Mr MURPHY (5:14 PM) —The government makes great play that the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2001 is all about guaranteeing regional access for aircraft to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. If that were all this bill were meant to be, we would have no worries about this legislation. However, I am deeply concerned that this bill is all about ratifying the government's new airport policy that was announced on 13 December 2000 to maximise—as the member for Cook has just said—Kingsford Smith airport and also expand Bankstown Airport so that they do not have to build a second airport for Sydney for another 10 to 20 years. I am deeply concerned that the discussion paper associated with this legislation was released only late yesterday and I have not yet had the opportunity to see it. It is timely to remind this House of the words of the member for Gippsland and Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, the Hon. Peter McGauran, when he gave the second reading speech on this bill on 8 March this year. He said:

That statement by the member for Gippsland was made in contrast to the actual provisions of the bill. In my view, however, the provisions of the bill are a disaster waiting to happen for the people of Sydney in terms of aircraft noise and air safety. This bill contains provisions that fundamentally alter the management of aircraft movements at Sydney airport. The proposed government amendments are so serious, in my view, that I must voice my concerns on behalf of my constituents that this legislation could result in a marked increase in aircraft noise throughout Sydney and, in particular, my electorate of Lowe. Additionally, these amendments, when combined with this government's announcement on 13 December 2000 to make Bankstown Airport an overflow airport, constitute one of the most irresponsible groups of decisions ever made by the government.

Before going into detail about my concerns, I foreshadow that, when the bill leaves this chamber, it will be referred to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee where the issues that I and my colleagues raise in this debate will be scrupulously examined. If our concerns are shared by that committee, the government can expect most of these amendments to be defeated in the Senate. I, too, wish to foreshadow that I reserve my right to make a submission to the Senate committee before the bill is settled in the other chamber.

The issues I wish to discuss tonight are: the redistribution of slots to the loudest, largest aircraft during peak periods; the impact on aircraft noise resulting from the slots redistribution; and the impact of these amendments on the ability of a person to challenge the allocation of slots to the ACCC, including the loss of right of appeal to the Australian Competition Tribunal and the Federal Court. I must observe that this government has embraced the habit of proposing administrative remedies that are simply both brutal and draconian. When a policy trammels a person's rights, we see this government simply denying rights of appeal in the hands of aggrieved people by cutting off their rights absolutely. We see this approach in immigration law, by denying rights of appeal of whole classes of applicants to the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and we see it here tonight.

Let us not be fooled by any spin about how this bill guarantees regional access. Let us look at the bill itself. What does this bill do? The primary purpose of the bill is to override the provisions of part III of the Trade Practices Act. The relevant provisions of the Trade Practices Act were specifically designed to protect a person's access to certain facilities with monopolistic characteristics. Airports are a prime example of such monopolistic practices. This government has sought to ensure that the allocation of slots are protected from possible legal action by a person aggrieved by such allocations by way of application to the ACCC or ACT or on appeal to the Federal Court to have the services declared.

The very intent of this bill derides the legal protection of the Trade Practices Act by denying the statutory effect of part III on those relying on regional access. And why is the government doing this? The answer is, again, to prepare Sydney airport to be sold, alone, at the highest price it can get. The purpose is to increase the capacity of Sydney airport to its absolute maximum by ensuring that the largest, loudest, bulkiest and dirtiest planes fly over the roofs of Sydney's residential areas during so-called peak periods, which translates to meaning mornings from six to nine and evenings from seven to 11, seven days a week. How could the government possibly come to the decision it has?

I refer to the coalition government's aviation policy dated 13 February 1996 titled `Soaring into tomorrow'. Did the coalition not say, at page 10:

Did the coalition not say, at page 14, under the title `Sydney and Sydney West Airport':

Of course, one may be forgiven for thinking that part of the solution in solving Sydney's noise problems means the reopening of the east-west runway and that this runway will remain open. However, this is not apparently so. A review of the sequence of events will reveal the treachery this government has perpetrated on the residents of Sydney.

I first turn to the government's announcement of 13 December 2000. This announcement states that Sydney airport is to expand and that Bankstown Airport is to be an overflow airport. A cursory glance of the proximity of Bankstown and Sydney airports immediately leads to the conclusion that the airports are too close to each other and that, at a minimum, Sydney airport's east-west runway must be closed. Therefore, the 13 December 2000 announcement fundamentally compromises this government's policy. The effect of the 13 December 2000 announcement is a deception. The announcement is designed to give the misleading impression that the government has abandoned the official site of Sydney West airport—that is, Badgerys Creek. The government has done that in a cynical attempt to alleviate an inevitable voter backlash in currently Liberal Party held seats in the west of Sydney by attempting to dishonestly delude voters there that Badgerys Creek is no longer to be considered as the site for Sydney West airport.

In fact, nothing of the sort is true. The Sydney West airport proposal was put by the minister for transport in 1996 from a two-airport site selection process which included the Badgerys Creek and Holsworthy sites. The then Commonwealth minister for the environment, exercising his administrative powers, declared that an environmental impact statement was required for this proposal, and in 1997 a supplementary EIS was also required by the minister. To prepare this EIS, PPK Environment and Infrastructure were retained by the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Development to perform this EIS on these two sites alone.

