Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senator Rhiannon, move amendment (1) on sheet 7735:

(1) Schedule 1, item 30, page 15 (after line 30), after subsection 96B(12), insert:

  (12A) To avoid doubt, if the Sydney West Airport is not to be constructed and operated at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales, subsection (12) does not apply.

The government is currently pursuing the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek. The Greens believe that, as an absolute minimum, we need to have an environmental impact assessment undertaken as soon as possible so that the community is fully aware of the potential impacts.

However, the reason for this amendment to the bill is to clarify that, if the Badgerys Creek airport is not constructed, for whatever reason, a completed environmental impact statement for Badgerys Creek cannot be used as a substitute for an environmental impact statement for any other future airport location. It is a minor amendment. It clarifies that, if Badgerys Creek does not go ahead for any reason or is substantially changed, a new environmental impact statement would be required for any other airport serving Sydney's west, and that the government would not be able to use the fact that Badgerys Creek was the plan in 2014 and 2015 to bypass proper environmental planning processes.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing the Greens amendment, but on the basis that the government believes that the amendment is unnecessary, given that the specific reference to Badgerys Creek in clause 96 B(12) of the bill. If I could just read into the Hansard record clause 96B(12) of the bill. It states as follows:

For the purposes of this section, if:

(a) in December 2014, proposed action consisted of the construction and operation of a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek, New South Wales; and

(b) the proposed action was referred to the Environment Minister; and

(c) the Environment Minister decided under section 87 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 that the relevant impacts of the action must be assessed by an environmental impact statement under Division 6 of Part 8 of that Act;

the environmental impact statement is the Sydney West Airport environmental impact statement.

Certainly, in terms of clause 96B(12) of the bill, you can see, Mr Chairman, as I have read it out for the benefit of the chamber, that that particular clause provides that the Sydney West Airport environmental impact statement is only for the construction and operation of a Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek in New South Wales. So, in terms of the amendment moved by Senator Rice, it is not possible for the environmental impact statement that is currently being prepared or any subsequent consideration of that statement to be used for an alternative site.

Additionally, I think it is inconceivable that an airport plan could be determined for the Western Sydney airport at a different location but relying on an environmental impact statement for Badgerys Creek. On that point, can I again confirm for the chamber that the government remains committed to Badgerys Creek as the site for Western Sydney's first airport and, again, that is why we are spending the $3.6 billion on surrounding infrastructure in partnership with the New South Wales government. That is also why we have initiated the right of first refusal process with the owners of Sydney—Kingsford Smith—Airport and have spent the last nine months consulting with the Sydney Airport group, as we are contractually obliged to do, under the right of first refusal process.

So certainly, in terms of the amendment that has been moved by Senator Rice, the government does believe that it is unnecessary and, as I say, we will be opposing it.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor does not support this amendment, and we note the comments of the government. The amendment adds nothing of substance to the bill. It seems to presuppose that an EIS for one specific major development can be transferred to a completely different site. This is a fanciful scenario wrapped up in an even more fanciful theory about the operations of environmental planning law.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.