Mr PRICE (10:15 AM) —It is quite an honour to follow the honourable member for Prospect, who wastes no opportunity to speak up on transport matters and particularly as they may affect her electorate and the people of her electorate and Western Sydney. I find myself almost 100 per cent in agreement with the contribution of the member for Prospect. That is probably no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

It is also, I suppose, a pleasure to support a bill introduced by the government concerning damage by aircraft, the Damage by Aircraft Bill 1999 . The first thing I would like to say is that the concept that we need to adequately compensate people, third parties in an aircraft accident who may suffer damage, is a proposition we all should agree with. It is ironic that we have a convention that we need to revoke or denunciate, or whatever the correct word is—the Rome convention, which set out to provide adequate compensation for people so affected—because it limits the damage. Tragically, we now have the history of that accident in Amsterdam where two apartment blocks were taken out, and clearly the compensation would not be adequate.

What it really means is that in the light of a tragedy not in Australia, notwithstanding our very good aviation record in this country, if there were such an accident here those countries that are covered by the convention whose liability would be limited would now be unlimited. It came as a surprise to me to realise that quite a number of countries are not signatories of the Rome convention—the United States, Japan, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the United Kingdom, all of which, I think you would say, have very frequent flight operations in and out of this country.

Like the member for Prospect, I make no apology for saying that I do not want any third-party compensation measures in Western Sydney because I do not want an airport there. You might say, `That is a very selfish attitude you are adopting. We all need to share the pain.' But, as I like to point out, by the year 2017 more than half of Sydney's population will live in Western Sydney. I am sure this is a fact that the officials of the department are very cognisant of, probably foremost in their minds. Let me make a qualification: the Statistician takes into account Gosford and Wyong in the population of Sydney; I have excluded that. If you do want to continue with the Statistician's definition, that Gosford and Wyong are part of the Sydney conurbation, then it will be a little bit later. But one thing I can guarantee honourable members in this House is that Western Sydney will be more than half the population of Sydney. Indeed, there is speculation that in the current redistribution in New South Wales an additional seat will be made in Western Sydney, raising the number of seats from 11 to 12. May I say with great respect that probably in any state other than Victoria and Queensland that would constitute a state. So we are talking about a huge population.

As I have said, I do not want any accidents in Western Sydney and I do not want any compensation paid, because I think it is entirely inappropriate for us to consider, in 1999, building an airport in the middle of Western Sydney, in the middle of more than half of Sydney's population. This is absolute madness. The people of Western Sydney might feel very secure because of what they were promised in the 1996 election about airport matters affecting them directly, that there would be a very open, transparent and accountable process. I regret to say that those undertakings, which a lot of people took a lot of heart from, have not been delivered.

The honourable member for Prospect drew my attention again to this issue of the EIS for Badgerys Creek. We have now been promised the final EIS on three separate occasions. I just say to the officials that it will be a difficult decision for the government but why not live up to the original commitment of open, transparent and accountable processes and release the EIS now? It will be a difficult decision, I do not deny that, but it was also a difficult decision for the previous government so I am not trying to score some political points here. I just ask the officials: given the changes that are occurring in the Senate in terms of the environmental laws of Australia, to what extent do you feel constrained, having seen now that the parliament is likely to set newer and higher standards, to undertake to meet the more rigorous requirements that the Senate, as I understand it, is proposing?

I think they would win some Brownie points if they made that recommendation to their minister, and I think the minister would be seen to be consistent if he were to accept that constraint. I accept that it is a constraint. It would be highly ironic if they were to make a decision this year to impose an airport on half of Sydney's population while at the same time saying to the Australian people, `We are accepting higher standards and requirements for Commonwealth EISs but we will not meet it with Badgerys Creek because it is not sufficiently important to warrant the higher standards.' I do believe sincerely that the department and the minister have a responsibility to minimise the potential for accidents. You might say: why would you make a statement that is so patently obvious? I apologise for making such a statement, but one of the real worries people have about these proposals for Sydney, clearly Australia's busiest airport, is that there has not been a study on the inter-operability of the two airports, a study of just how they are going to operate.

There is some suggestion, for example, that it is going to concentrate air traffic into what I understand is called the Bennelong Funnel, but that is mere speculation on my part. The department has allegedly done some preliminary work—and perhaps the officials or the parliamentary secretary may be able to confirm whether such a preliminary report has been prepared—into the inter-operability of these two airports. It would be a great tragedy if cabinet made a decision to go ahead at a time when we had not studied and fully understood the impact of the two airports operating together. It would be a great tragedy if they made the decision and then left that matter for further study.

I want to compliment the Minister for Finance and Administration for taking a growing interest in airport matters. When you have someone who is responsible for the finance portfolio taking an interest in airport matters, that can be only for the good. Recently, there was a newspaper report that Mr Fahey was going to take to cabinet a submission that would look at the Sydney airport issue. The newspaper report referred to the fact that Mr Fahey had opened the whole issue again. The potential for capacity utilisation out of Kingsford Smith airport has never been studied. The newspaper reported that his proposal was to shift rural and regional airlines out of Kingsford Smith to Bankstown, and shift the flying and training clubs out of Bankstown to a new general airport in Western Sydney. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not for airports in Western Sydney. I hope I have made that abundantly clear. But if we must have an airport, I think I would prefer a small general airport than the full monty that is being proposed.

Why do I say that it has opened the capacity question of KSA? It is ironic that, in this EIS proposal, notwithstanding many submissions to the contrary by the good officials of the department who are seated in the chamber today, we call for an examination of whether it is possible, within the strict safety guidelines, to get more capacity out of Kingsford Smith.

Let me put something to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is quite possible that you may wish to quarantine the costs of a new airport and subsidise planes from rural and regional New South Wales landing at Bankstown. By way of compensation for that inconvenience, people would get significantly cheaper flights. I am not sure whether this is in the submission that Mr Fahey is taking to cabinet. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could enlighten us in that regard. I think that is a very worthwhile matter to consider. The whole proposition about the capacity of Kingsford Smith is worthy of examination.

I, for one, would be grateful if the minister for finance could release his submission. Let us look at it. I am happy to try to offer constructive suggestions. I know that the alliance of 10 mayors in Western Sydney would be more than happy to work with Mr Fahey on his submission. We might not agree in the end, but I am sure that the process would be valuable.

Mr Deputy Speaker, do you remember what I said of what the coalition had promised the people of Western Sydney in 1996? An open, transparent and accountable process. Here we have a very senior minister in the Howard government, a former Premier of New South Wales, no less, making a submission to cabinet but not allowing the people of Sydney to examine it and say whether they like it or do not like it, whether they want to support it or whether it is a proposition that is worthy of even more detailed investigation. I urge the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson—this government's third transport minister—and his parliamentary secretary to honour that commitment given in 1996 to have an open, transparent and accountable process.

In winding up, I say that it is a pleasure to support this piece of legislation. Ironically, I have been more on the side of arguing about Australia signing conventions rather than revoking them. In this case, however, I think the revocation is well placed. The idea that there should be unlimited liability in relation to third party ground accidents is well founded. As I said in my earlier contribution, I hope that the issue of compensation will not arise in this century or the next century as far as the people of Western Sydney are concerned, because, as I have said, Western Sydney, in the year 2017, will constitute more than 50 per cent of the population of Sydney.