This is to be compared with the Sydney airport site selection program draft environmental impact statement of April 1985 undertaken by consultants Kinhill Stearns. In comparison with the PPK brief, Kinhill Stearns were required to examine a short list of 10 sites from a list of 106 possible sites that were investigated. It is interesting to note that the Kinhill Stearns report, `the MANS', in turn cites Badgerys Creek and Scheyville as the two short-listed sites for Sydney's second airport, whilst on cost-benefit analysis Darkes Forest comes first. To this day it is curious why this government considers Holsworthy in the 1996 EIS at all. A cynical but predictable answer is that Holsworthy was a $5 million decoy, a red herring. It was widely held that Holsworthy would never be a feasible site for Sydney's second airport. The PPK EIS was no contest.

It is well known that the PPK EIS was fundamentally flawed from the outset, because it pitted Badgerys Creek, a site that came fourth out of 10 in the 1985 site selection process, against Holsworthy, which came ninth out of a 10-site selection process. With the elimination of Holsworthy from the selection process, the government made the decision that the Sydney West airport site would be Badgerys Creek. To this day, Badgerys Creek is the official site for the proposal known as Sydney West airport. The Kinhill Stearns EIS was a true EIS, in that it exhaustively and probatively dealt with the issue of site selection in a way that the PPK EIS was fundamentally denied from performing. Indeed, one of the main criticisms of the PPK EIS is that it was precluded from consideration of other site options or a `no airport' scenario. This summary is needed to explain the present circumstances of this bill. This bill destroys everything that this government said it was going to do.

Like any other bill, this proposed legislation cannot be read in isolation. The broader existing legislation must be brought to bear in order to understand the totality of the impact of this legislation. I first turn to the Airports Act 1996. I have spoken previously on the existing provisions of section 18 of this act dealing with the sale of Sydney airport alone. I also have outstanding questions on the Notice Paper about this issue. I remind this House of the provisions of section 18, which states that Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Sydney West airport are to be under common ownership and that under subsection 18(1):

We have no Sydney West airport. The reality is that, if this government goes ahead with the lease of Sydney airport at this time, the people of Sydney will be totally dependent on the terms of the lease to prescribe what powers, if any, the government will have as lessor for the choice, location and construction of Sydney West airport. The fundamental commercial and environmental risk here is that the lessee may rely on the contract to reject any nominated site for the location of Sydney West airport. The lessee may simply say `No. For the duration of the 50-year lease, I will not build Sydney West airport'. It is not inconceivable to consider such a scenario.

It is truly appalling to read the material provisions of this bill. This bill seeks to deny administrative remedy to operators of regionally affected aircraft movements who are aggrieved about slot allocations; to ensure that the largest, loudest, bulkiest and dirtiest aircraft fly over Sydney residential areas during airport peak hours by virtue of the new slot management system; in collusion with the provisions of the Airports Act 1996, to ensure the worst possible scenario of an ever expanding Sydney airport, with the loudest, largest and dirtiest planes being given express statutory priority over any other regional aircraft; and at the same time, to ensure Badgerys Creek remains the officially designated Sydney West airport, notwithstanding how the government has attempted to mislead us about that site and the intended use of Bankstown Airport

In reality, the situation is more accurately described thus: Bankstown airport is being converted into an airport that will attract the highest selling price by being considered a regional airport—an overflow airport for Sydney. This intended use is a purpose that was never contemplated in its original form. No EIS has been mooted or considered for the intended use of Bankstown airport, notwithstanding the overwhelming necessity for an EIS under the iron rule that there is an obvious change of land use being considered in the government's 13 December 2000 announcement. Sydney airport is also being fattened for the kill through this bill in the allocation of the largest possible aircraft to maximise throughput and therefore profitability. Badgerys Creek, despite this government's rhetoric and bold announcements, remains thoroughly intact and ready to go.

The reality is that this government has sought to deceive the public at every step of the way in its intended actions. This government has made every possible effort to obfuscate the real intention of its planning and sale agenda in ensuring that the following occurs. Sydney airport is to be expanded to the point where its capacity is so great as to maximise its sale price. The same is also true for Bankstown airport, and Badgerys Creek site remains very much intact for imminent development and construction of a 24-hour international airport. I am conscious of the cynics who attempt to say that Badgerys Creek is only supposed to be a single-runway airport and who rely on schematics in the PPK report that show stage 1 development in any of the three options as having only one runway. The Badgerys Creek proposal is a minimum three-runway proposal and more runways may be added later. Badgerys Creek airport was always supposed to be the second and major airport for Sydney, eventually surpassing Sydney's air traffic movements. Bankstown can never fulfil the task.

Residents potentially affected by Badgerys Creek can take no comfort at all in this government's decision. I rely heavily on the great wisdom of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee in restoring balance to this bill, for the government in this House has seriously betrayed the people of Sydney on this matter of aircraft noise and air safety. The proximity of Bankstown and Sydney airports makes a mockery of the various air safety provisions and the statutory obligations of Airservices Australia. The effect of this bill will be that the slots manager will be requested to draft amendments to the slot management scheme—a disallowable instrument made in 1998. The proposed amendments may be made either by way of amendment to the existing SMS or by way of a brand new slot management system. Either way, the existence of the new slot management system heralds a dark day for the issues of aircraft noise and air safety.

