Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Monday, 18 August 2003
Page: 18735

Mr CADMAN (4:38 PM) —This is an unexpected occurrence: to see the dissidents of the Australian Labor Party—those opposed to the announced policy that there would be no Badgerys Creek—given a run in the parliament to present their case pro Badgerys Creek. By implication, the three speakers have done that. They have spoken about the need for Badgerys Creek to go ahead. You need to add to the sudden converts to an anti-Badgerys Creek the member for Chifley, who has been on record for years as pro-Badgerys Creek. Within the last two weeks, he has suddenly changed his mind again. Originally he was for Badgerys Creek as a centre for growth and employment. When the government came into office in 1996 he changed his mind and he was against Badgerys Creek. He was for Badgerys Creek and now he is against it again. In a recent press release, he said:

Labor has lost 5 seats in Western Sydney and this decision is essential in the fight to win them back.

It is all about politics and winning seats. He has seen the decisions of the coalition with regard to Badgerys Creek. We are opposed it, we have said so and we have a plan in the way we are going to develop the airport needs of Sydney. We had an environmental impact study that took two years. You guys were not even around to make a submission in 1996 when Warwick Parer—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—The member for Mitchell will address members by their seats.

Mr CADMAN —You were certainly around, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that, if it had affected you, you would have been very vigorous in putting forward your point of view.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will remind the member for Mitchell of the use of the word `you'.

Mr CADMAN —But the Australian Labor Party did not put their point of view; that is what I meant to say. The Australian Labor Party did not put their point of view during a two-year environmental impact study, which canned the Holsworthy project, canned Badgerys Creek, and put them right out the window. The member at the table, the member for Grayndler, has made some very interesting comments. He said:

What I say is, if we're going to have a consensus about removing Badgerys Creek site from our platform, we need to not have a `Where's Wally' approach.

That is what you are doing: Where's Wally. I will read the list of sites that you are going to investigate—the can of worms this stupid decision of the Australian Labor Party has opened up. The people at Galston are saying to me, `Is Galston on the list?' The Somersby Plateau lot up in Jim Lloyd's electorate are saying, `Is it going to be at Somersby,' because that has been a favoured site for many years. Is it going to be down in Goulburn? Is it going to be at Scheyville, which was another site considered in that last environmental statement? Is it going to be at the RAAF base at Richmond? Is it going to be at Duffys Forest? What about Kurnell, which is a favoured place that I hear mentioned? Is it going to be at Holsworthy? Is the Holsworthy site going to be reopened? It is more than likely; that is a certainty. I would like the members at the table to say which ones they are going to rule out—or are they all in?

Mr Albanese —Mosman.

Mr CADMAN —All possible? Are they all possible sites? The member at the table said that every site is a possible site.

Mr Albanese —I did not say that.

Mr CADMAN —What did you say then? Are you going to rule any out?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Grayndler can clarify the situation in a minute.

Mr CADMAN —I have invited the member at the table to clarify the Labor Party's position. Are any of these impossible sites? There is Darkes Forest and the Wilton site. Even Canberra has been mentioned. I would like the member of the Australian Labor Party at the table to indicate which ones are impossible as sites for consideration. Or are they all possible sites for consideration? Let us take them one by one. Let's look at the Galston site, favoured by Mr Whitlam. That is a site that was considered by the recently departed Mr Charlie Jones as being a possible site for an international airport. The Scheyville site was a second site, which is in the electorate of my colleague the member for Macquarie. It has level land and is prone to fogs. Richmond is another site, where you could knock down half the town of Windsor or half the town of Richmond and build an international airport, or you could run it thr-ough Hawkesbury Agricultural College and destroy it and all the amenity for the people of Penrith.

You could put it out at Kurnell, in the electorate of Mr Bruce Baird, because that has been mentioned for many years as a possible site. You could put it at Holsworthy. I know that Mrs Danna Vale, lovely lady that she is, would welcome the Labor Party making a decision to put it at Holsworthy because she would be returned with an even greater majority. You could not do enough by even suggesting that Holsworthy was a possible site. So there is site after site after site. The Australian Labor Party are in trouble. They will not today rule out any of these sites. They are all in consideration. They are all going to be proposed. They are all going to be considered as possible sites. (Time expired)