Senator CHILDS(1.52 p.m.) —I would like to deal with two matters that are very serious for my city of Sydney. They are two examples of the duplicity of this government, and of the betrayal by the Howard government of the people of Sydney as far as aircraft noise and the positioning of airports in my city are concerned.

First, I would like to turn to a speech I made on the adoption of the aircraft noise in Sydney report on 30 November 1995. I said:

I just want to draw attention to why we say that we should prohibit the take-off of planes to the north from the third runway.

This week the opposition was sprung in an article in the Financial Review by Tom Burton, headed `Coalition risks new airport noise protest'. He pointed out the fact that under the coalition government proposal—if they were to be in government—planes would be taking off to the north on the existing third runway. Of course, that is the secret plan. Although Senator Parer, as the shadow minister, was quick to deny it, I point out to the people of Sydney, particularly those people who will be affected, that this is just another way the opposition would, if they were ever in the government, vastly affect them in relation to activity that has been banned.

Of course, I was right and the people of Sydney were wronged, because the government of Mr Howard has gone ahead and is doing that. The major betrayal I want to refer to today is a much more serious one. It is the Holsworthy airport proposal whereby 450,000 people in various parts of south-west Sydney would be adversely affected. That is on one reading of it. That is one possibility. It is a serious proposition.

The alternative is that this government is just putting up a smokescreen so that there will be no second airport for Sydney and so that some of the vested interests will not move out of Sydney. People in the inner city of Sydney will have to put up with extensive noise. Whereas our government was moving strongly to develop Badgerys Creek, this government now has stopped in the process and they have proposed this Holsworthy option.

I remember, as a member of this select committee looking into aircraft noise, that we had a proposal from a Mr Pickrell, from a North Shore group. He was following the tradition, I think, that people want an airport but not in their own area. I quote now from the evidence where Mr Pickrell said:

It may well be that this has to be surrendered as a water source and used as a recreational facility instead.

He is referring there to the Woronora Reserve.

Closeness to the Lucas Heights atomic energy installation was mentioned in the EIS and our view is that it may be necessary to move the facility, which would get a lot of cheers from the people of Sutherland. It certainly would not be accepted as a hindrance to a new airport.

So he referred to it in his proposal. Yesterday, I asked Senator Parer, the minister representing the Minister for Science and Technology, what the government would do as far as a Lucas Heights proposal was concerned. Senator Parer did not answer that question that I asked him yesterday.

This is very significant because in the 1979 report of the major airport needs of Sydney, where a careful evaluation was made, the people making that evaluation made the point that Lucas Heights was a significant issue as far as a nuclear reactor was concerned and, of course, that was not addressed by Senator Parer yesterday. It is a major problem and it seriously affects the financial probity of any proposal. But, of course, we do not know who the developers have behind them. We do not know what resources they have. We have no idea at all of how effective that proposal will be.

We certainly know that it is a problem, particularly for the people of Sutherland. As soon as Mr Pickrell presented his material to the committee, I got in touch with Mr Robert Tickner, then the member for Hughes, and he immediately took that matter up in opposition, leading the people of Sutherland against that proposal. The unfortunate thing for Mr Tickner was that the government, then the opposition, did not share that with the people. This is a devious government that we face in Australia at the present. Even though Mr Howard—`honest John Howard'- came before our committee he did not present to us what he had on his mind; in other words, the Holsworthy option was never given to the people of Sutherland.

Mr Tickner fought that issue before the election and it will be very interesting to find out whether the Liberal candidate for Sutherland—she is now, at the last minute, taking up the issue—ever raised her voice on behalf of the people of Sutherland against the Holsworthy proposal. Mr Tickner pointed out to me at the time, as did other people, the reasons why the people of Sutherland opposed the Liberal and National parties' proposal for an airport in the middle of their backyard. People who saw the proposal rejected scientifically years ago, in the MANS report, are now seeing a Liberal Party that is desperate to do something after the election that they did not have the guts, the intestinal fortitude, to put to the people before the election.

I can only say that there will be another election and those people will know the issues. We will make sure that the people know the issues. Just as Senator Forshaw said, `We will make sure you know the issues'. The government will regret its duplicity because the people in the south-west of Sydney will oppose the government at the next election. We will make it a referendum on the sincerity of Mr Howard.