Throughout my first term of office in this House, I persistently called for the implementation of the long-term operating plan for Kingsford Smith airport, for the reaching of aircraft movement forecasts of 17 per cent to the north—which affects my electorate of Lowe, from Drummoyne in the east to Homebush in the west—and for the implementation of respite periods of no aircraft noise. It was this government that gazetted the long-term operating plan, yet this government has systematically done everything in its power to pander to the vested interests of Sydney airport by denying the operation of the long-term operating plan through the implementation of the precision runway monitor system which restores parallel runway operations. This bill, together with the 13 December 2000 announcement on Bankstown and Sydney airports, heralds the collapse of the long-term operating plan because the long-term operating plan cannot exist under this regime. Further, any attempt to do so in the future will result in the overriding imperatives of commercial interests that will make the implementation of noise sharing impossible to achieve.

Very simply, if this bill is passed in the Senate in its present form, the result will be an irreversible situation where the loudest, dirtiest planes will fly in parallel operations over the most densely populated portions of Sydney. I cannot permit this to the conclusion reached today. I have already spoken with my parliamentary colleagues at length on this matter and there is agreement that this bill in its present form must be scrupulously scrutinised by the Senate committee to accommodate the environmental impacts foreshadowed within it. I urge the Senate to consider the amendments to the bill in denying the passage of the material provisions dealing with the amendments to the slots. For all reasonable purposes, Sydney airport reached its capacity long ago. To attempt to squeeze more utility out of Sydney airport is a morally irresponsible thing to do. Sydney airport must be capped, its movements must be limited and its operations preserved.

The construction of Sydney West airport was an issue which the Labor Party received much criticism for when we were in power. We were chastised by the then opposition that in May 1996 said:

about building an airport at Badgerys Creek—

Here tonight we can say exactly the same of the coalition. But they have done far more than we ever could in doing nothing. Not one sod has been turned, not one runway has been built and not one building has been constructed. No, this government has presented itself as the prophet of hope. It promised to solve the Sydney aircraft noise problem, and failed. It promised not to lease Sydney airport until Sydney's problems were solved, and failed. It promised to build Sydney West airport, and failed. It promised to implement the long-term operating plan, and failed. It promised deferral of the lease of Sydney airport until an EIS on Sydney West airport was completed. Yes, it did an EIS but failed to deliver on the outcomes. In any event, the EIS was fundamentally flawed. In its place, we have an announcement that defies reason, precedent or probative decision making. This is a decision of capriciousness and high-handed disregard for policy making, as the government attempts a 180-degree turnaround on what was promised. There cannot be a more comprehensive example of a government saying one thing whilst doing another.

I call upon the Senate to assist in the cause of reason in preventing this bill being passed. I look to the Senate to move amendments consistent with the sentiments expressed in my speech tonight in the hope that the collective wisdom can be accommodated in changes to this bill as it currently stands. I note from the Bills Digest No. 109 that there is a sense of urgency in passing this legislation so that the slot management system can be amended before the airline timetables for the northern winter 2001 scheduling season need to be settled.

It is horrifying to think that this proposed legislation is being pushed through with such lightning speed in time to suit mere commercial interests when there is so much at stake regarding our domestic environmental issues, including noise and other emissions, and air safety. I believe the people of Sydney are going to feel the impact of this bill if it goes through the Senate in its present form. The decisions today could have irrevocable consequences for the people of Sydney who will have to suffer this decision for many years.

You have heard first hand from a senior member of the government, the member for Cook, who spoke before me, and he made great play—I will give him credit for his honesty—of the fact that this bill is all about maximising the expansion of Sydney airport. The member for North Sydney, who really knows a lot about aircraft noise because he chaired the Sydney Airport Community Forum, would understand better than most in this chamber that this bill is all about maximising Sydney and Bankstown airports because the government is going to sell the airports. Worse, Sydney airport is going to be sold without contemporaneously the owner of that 50-year lease being required to build Sydney West airport.

This government hammered us prior to the 1996 election because of the noise that was created when the parallel runways were introduced. We will accept the flack for that, but we have been trying to do something about it. The government, before the 1996 election, promised that they would do something about it and give relief to the residents of Sydney. They have been dishonest. They are not doing anything about Sydney airport. Maximising Sydney airport is all about putting those huge 747s into Kingsford Smith airport, and the member for North Sydney knows exactly what I am talking about. If the number of smaller planes is capped, they will be moved out to Bankstown Airport to free up the slots for the big 747s that are going to cause unbearable noise for the residents of my electorate of Lowe, for all the residents of the inner west and, of course for the residents in your seat of North Sydney, Minister. You understand this very well. I will give you credit for exposing the dishonesty of Airservices Australia when you were on the Sydney Airport Community Forum, but we have to do something to get rid of these big 747s. We have had a gutful of them in Lowe and in Sydney. (Time expired)