Senator FORSHAW(12.17 p.m.) —The government's legislation, as has been indicated, mirrors largely the legislation put before the parliament by the former government. On that basis, it is generally supported by the opposition. But, as has also been clearly outlined by Senator Bob Collins, the government has been dragged kicking and screaming back to the position that the Labor government had on this issue.

I rise to support the amendment moved by Senator Bob Collins and particularly that aspect of the amendment which goes to the proposal for Sydney's second airport. This government, in its decision to relist Holsworthy as a potential site for Sydney's second airport, has demonstrated clearly the length it will go to to deceive the people of this country and particularly the people of Sydney. I just want to recount very briefly the sequence of events because, as has been the case for a long time, whenever the coalition has been in government it has approached the situation of dealing with Sydney's airport needs in an underhand, deceitful manner.

We must never forget that it was the coalition, along with its colleagues in the state Liberal government at the time, that so strongly pushed the development of the third runway at Sydney and then turned in the latter stages to attack the Labor government merely for base political purposes—that is, to pander to the legitimate outcry of the many residents affected by aircraft noise in Sydney.

It is unfortunate that we have airports which clearly create environmental problems, particularly aircraft noise, for communities. Sydney suffers probably more than just about any other city in the world in that respect.   But this government treats this issue as a political issue. Prior to the election the Leader of the Opposition at the time and now Prime Minister, John Howard, and other shadow spokespersons, including Senator Parer, were firmly on the record—not once, not twice, but dozens of times—as saying that they supported Badgerys Creek, Sydney West airport, as the site for Sydney's second airport. Indeed, John Howard gave evidence to the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, of which I was a member and which looked in detail at this issue last year. He gave evidence on 25 July. I would like to quote what he said on that occasion. He said:

What you have to do is to look at the short- and medium-term problem, which is the unfair noise burden being carried by a limited number of people. That has to be fixed; it is the first and most important thing. Obviously there are then the alternative airport needs. As I understand it, both parties have commitments in relation to Badgerys Creek, although I know that some evidence is put from time to time that Badgerys Creek raises difficulties and that some people argue for alternatives to Badgerys Creek. Certainly I am appearing here as the member for Bennelong, although it is hard to discard other hats. Our parties have a commitment in relation to Badgerys Creek which I reiterate.

But the short-term problem is the problem that is exercising people's minds very acutely at present, which is the noise burden problem. As far as the longer-term problem is concerned, we do need an alternative; there is no doubt about that. We do need additional airport capacity in this city. Some people have put to me that that should ultimately replace Kingsford Smith. It is not an argument that I am adopting. I want to make it clear that I am not adopting that argument. I would not adopt that argument unless I were completely satisfied that it was a realistic and practical option to put. I am not satisfied at present that that exists, so I am not adopting it.

So the now Prime Minister was then on the record, as the Leader of the Opposition and as the member for Bennelong, as being concerned about the impact of aircraft noise on people in his electorate, as supporting Badgerys Creek and as rejecting the concept of an alternative site as a replacement airport for Kingsford Smith.

We can recall that when this legislation put up by the then Labor government for the sale of the airports came before the parliament last year the then Leader of the Opposition and the coalition used that legislation to in effect defeat the government's attempt to implement the process of sale by linking it to the reopening of the east-west runway. They moved amendments which sought to tie the two issues together to therefore frustrate the government's processes. So it is very relevant, in considering this legislation, to be aware of that history because at the time the then Leader of the Opposition, John Howard, frustrated legislation similar to this legislation, for his own political purposes to get the east-west runway open. He went to the election saying, `We will reopen the east-west runway, and we support Badgerys Creek'.

There was never any mention of Holsworthy. Never once were the people of Wattle Grove, Holsworthy, Hammondville or Liverpool—all those people in those surrounding communities, the southern shire—told that what this government had in mind was putting Holsworthy back on the agenda as a site for Sydney's second airport, nor that it was put on the agenda not as simply an overflow site in the way that Badgerys Creek was to be seen as an airport complementary to Sydney, but rather for the potential establishment of Sydney's major airport.

That was what was announced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Sharp, a couple of months ago. He announced, out of the blue, with no warning—not even a warning to the local member, a member of his own Liberal Party—that they were going to put Holsworthy back on the agenda. He announced that the EIS to be conducted into Badgerys Creek, the EIS which had been implemented by the previous Labor government, would now be expanded to include Holsworthy. Most importantly, Holsworthy was to be included on the basis that one of those two sites would have an airport.

This is one of the major problems with the EIS process that now exists with respect to Badgerys Creek and Holsworthy, as Senator Bob Collins has identified in his amendment. The draft EIS guidelines for the proposed Holsworthy site are entirely inadequate. One of the major things missing is the opportunity for consideration of other alternatives such as an airport at neither site.

In his newsletter to his electorate at Bennelong, the Howard report, the Prime Minister is on the record as saying to Bennelong residents:

Sydney is to be guaranteed a second international airport regardless of the outcome of the Environmental Impact Statement at Badgerys Creek.

The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) process will now be broadened to include an alternative site—the Holsworthy Military Reserve, in Sydney's south-west. This will ensure a fall-back option is immediately available if the Badgerys Creek EIS proves unfavourable.

