Subjects: Sydney airport decision; Very Fast Train; GDP figures.
E&OE……………………………………………………………………………………
JOURNALIST:
Prime Minister Badgery’s Creek decision, it’s been put off for another ten years, doesn’t that just leave a whole heap of uncertainty?
PRIME MINISTER:
No it doesn’t. That’s completely negative construction on what the Government has done. We have a very planned, logical approach to Sydney’s airport needs. It’s quite obvious that Kingsford Smith is operating more effectively and more efficiently than many people allowed for five years ago. The experience of the Olympic Games, the experience of the last few years has demonstrated that. The changes we propose in relation to Bankstown will augment the capacity that Kingsford Smith now provides. We have retained the Badgery’s Creek site against the possibility that it might some years into the future be needed. There are many people who believe that won’t be the case. The sensible, prudent thing to do is to retain the site. I believe that the way we have approached it has allowed for further expansion, it also allows for changes in aircraft technology, larger aircraft, quieter engines and all of those things that will have an impact over the years ahead. And the investment of all of what we have been required in commending a second airport against that background would have quite unwise.
JOURNALIST:
But isn’t it deferring the political odium?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, that assumes that in the end you will get what was billed, another airport at Badgery’s Creek. I don’t accept that.
JOURNALIST:
Surely there is going to be, as the main airport expands, quite a considerable increase in noise …. How are you going to cope with that?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t accept that you’re going to have such a significant increase given the maintenance of the movement caps and given the extra capacity that Bankstown will provide. Given the inevitable commercial decisions that will be made by some airlines to bypass Sydney in direct flights between for example Melbourne and Brisbane, the extra capacity that will be provided because of that, I don’t think that will automatically be the case. I mean we, as you know, have spent a lot of time discussing this and the single case that was made clearly to me was that Sydney has operated far more efficiently and effectively and has not reached the point of crisis that so many people predicted a few years ago.
JOURNALIST:
But still noisily?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you never have a noiseless airport and you have to take into account the fact that we have the great asset of an airport that is very close to the city. We have achieved a greater equity in noise distribution over the past few years and I speak as a representative of people who’ve complained loudly on occasion about aircraft noise. And nobody likes aircraft noise but there’s a much fairer distribution. And the thing that aggravated the people in many parts of Sydney a few years ago was the inequity of the noise. I don’t think people deny that a certain amount of noise if you have an airport close to a city, a certain amount of noise is unavoidable, but when it looks as though one group in the community is being singled out and all the noise is dumped on them they get particularly angry.
JOURNALIST:
With Bankstown becoming a lot more busy has there been any consideration to compensating them in much the same way as residents of inner Sydney were compensated with double glazing….[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s something that we would along the way look at. I am not going to say yes or no to that. It’s something we would look at and we would naturally try and treat the people surrounding that airport as fairly as we have treated other people in the past. We have no desire to treat them badly but I am not in a position to say yes or no to that, it’s something that we would obviously consider.
JOURNALIST:
Was Kurnell ever a real option?
PRIME MINISTER:
It was an option that we looked at and when I was asked about it last week I said that it remained an option. When you say it was never a real option, I mean what is a real option? If you look at something seriously and you get some advice on it and you have a look at it and you have a look at the environmental consequences of it, if that’s meaning it was an option, the answer is yes. But we came to the conclusion that the environmental factors and cost factors were such as to rule it out.
JOURNALIST:
Why did you decide to rule out the very fast train?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because it didn’t meet the original criteria of no net cost. I mean it would have involved a public subsidy of between $1 billion - $2 billion. I heard somebody speaking for the group this morning, a Mr O’Neill complaining about the Government pulling the rug out. The whole basis of the invitation was no net cost, we haven’t pulled the rug out. We never said that we were going to subsidise it. We always said that there had to be no net cost. And the other point I make is that both the New South Wales and ACT Governments made it very clear they weren’t going to make a financial contribution. There’s no way that we could have justified for one individual project such as that, you could have justified a subsidy between $1 billion and $2 billion. You just couldn’t justify that. And that is in the end the reason why we said no. I would have loved to have had the Very Fast Train if we could have had it on the originally represented basis. And that originally represented basis was no net cost. Now that just wasn’t possible and therefore we weren’t in a position to contribute the $1 billion - $2 billion.
