what he was talking about or he was ill-advised by the people who have the technical knowledge about this matter. The reason that I say that he must have been misled by those advising him is that the two to three per cent pollution that he refers to is two to three per cent if the pollution were to be spread over the whole of Australia. In other words, that is a play on figures that has given the minister little credit. The pollution over residents from planes overflying Sydney airport is a hell of a lot more than two to three per cent. The difficulty is that neither the minister nor the government is able to quantify that figure. I think that is a great shame because the people of Sydney want to know exactly how bad the situation is with regard to their effects.

The other thing that is very important is that the minister very conveniently forgot to mention that the percentages that he quoted—the two to three per cent—are very much out of date. The figure that was being quoted is some eight or 10 years old. In fact, jet fuel use in Australia has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. The latest figure I have is in the vicinity of 84 per cent. Additionally, the minister needs to be reminded that there has been no measurement of carcinogens or toxins emitted by aviation, and he must answer why that has not occurred.

The Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) received from me questions on notice asked on 24 March 1998. I raised the matter in the parliament with the Speaker, and I must say how concerned I am that, more than two months after that date—getting on for three months—the minister has not responded to matters that I believe are extremely important. The questions refer to the Sydney Airport Community Forum and the cost to the Commonwealth. That figure has not been provided. I asked about the SACF terms of reference and constitution, how its members were chosen—which I think is extremely important—whether the Commonwealth provides funds to the monitoring committee, including certain individuals on that committee whom I mentioned in my question on notice, and how regularly the IMC meets with the minister and his advisers or employees of Airservices Australia. Just as important, I asked at whose expense this occurred. Who was involved in the selection processes for the advertising agency to promote the new LTOP and what sum did they charge? These are very important figures that need to be provided to this parliament and to the people of Sydney who are the taxpayers.

This issue was brought to a head in an article, that I referred to in the House, by Robert Wainwright, the transport writer for the Sydney Morning Herald. In that article he states:

The Prime Minister has admitted for the first time that his government cannot meet its aircraft noise sharing promises and wants to back away from targets set in the long-term operating plan, LTOP, for Sydney airport.

The LTOP targets are 17 per cent to the north and north-west, 15 per cent to the west, 13 per cent to the east and 55 per cent over water to the south. When I first saw these figures I asked the minister's advisers—in fact, I asked the former minister—how these figures were arrived at. Were these figures plucked out of the air, or has there been any modelling done? The answer was, `We don't know.'

Let us talk about the fairness or otherwise of these figures—13 per cent to the east and 17 per cent to the north and north-west. The important thing to recognise is that on the third runway, only the smaller planes take off to the north and bank to the right and go over the eastern suburbs. Yet somebody decided that they are only going to put 13 per cent of the movements over the third runway. Why should they put 17 per cent of the movements on the main north-south runway taking off to the north and north-west, overflying inner western Sydney when the take-offs to the north—(Time expired)

Debate (on motion by Mr Andrew) adjourned.