Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it is a grievance debate, Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to let the member for Gilmore know, through you, that I had a great steak sandwich at a small business in her electorate a few weekends ago. It was at the Little Blowhole Cafe—I have now endorsed them in Hansard. They are a very good small business, and I was very happy to be there.

Grievance debates are an opportunity for us to raise issues critical to the people we represent. Today, I would like to take advantage of the opportunity extended to me as an MP to put forward some balance in an amazingly one-sided debate that is occurring in Sydney right now about Sydney's second airport. If you are a Western Sydney resident, or an MP for that matter, and you want to outline your concerns on the impact of an airport in Western Sydney: good luck! You are given literally no opportunity to air your views. The Daily Telegraph, for example, has taken a particular stand in favour of the Western Sydney airport. I have no issue with that—it is their paper and it is their prerogative. But as a reader, you should be entitled to hear the other side of the debate. Given that The Tele is in favour of rough-and-tumble debate—as I am—you would think that you would be able to have both sides canvassed by the paper. If you are Ned Manoun, or Chris Brown, or David Borger, you will get a chance to sing from the pro-Badgerys Creek song sheet with one eye shut. I have no issue with that. But you do not get much space if you want to argue the other side. Now, I am not using a grievance debate to pitch an idea to editor Paul Whittaker that I become an op-ed writer—although if he wants me to become a cadet journalist, I would be happy to consider it as long as I am not reporting to Joe Hildebrand! But I certainly hope that we will have some back and forth on this issue. Western Sydney residents deserve to hear both sides of the debate, so that they can make an informed decision on a matter that will have a significant impact on them.

There are some issues that have to be considered very carefully. I would like to outline some of these in my contribution to the chamber now. First, this will represent a massive investment from both federal and state governments. They will need to fork out the money, particularly for all the infrastructure. This is not just about rolling out a tarmac in Western Sydney; there will be a phenomenal amount of money required to connect road and rail infrastructure and to integrate that into the existing infrastructure in Western Sydney. This is an area with a population of 1.5 to 2 million people, who grapple every day with congestion, and who are trying to get from one side of the city to the other—the commute into Sydney is a big issue for them. We need to make sure that they are not also forced to compete with passenger traffic that comes from the air onto land.

The federal government reckons they have all this money—which is surprising, because every time you listen to them, they tell you that it is not there. For instance—to put this in perspective—in December, in my area the federal government cut $6 million for critical health care investment at my local hospital at Mount Druitt, including for an MRI scanner that we have long campaigned for. We cannot get health funding to help detect cancers in local residents—but this government reckons that it is going to have billions of dollars available to spend on this airport. Another example is that the coalition have just announced—or they did announce through the course of the campaign, and when they got into office—that they would fund WestConnex. I have no issue with that. I think it is good to be able to extend the M4. But the fact of the matter is that the money that has been put forward, combined with state money, will be combined with a toll. So they do not have the money to fund this fully; they will have to co-fund it—with a toll that will see tolls reapplied on old roads that have already been paid for! We are also told that if the money does not exist to fund WestConnex without a toll, we will apparently still have funds for a multibillion-dollar airport in Sydney's west.

The New South Wales government is embarking on a slow crab-walk away from its position of opposition to the airport. You can tell that they are being pressured by MPs to support the airport. We saw that on the weekend. They are being urged to support an airport that Infrastructure New South Wales would not even list as an infrastructure priority in its plans. It has a whole stack of other things in there, but apparently the New South Wales government is being urged to fund this one. In my area, the New South Wales government will need to fund billions in road and rail links.

You cannot get the New South Wales government to fund the installation of lifts at local railway stations in my area—and they have been called for at Rooty Hill and Doonside. You cannot get the money for that but, again, they will somehow find the money to fund the billions of dollars for rail links and billions of dollars for road links. And this from a government that also cut the cardiac unit. It does not have the money to fund the cardiac unit that existed at Mt Druitt hospital and which is now being shut. We will now get a methadone clinic put in its place in our hospital as a result of the urging of some of the same MPs who are pushing for an airport. We cannot get the money for that, but they can find money for an airport.

If you ask Western Sydney residents about their infrastructure priorities they will not tell you that an airport is one of them. They will want better roads, they will want better schools, they will want better hospitals, but they will not—even after you have asked them to think about it long enough—come up with the airport, because if Infrastructure New South Wales will not fund it, Western Sydney residents certainly will not support it.

We are going to invest all this money because apparently Sydney airport is full. Sydney airport recently brought out a master plan, and that has been disparaged by the Deputy Prime Minister and other figures as well. This master plan that would help manage growth in coming decades has been disparaged by people who probably have no experience of air traffic numbers other than maybe an experience of a delay in getting their luggage after a long-haul flight—and, based on that, they then can say, 'Sydney airport is full.'

If money is tight and you cannot attend to the basic infrastructure needs of Western Sydney, why are we even contemplating a mammoth investment in a possible Western Sydney airport that will span probably the best part of a decade but not look into two things, two government imposed controls, that choke the efficiency of Sydney airport? We are told that economic growth and productivity are being held back by congestion-caused delays at Sydney airport. If that is so, why is there no Productivity Commission review into, for example, the impact of the curfew at Sydney airport or, more importantly, the impact on movement caps that are imposed on an hourly basis on Sydney airport?

I certainly know that communities around the inner city would be upset with what I am putting forward, and I respect that. But bear in mind that not only is Western Sydney being told by the advocates of this new airport that they should get a second airport in one of the fastest-growing regions in the country but also they have argued that a curfew which protects inner-city residents should not apply to Badgerys Creek. The claim is that no-one lives around the site. It is the fastest-growing region in the country. Badgerys Creek will sit like an appendage on top of the south-west growth centre and be home to 300,000 people, and we are being told that that can survive without the curfew. That is just ridiculous. So Western Sydney has been told to live with a 24-hour airport but there has been no review of the existing curfew arrangement at Sydney airport where airlines, if they do breach these curfews, are punished to the tune of $850,000.

What kind of airport will it be? We have no detail. The coalition candidates during the election said that there were absolutely no plans for a second airport at Badgerys Creek. That was stated from the Prime Minister down, and there were candidates in our area saying that also. They said that they do not have any plans. But the PM has brought together Liberal MPs to talk about it. They have set up a new committee that is now going to meet with the Prime Minister to talk about an airport that they have absolutely no plans for! It is outrageous that an airport that has that kind of impact on Western Sydney is represented by only one side of politics and that not all sides of politics will be representing the residents of Western Sydney.

Finally, if you listen to the advocates of this airport, like the Sydney Business Chamber, who funded a Deloitte study into the impact of the airport, they claim that 30,000 jobs will be created. This represents about 30 million movements or an airport roughly the size of Brisbane in Sydney's west. Recently they have upped that. They have gone from 30,000 to 60,000 jobs being created by this airport, which would make it an airport as big as, if not bigger than, Heathrow! Let us put some perspective on this. Sydney airport creates not 60,000 jobs but 28,000, so there is a proposed airport about as big as Sydney airport being put in this region.

I think it is important that the people have the facts. I agree that it should not be a scare campaign. It should be clear-eyed, it should have the facts and people should make their minds up. But we should not have a one-sided debate that disrespects Western Sydney insofar as it is not treating the residents there with the due care. A plan for an airport of this size should be able to have all those facts in place before a final decision is made. As John Howard said in 2003, another airport did not need to ever be built in Sydney.