Further, when we look at the proposal put up by the Department of Transport and Regional Development with respect to the location and development of the second Sydney airport, it states:

The proposal is to consider the construction and operation of a second major international/domestic airport for Sydney at either Badgerys Creek or Holsworthy on a site large enough for future expansion of the airport if required.

So we have gone from a position where this government when in opposition supported Badgerys Creek, and supported the Labor government proposal that Badgerys Creek would be constructed and run complementary with KSA, to the position we are now in where we will have an EIS into the Badgerys Creek site and the Holsworthy site with the potential that one of those two sites will be a major international and domestic airport, way beyond what was ever envisaged for Sydney West airport—a potential replacement.

That is why the people of Holsworthy and surrounding areas are so irate. They knew that on at least two previous occasions back in the 1980s that site had been rejected as being totally unsuitable. In fact, in 1985 Holsworthy did not even make it to the short list because it was so unsuitable for various environmental and other reasons. Not only were they not told that Holsworthy was going to be put back on the agenda, but they now know that this proposal to put Holsworthy into the EIS process means that it has the potential for future expansion because, of the two sites, it is the only one that fits the bill. I am not sure, but Holsworthy is probably five to 10 times bigger than Badgerys Creek and, of those two sites, it is the only site that could cope with an expanded airport in the future. On the proposal as it stands, there is clearly an in-built bias towards the Holsworthy site. Yet what is being said constantly by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Development is, `We still prefer Badgerys Creek.'

Other aspects of the EIS—and I do not wish to go into them today as I will have plenty of opportunities to do so in the future—are seriously deficient. Firstly, as I have said, there is an EIS here which is structured so that a choice is made between one of two sites—but one of them has to succeed. That is the whole basis for it; there is no opportunity for both of them to be ruled out.

It has been made very clear by the Environment Protection Agency that, when you have an EIS, you start from the premise that the proposal is being supported, and you then look at its impact to see if you can find ways of ameliorating the impact. When the EIS is drafted, the consultants do not start from a totally objective position—`Well, should we or should we not have an airport on this site?' They start from a position of being told, `Here is a proposal to have an airport; you consider its impact.'

Clearly, therefore, there is a bias in the process, as there is in all the EISs that have been undertaken, towards favouring the development of the proposal rather than not. I understand that the statistics are that only in about three out of 100 cases does an EIS ever come out with a recommendation which totally opposes the proposal that is being put up to be examined.

There are a whole range of other deficiencies. The amount of community involvement that is envisaged in this EIS process for Holsworthy—and I dare say for Badgerys Creek but particularly for Holsworthy, given that it has only recently been put onto the agenda—is nothing short of woeful. The guidelines were issued on 22 July; the people were given approximately four weeks to respond. There was a toll free number that nobody could get through on—I know that, having tried for days—because they were inundated with requests. Many people had not even seen the draft guidelines until maybe a matter of a week or two ago, yet they were due to close on 19 August. How can you possibly have community involvement in an EIS process on a matter as important and as sensitive as this and allow a lousy four weeks for people to obtain the draft guidelines, read them, understand them, dissect them, comment on them and get a submission back to the EPA?

In fact, what happened was that, because of the terrific organisation in the local community by community leaders, they went out and educated the people and brought to their attention the deficiencies in this proposal—because the EPA did not do it. The EPA had three meetings. I attended one of them, and it was a total disaster. I requested the EPA to hold a meeting in the Sutherland shire and they would not hold one. They said they could not find a hall big enough. If that does not show that there is a need to hold one, I do not know what does.

Last Friday, due to the efforts of the community organisations opposing this airport, some 30,000-plus submissions were lodged with the EPA—not due to any great opportunity for the community to respond but due to the massive amount of work put in by community representatives of the South-West Sydney Community Alliance.

There are a whole range of deficiencies in the EIS guidelines. It is said by the minister that the EIS process will be run in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney, of which I was a member. It was a large report presented in this chamber last year, one of the recommendations of which was that there needs to be the most open, transparent EIS process and there needs to be every opportunity for community representatives to be involved in the process right throughout; they need to have access to the technical information that is provided to the consultants and upon which they prepare the EIS. There is none of that in the current guidelines.

As I have just indicated to you, the people in the community have been treated with utter contempt. First of all, they were deceived. People purchased ex-army land to build their houses in places like Wattle Grove. Thousands of people have moved into this area over the past 10 years or so, in the firm belief that there would never be an airport at Holsworthy because it had been rejected. Secondly, they are not told before the election that they are going to get an airport in their backyard but they are told straight after—another broken promise. Then when the EIS draft guidelines are handed down, they are totally inadequate and there is very little opportunity for the people to participate.

I could go on, but the point that needs to be reiterated is that this government's policy on airports is an absolute disgrace. You have neglected the interests of the Sydney residents for years and years: you never did anything about addressing the problems of Sydney airport in all those long years when you were in government. Now that you have got back into government again you are putting thousands and thousands of people living in the south-west of Sydney—not on the North Shore, not in the Liberal held seats—into a state of utter distress and anguish because of your policy on airport development.

(Quorum formed)