JOURNALIST:
Do you expect the overflow to Bankstown to be mostly regional airlines or ….
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you’re going to have a less regulated pricing environment there. You’re going to have separate ownership. It would be open for example to one of the more recent discount fare operators to consider it. I am not saying they will, I’ve not had any discussions, I don’t know. But it’s not just to be seen in terms of overflow of regionals, it could be more than that.
JOURNALIST:
You’ve had a couple of people lunge forward at you today. Is that a normal everyday thing …does that ruffle you at all or….?
PRIME MINISTER:
How long have you been reporting these events? Very, very, very minor. Very minor.
JOURNALIST:
Do you have any concerns about the Government’s detention policy and the treatment of detainees?
PRIME MINISTER:
My Government’s detention policy?
JOURNALIST:
[inaudible]
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we are having an investigation carried out in relation to certain allegations. The advice I have is that the facility is properly run but we, I am always open minded and we’re willing to investigate allegations and that’s why we’ve appointed Mr Flood. But if you’re saying to me do I have any doubts about the notion of detaining people who come here illegally, no I don’t. And I believe that most Australians think that if people come to this country illegally then it is entirely appropriate that they be detained. Now, we don’t like detaining people but we don’t like people coming here illegally. If they didn’t come here illegally well they wouldn’t be detained. They are afforded processes under the law that are denied in many other countries. We have a very generous legal system as far as the processes of the law are concerned. It compares very favourably with most other countries.
JOURNALIST:
What about the conditions at Woomera and Mr Fraser’s comments?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I haven’t been to Woomera personally. I can’t go everywhere. Neither has Mr Fraser. I prefer to rely on the advice of people who are there and who’ve been there.
JOURNALIST:
What do you make of the GDP figures today?
PRIME MINISTER:
Pretty much in the groove. Strong growth – 13 quarters of growth over four percent. Very strong. Obviously some moderation of growth but we’ve been saying that for some time. But the economy is still very sound.
JOURNALIST:
Are you calling these groovy figures?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well you know I’m always lacking in flamboyance of language when it comes to economic matters.
JOURNALIST:
Back to Bankstown. Why couldn’t that be seen as just a political decision as it is surrounded by ALP seats?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s not. It’s not a political decision. It is a very logical thing to do. You have an airport – you have an existing capacity which is nowhere near as far out of the city as is Badgery’s Creek and you make a decision for it to become over time an overflow facility for Kingsford Smith. There’s nothing political about that. It’s entirely logical.
JOURNALIST:
You’d have to agree that they don’t vote for you?
PRIME MINISTER:
That is, that kind of question is the equivalent of saying it is wrong to give flood relief to people in New South Wales because most of them live in National Party seats. There’s no – you have to look at the merit of the decision. Your proposition would be correct if there were no independent merit in expanding Bankstown. If there were no independent merit in expanding Bankstown, Stephen, you’d have a point. But there is.
JOURNALIST:
But the National Party helps you form government : the Labor Party doesn’t.
PRIME MINISTER:
But that’s – once again you’re just being completely perverse and you’re ignoring the fact the there is an argument on the merits. Every decision that government takes affects people living in different parts of the country when they involve facilities that are located in only one part of a country and not spread generically. So what you have to do is, you have to look at whether the decision can be justified on the merits. Now when it can’t be justified on the merits, then you’ve got a point. But if you look at this on every criteria it can be justified and I totally reject any suggestion that we have taken this decision because there are Labor voters in that area. That is an absurd proposition and I totally reject it.
JOURNALIST:
What infrastructure requirements might be needed before Bankstown is expanded?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well at this stage I would see the need for a lengthening of the runway and that’s something that we would discuss – or take into account in our discussions with prospective buyers. Some additional terminal facilities. There’s always the possibility along the way, and I don’t want to pre-empt how it might be done and what combination of public and private contributions might be needed, there may be other transport infrastructure that comes along so you can talk about rail links with the East Hills rail line and so forth. I’m not saying that they’re things we’re necessarily going to do but there’s a whole range of possibilities that arise depending on the attitude of the buyers and depending on what emerges.
