World Environment Day

About this Item
Speakers - Beamer Ms Diane; Hazzard Mr Brad
Business -

WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

Debate resumed from 16 October.

Mrs BEAMER (Badgerys Creek) [12.17 p.m.]: I speak in support of the amendment moved by the Minister for the Environment. I want to refer to the major environmental issue affecting my electorate - the proposed second airport site, which has cast a pall over my electorate, given its potential impacts on the people of western Sydney. Building a second airport capable of accommodating 30 million passengers a year will have the most significant environmental impact on the people of western Sydney of any issue. The Federal Government’s environmental impact assessment process has to date given little consideration to a whole range of crucial issues which are fundamental to an informed decision. The Federal Government has been told on numerous occasions that the environmental impacts need to be comprehensively addressed before a decision about the second airport is made. The draft EIS summary states that

. . . the research to date does not provide sufficient information to quantify accurately many of the suggested impacts of noise in particular sensitive groups.

However, in regard to noise impacts the summary concedes as follows:

. . . could be significant as many people would experience noise levels that would exceed Australian Standards".

The air quality issue probably affects most people in western Sydney. The draft EIS summary downplays the potential impact of a second airport on air quality. The Commonwealth’s assessment failed to take into account potential national environmental protection measure standards for fine particle pollution, which indicates that it is totally underestimating the impact on the surrounding area. For the people of Badgerys Creek this State Government has set about providing strong air quality monitoring stations, which the previous Government was trying to stop or disassemble. It was crucially important to the people of Badgerys Creek to have this information available, that it be accurate and that it be documented so that the impacts on the environment could be truly assessed.

Under this proposal at least the State Government can show the Federal Government that western Sydney cannot cope with the kind of pollution about which we are talking. The Federal Government has ignored the importance of ozone as a regional issue in Sydney and its role in the development of photochemical smog is outrageous. Water quality is another issue that impacts on my electorate. Scant attention has been paid to the potential impacts on water quality around the proposed airport site. Statements about the impact of development on the watershed are vague and the impact on ground water was not considered. In short, the Commonwealth has wasted much time and money considering airport site options and has produced virtually no results. A further major omission from the Federal Government’s draft EIS summary is the management of solid wastes from construction works.

The extensive earthworks involved in construction would generate a significant amount of waste. This is a major environmental concern, but the Commonwealth has chosen to omit this issue entirely from consideration. The Federal Government has totally ignored the real impacts from any of the three options - A, B, or C - for the people of Badgerys Creek, Penrith, St Clair and other areas surrounding the airport site. The Federal Government has repeatedly been advised of the vital importance of comprehensive environmental data and its rigorous assessment. I congratulate the State Government and the Minister for the Environment in particular on the way they have examined the real issues of air quality in the Sydney Basin by compiling comprehensive data. As a community we will be able to assess those impacts and say that the Sydney Basin cannot withstand them.

Mr HAZZARD (Wakehurst) [12.22 p.m.], in reply: I assure the honourable member for Badgerys
Page 1359
Creek that the coalition would be at the forefront of any battle to make sure that a second airport at Badgerys Creek has all the necessary environmental safeguards. Certainly the coalition is concerned to make sure that air quality issues in western Sydney are given absolute priority, that water quality issues are given absolute priority and that noise issues are given absolute priority. The problem at the moment is that the New South Wales Government is playing stupid politics with people’s lives. The State Government knows that the Federal Government quite openly proposes Badgerys Creek as the second airport. I suggest that the New South Wales Government be more sincere and less involved in playing games, and talk to the Federal Government about addressing some of these issues. If not, I assure the House that after March 1999 the coalition will talk to the Federal Government about whatever option is chosen for a second airport or whatever options are taken to expand Sydney’s air transport capacity.

The coalition will be at the forefront talking to its Federal colleagues to make sure that those issues are considered. I know the honourable member for Badgerys Creek does not like playing political games and does not want to sacrifice people’s lives and cause them to be unduly worried about proposed changes to their immediate surroundings. I encourage her to try to step aside from the sort of rhetoric and silliness demonstrated by the Premier and other Ministers and have some substantive discussions. I am sure the Federal Government will be happy to discuss the issues with her if she writes to it. Has the honourable member written to the Federal Government? Is she able to table copies of those letters? She has not done that. She has been a bit naughty. If she had written those letters, she would have had more credibility in this House on this topic.

Mr Armstrong: It is in the mail.

Mr HAZZARD: As the Leader of the National Party said, the letter from the honourable member for Badgerys Creek may be in the mail. She should send the coalition a copy because it would love to read what she said. The Minister for the Environment has moved an interesting amendment. I should like to read the first paragraph, which states:

[That] this House recognises the Carr Labor Government’s frankness in releasing available data from the metropolitan air quality study on the health and environmental impacts of air pollution on the environment and on human health.

What does that mean? It means that this State Government led by Mr Rhetoric, Mr Stupidity, Mr Carr, wants members of this House to pat it on the back because it is being frank with the people! The coalition is surprised if there has been a level of frankness from this Government with the people. Is that not what governments are supposed to do? Is that not what this Government is supposed to do? Is the Government not supposed to be honest, truthful and frank with people? The coalition sees no reason to support the amendment to the motion. In fact, the coalition is stunned at such stupidity. The coalition knew the Government was stupid, but did not realise that it would put in writing that when it is frank with the people it should be congratulated. The coalition does not congratulate the Government, because this motion confirms to the people of New South Wales that the Government is not normally frank with them and that it is happy to lie and to be deceptive.

Ms Allan: Sour grapes.

Mr HAZZARD: There are no sour grapes. The Minister knows her colleagues do not tell the truth and she too has been a bit naughty from time to time, including the episode at Wallis Lake when she blamed the local council for the hepatitis A outbreak.

Ms Allan: Sour grapes. You don’t like being in opposition.

Mr HAZZARD: For the first time the Minister has said something accurate! The coalition does not like being in opposition. In just over 500 days the coalition will not be in opposition; it will be again on the government benches. The people of New South Wales have woken up to the fact that the Government is deceptive and that it is not frank; that it comprises a bunch of lying graduates. The Government is a progressive group of liars that get better and better. The Opposition opposes this amendment because, unfortunately, it paints an incorrect picture the Government.

The Government has not consulted the people. It has done nothing for air or water quality. It has done nothing to address toxic land problems or to address a host of issues. As I mentioned in a debate last week, I have brochures piled high on my desk from environmentalists announcing public forums to criticise the State Government for its inactivity, its stupidity and its lack of commitment to the environment. The Minister is not considered to be committed to the environment. Premier Carr has been shown as having nothing more than a superficial approach to the environment. The Opposition has a commitment to improve the environment and will carry that commitment to government in March 1999.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Page 1360

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:36:36 : Update this page