13.2.14 Sydney Airport

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:44): I want to take up the member for Chifley on his kind invitation to speak about the committee the Prime Minister has established to ensure there is proper consultation with government members and with Western Sydney communities. I fully endorse the Prime Minister in this orderly process he has put together to ensure the views of communities, community leaders, businesses and members or parliament are heard.

We really did not hear the audacity of hope from the member for Chifley did we? What we really heard was a continuation of the last 30 years of governments squibbing an important decision about the future of the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our country. This game playing has to end, these politics have to stop, and the government is looking at addressing this critical economic decision in the very near future. It is important that we move on from this era, that the member for Chifley just so adequately represented, where even in his own party, just today, the Manager of Opposition Business said to television cameras that he supports a second airport at Sydney. When back in opposition they are back to opposing the airport, just to get some votes and just to stir up trouble.

What we ought to be discussing are the details of how an airport can best be constructed in Western Sydney that minimises the impact. I absolutely agree that this should not be a 24/7 airport and that it should have the same standards applied to it as Kingsford Smith Airport. These are the kinds of important discussions and feedback that should be had, rather than the cynical political game-playing that has been happening. Yes, there was an all-party working group in the last parliament and I attended one of the meetings with Minister Albanese, and of course no decision ever arose from it. This is the game played between governments over 30 years that has prevented this important decision from being made for our biggest city.

Perhaps we can break out of this. Perhaps you could read The Audacity of Hope, and get a bit of inspiration. It is time for us to make this decision and move on, and the government intends to make this decision after a proper process of consultation. This government has a principled approach to consultation. I agree that there is a diversity of views, there is a range of factors that need to be considered. There are ways of constructing an airport and putting the right infrastructure in place that will ensure many of the concerns of the member for Chifley and his community are addressed. We can do this, we can have the jobs, we can have the economic benefits, and we can also minimise noise and environmental impacts and ensure we have a suite of infrastructure that benefits the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our nation. This can be done.

I think the member for Chifley is very cynical when reflecting on the Prime Minister's establishment of this committee. Yes, there is a diversity of views in government members, and there is no problem with having a diversity in views. The people impacted also have a diversity of views. They need to have certainty about the type of airport; how it will be conducted; when it will be conducted; what guarantees will be in place; that there will be appropriate insulation arrangements, just as there would be at Kingsford Smith Airport; and that curfews will ensure that any impacts are minimal.

I also think it is especially cynical to raise Qantas on a day we hear there are some issues in relation to employment matters at Qantas. If the member for Chifley wanted to assist Qantas he could consider putting a motion into the House to amend the Qantas Sale Act, to allow Qantas to source the capital it needs to do business. It is not asking for government capital or government underwriting. It can do this with private capital, and it can arrange its own arrangements as the business it needs to be. Simple amendments to the Qantas Sale Act will remove the restrictions that are in place on the business that do not allow it to compete. You can join us on this. There is a solution to the problem you raise.

So if you want to come forward and propose amendments to the Qantas Sale Act, we are here to receive them today, member for Chifley. But if you are here just to play the political ping-pong of the last 30 years—we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it, we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it—that game has to end. This decision has to be taken in the interests of the people of New South Wales, of Sydney and of Western Sydney in particular. It has to be taken so that we can move on with the site of Badgerys Creek. Either we are going to build an airport, or we are going to allow more housing, and do the things that need to be done. I believe this is a government that will make this decision.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The member for Chifley.

I believe they will do the things they should do—that is, make a decision in the best interests of Western Sydney and our economy and do the things that need to be done and take into account the real concerns of many community groups. We can do both.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley.

We can build this airport, we can take into account their considerations, but we can not do it if we have the politics of cynicism and negativity, if we continue this 30-year game of ping-pong that gets played between governments.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 187.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word is not parliamentary word and you will leave the chamber under standing order 187.

The member for Chifley then left the chamber.

This government and this Prime Minister are doing the right thing by consulting with government colleagues, they are doing the right thing by consulting with the western Sydney community, and I fully support the Prime Minister and the government.