By Janet Parker
SYDNEY — Less than a week after Labor's victory in the NSW election, the Civil Aviation Authority announced that aircraft movements at Kingsford Smith Airport would increase by 50% by the end of this year. New areas will be affected by jet noise, and others will be subject to louder and more frequent noise.
The No Aircraft Noise Party, which won an average of almost 17% of the primary vote across six inner Sydney seats, is already discussing its plans for the federal election. 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Weekly's JANET PARKER spoke to NAN member MICHELLE CALVERT, who contested the seat of Ashfield at the state election.
What are the implications of the opening of the new control tower on April 3?
The idea is to increase the capacity of Kingsford Smith Airport, meaning more aircraft noise, more people being affected and those already affected being more so. The capacity of Kingsford Smith is going to go from 55 movements an hour up to 80 movements an hour. That translates to about 1000 movements a day or 353,000 a year.
And once the privatisation of KSA occurs — and the first briefing seminar to discuss this is planned for May — there will be no accountability to the voter. Increasing capacity will be uppermost in their concerns because they will be consumed with increasing their profits, and in that context the curfew will come under threat. It's not just the noise: pollution, lifestyle, health and education will be affected.
What is your response to the CAA's "public education campaign" begun in the weekend press?
I am appalled! It's just another show of arrogance. They are using our tax dollars to tell us what terrific people they are and we just have to put up with the outcomes. That is nonsense. We will not pay the price of poor planning.
The social cost has not featured in this issue. We'll have falling enrolments in these schools, the housing stock will deteriorate and people's health is already being affected.
What measures should the federal government be implementing?
They should revisit the EIS for Badgerys Creek. It needs to be revised, and they need to be looking for a replacement international airport. It's no good telling people that Badgerys Creek will be the answer, because it's not. It is only planned as an overflow airport. It can not take long-range jets.
At least two local resident groups have formed at Badgerys Creek to oppose the siting of the airport there. Among their concerns are the fact that some 30,000 new homes have recently been built in the surrounding area, and the Prospect Dam, supplying one third of Sydney's water, is next door. Do these issues concern you?
Yes. Again, there's no forward planning. I heard the other day that Landcom is about to release more land under the flight path at Badgerys Creek.
If I was a resident at Badgerys, I'd be concerned as well because the people who did the EIS there are exactly the same people who told us we were going to be unaffected by the third runway. If the EIS is done properly and they say Badgerys is a suitable site, then I'd say go for it. But it really has to be done carefully, because the other major part of our platform is that we wouldn't wish this on anybody!
The EIS on the third runway performed by the company Kinhill Stern has proved totally incorrect. Why should we trust an EIS now?
From now on, EISs have to take in the social costs of development as well. To date the government has ignored this. The third runway is a perfect example. The EIS for the rail link with Kingsford Smith was also done by Kinhill Stern. How can we trust that? The people of Tempe are up in arms, and there are serious concerns about where all the contaminated soil will be dumped.
What are NAN's plans for future electoral activity?
Whether or not we run in local government hasn't yet been to a general membership meeting, but the view of the executive and, it appears, many of the workers, is that they are keen to contest both local and federal government. We have begun to discuss developing broader policies.
If the support we received in the state election translates into the federal sphere, we could make a huge difference.
I think this is the beginning of a new movement. My view is that we'll be a party looking at urban planning and related issues — almost like the Greens are to wilderness. But we see ourselves as becoming the party that looks after the environment of the cities.
We want to present a whole new aspect to politics. We will be answerable to our membership and consult with them. Many of those long-term supporters of the major parties who feel that they have been lied to and dumped on will gravitate towards us because we're refreshingly honest.
Has NAN discussed whether it will become more involved in the protests and actions against the third runway?
We did decide to contact the Community Advisory Committee because we're very disappointed with the role of Barry Cotter [Mayor of Marrickville and one of the leaders of the coalition of councils opposing the third runway]. We're not surprised that he endorsed the Labor Party in the state election — he's a Labor mayor and his loyalty clearly runs first to the party.
NAN grew up out of disaffection with the two major parties and yet here's Barry Cotter saying, Vote for Labor — even though they built the runway! I certainly think he has undermined the independence and integrity of the coalition. We'll have to rethink our relationship to it, but we'll still be at the blockades and whatever protests are held.
Has NAN had any discussion about how to exploit the fact of an ALP state government?
The first thing we are going to do is contact Bob Carr and the other Labor people who were voted in and say, "You made all these promises to fight the runway — now what are you going to do about it?"
Will Carr and his ministers overturn the contract for the building of the rail link to Kingsford Smith? Will they stand up to the federal Labor government over the planned privatisation of Kingsford Smith? Carr promised that he would be able to stand up to Keating and take him on — well, now is the time.