Ms HALL (6:29 PM) —My contribution to this debate is a contribution from a regional member of parliament whose constituents access Sydney airport and who has thus been very disturbed over a long period of time by the government's failure to address the issues relating to Sydney airport. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2001 is not the answer to the problems at Sydney airport. It is an inadequate response and one which will create confusion and anxiety within the community. It is legislation that is designed not to solve a problem but, rather, to get the best price possible for Sydney airport when this government sells it, as we all know it intends to do. But I will talk a bit more about that a little later.

The Howard government's handling of all issues related to Sydney airport has been appalling. Its indecisiveness demonstrates vividly its inability to make the hard decisions. How long have we been talking about a second airport for Sydney? What has the Howard government done to resolve this issue? The answer is: create confusion. First we had Badgerys Creek, then Richmond, Goulburn, Bathurst, Lithgow and Newcastle. What this has done is create hope and fear within those communities and within communities in Sydney. The result is that the Howard government—and I blame in particular the Prime Minister's vacillation—has completely failed the people of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia.

In Australia we have a Prime Minister who reportedly said he would do whatever he had to do to win the next election. If we look at that and see what the implications are, the implications in relation to Sydney airport are horrendous. It means he will not make a decision, he will not act in any way that will cause any sort of controversy, because he is interested in one thing, and one thing alone, and that is getting votes at the next election—not the best result for the people of Sydney, not the best result for the people of New South Wales and not the best result for the people of Australia. What we need on this issue is some real leadership and a government and a Prime Minister and a minister who are prepared to act in the interests of our country. The result of this inaction—the Prime Minister's inaction, the government's inaction—is a do nothing approach to Sydney airport. That is really what this is: a do nothing approach.

When you look at it you ask why. The implications of the government making a decision on Sydney airport are that it can alienate a lot of people in the community. No matter what decision they make, someone will be upset. As I mentioned just a moment ago, this will lead to the possibility of the loss of some votes for the government and for the Prime Minister. The thing is, if you are not prepared to take a risk and if you are not prepared to act then you should not be in government. The implications of the government not taking a decision on the future of Sydney airport and not doing a bit more than this wishy-washy legislation that we have before us today—which, as I said, is creating more confusion—are that we have got a lack of planning and direction for the future. All that has happened during the time that this government has been in power is that there has been no planning and no direction, just indecision as to what is going to happen in relation to Sydney airport. This really makes it difficult when we are looking at the future.

How can we possibly promote Sydney, promote New South Wales and promote Australia and say that we have got good facilities if the government will not make any decision, will not plan for the future and if we do not have the proper infrastructure in place? Until this issue is resolved it will remain a great concern to a number of people. It will create conflict. It will create anxiety. What really needs to happen is that the government needs to get on with it. It needs to make a decision. It needs to do something. It needs to take a risk. It needs to work in the interests of the Australian people. This is a government that is totally bereft of leadership, one that will do nothing that risks alienating any voters in this year when there is an election. It is a `win at all costs' government, and that has been its approach to Sydney airport.

The Prime Minister and his government refused to listen to the Australian people on a number of issues, particularly when the people told them that petrol prices were too high. The people told the government that they were doing it hard, and small business was saying that the BAS was not working for them. What was the government's response? They did absolutely nothing until we had a couple of elections—the Western Australian election and the Queensland election—when the government finally listened to what the Australian people were saying. The government were terrified. It was only the fear of losing votes, not the best interests of the Australian people, that actually forced them to act on the price of petrol and to act on the BAS to put together a statement that was more workable for small business. We have a government that listens to people, is prepared to make changes and is prepared to legislate only when it is going to face the ballot box. This is a very difficult issue on which you need a government with a bit of courage and a bit of vision to take some action. There is absolutely no way this government or the Prime Minister will show any leadership in relation to Sydney airport because the only thing that they do is listen to the polls. That is what our poll-driven Prime Minister does.

As a member of this parliament whose electorate, as I mentioned earlier, is based in regional Australia—the Hunter and Central Coast regions—I am most concerned about the implications of this legislation on regional Australia. Aeropelican operate from a smaller airport out of the Shortland electorate, with planes that operate a commuter service between Sydney and Newcastle. Currently their flights are locked in and they have been guaranteed that they can continue to use Sydney airport. Their only purpose is that commuter service, and the changes mean that they cannot increase the number of flights. Therefore the only way that they can grow is if they have larger planes, with larger capital expenses, and the airport really is not suitable for larger planes. The service is used by people in the region. It has a large number of patrons. The implication if it loses any of its slots is that it will have to use Bankstown, and Bankstown would mean the end of a service that serves so many people in Shortland, so I am very concerned from a regional point of view.

I know that the planes operated by Aeropelican are not the only service that has been jeopardised by the government's failure to act on a long-term solution for Sydney airport. The Hunter as a whole is in a similar position to Aeropelican's. The new slots will be for bigger planes, and people from non-metropolitan areas will become second-class citizens. We have seen how this has continuously happened under this government with banks and services being removed from regional areas. Once again, the government reacts only when it is worried about the results at the ballot box, and I believe it stands condemned for that. Sydney airport should be about access for all national and international flights, and the real issue of Sydney airport needs to be addressed by the government. All this legislation is about is building Sydney airport up so that it can be privatised and sold off for the best possible price.

This government are in trouble with their budget. They are trying to get the best price they possibly can, hopefully with a little left over so that they can go to the next election with a bit of a war chest. Then, once again, they will try to bribe the Australian people, as they have in the past, into voting for them. After the election, they will disappoint the Australian people and cause great hurt and hardship, as they have this term. As I said, they are looking at a fire sale to fix their budget problems.

I will finish where I started. This is a government that lacks leadership, is indecisive, is poll driven and whose main policy is to win at all costs. This is not the answer to Sydney airport and one has only to listen to the debate and the concerns of members from the Sydney area to see that this is the worst possible solution of all.