JOURNALIST:
What timetable are we talking about (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh not for some years yet.
JOURNALIST:
Was the possible sale of Kingsford Smith part of the equation in making sure the (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t understand the question. What do you mean by that?
JOURNALIST:
Well, if there is a plan to sell Kingsford… (inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah and we announced that yesterday.
JOURNALIST:
Does that keep the price high if there is a major airport and there is no Badgery’s Creek and there is no Kurnell (inaudible)?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well if you’re asking me was the desire to get more dollars for Kingsford Smith the reason why we took the decision. Is that what you’re asking?
JOURNALIST:
Yes.
PRIME MINISTER:
The answer’s no. We’re not.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) are you hypothecating….
PRIME MINISTER:
No we’re not hypothecating that money. It doesn’t go into the bottom line. It goes into the – it has an effect on the headline of the Budget, not into the bottom line.
JOURNALIST:
How did Kurnell come in so late in the piece?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don’t, just at this stage it will just be used for debt retirement and reduction of public debt interest. We have taken no decision to hypothecate it if that’s what you’re asking.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I neither confirm nor deny it came in late or early. I was asked whether it was an option and I said yes. It’s not an option now because we’ve ruled it out.
JOURNALIST:
Does the expression ‘red herring’ apply?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well that’s not right either. This is a very big decision and it’s a decision we’re going to stay with and we’re going to make sure it all goes through. In five years time we’ll have a look again at how the airport needs of Sydney are going but this is a long range plan. It does involve, as someone described it this morning, as a cascading approach. You’ll have the overflow going into Bankstown. You keep Badgery’s Creek against the day that you might need it. I’m not one of those who frankly think you’ll ever build an airport at Badgery’s Creek but I’m open minded enough to believe that you ought to retain the site and you ought to prevent encroachment. We’ve already spent the money in acquiring the site but I remain, myself, very sceptical if ever there would be a commercially sustainable case for constructing an airport at Badgery’s Creek. I’ve come to that view over the past few years from a combination of talking to airlines, knowing the attitude of aircraft commuters in Sydney and also looking at the increasingly efficient use of operation of Kingsford Smith and also understanding how technological developments with aircraft can change the scene very dramatically.
JOURNALIST:
What’s the estimate for fixing up…(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
I don’t have a figure. I’d have to get advice on that, I don’t know.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible) does that mean you think it will be a major ….
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. I would have thought the reverse.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well we believe, as Mr Anderson explained this morning, there are a lot of years left in it. Then you have the overflow into Bankstown and then you have of course you will have the results of the train analysis and all of those related things and they all have fed into the decision that we’ve taken.
JOURNALIST:
Would Bankstown be the only overflow airport?
PRIME MINISTER:
We don’t have any other plan at the moment, Stephen. What do you want another announcement, do you? No, but we don’t, we don’t Stephen, we don’t have any other plans. We are of course putting some extra money into upgrading Canberra airport to full international standards. It will be able to take 747s and, of course, there won’t be many scheduled for flights but there could have the same number of charters that might go into there and that will add somewhat to the international capacity of eastern Australia. Two more questions.
JOURNALIST:
Did you look at the difference between upgrading Bankstown…?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well it’s one of these areas where everything is difficult. It’s a question of degrees of difficulty and we’re satisfied that can be done.
JOURNALIST:
What are your plans for Christmas?
PRIME MINISTER:
I will take two or three weeks off at the beginning of January and Mr Anderson will be acting Prime Minister.
JOURNALIST:
Are you going overseas?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I’m not going overseas. Frankly having travelled so much this year I’ll be very happy to stay at home and go to the final test if it lasts a few days.
JOURNALIST:
On welfare reform, will there be any new spending on that….?
PRIME MINISTER:
Senator Newman will be making a detailed directional statement on welfare tomorrow. Thank you.
[ends]