By Janet Parker
The plague of aircraft noise generated by the opening of the third runway at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport has generated a protest movement on a scale not seen in many years. The draft environmental impact statement in 1991 attracted 1897 submissions, of which 87% indicated opposition to the runway and only 7% support.
This opposition was completely ignored. The runway was built, and its impact has even exceeded the worst fears.
The anti-runway movement has begun to have its own discussion and debate to clarify goals and perspectives and elaborate genuine solutions. Many of the original assumptions and demands made in the early days are being called into question.
At the outset, the movement argued that the third runway should be closed, the east-west runway be reopened and a second airport be built in Sydney's west at Badgerys Creek. More recently, the viability of Badgerys and the future of Kingsford Smith have come under closer scrutiny.
Green Left Weekly canvassed the views of representatives of a number of groups involved in the anti-runway campaign: the Greens candidate for Ashfield, Paul Fitzgerald, Hall Greenland of the newly formed No Aircraft Noise Party, Community Advisory Committee secretary Kevin Murphy and the Democratic Socialist candidate for Marrickville, Karen Fletcher.
Should the east-west runway be reopened?
Fitzgerald: That is what the airlines want. It will allow them to increase the capacity of the airport even further. We should be calling for a reversion to the pre-November '94 mode of operations in the short term.
Then we should ask for a capacity limit on the total airport in terms of numbers and types of aircraft. Then, contingent upon that, the three runways could be used but for the purpose of reducing the flights over residential areas rather than increasing the capacity of the airport.
I stress this is a short-term solution only to deal with the current crisis.
Greenland: The east-west should only be opened for a very short period, and it should be in the context of a decision to build a major replacement airport elsewhere, and it must be accompanied by an extension of the curfew from 10pm to 7am.
The great danger of reopening the east-west is that not only does it spread the danger and inconvenience, it could lead to the permanent expansion of the airport.
Murphy: The only short-term solution is the reopening of the east-west in the manner it was used prior to the opening of the third runway, but they must not increase the capacity of the airport in doing that.
They could also use the new runway for departures through the south, out through the heads, or arrivals through the heads. We'd also like to see the curfew extended.
Fletcher: The reopening must be temporary and subject to strict and enforced curfews and capacity limits. Whether planes fly east-west or north-south, hundreds of thousands of residents will be affected. No major airport should be sited in the midst of a densely populated area.
What should be the future of Kingsford Smith Airport?
Fitzgerald: In the long term Kingsford Smith has to move. It's just too noisy to have a modern airport so close to residential areas. People living in Marrickville live with a risk of being killed in an aircraft crash that is four times higher than the risk of being killed in a car crash. Closure of Kingsford Smith is the only responsible solution.
The money from redeveloping that site as residential and industrial would just about pay for another airport.
Greenland: Kingsford Smith is in the wrong place. Whatever configuration of landings and take-offs you have, they're going to be flying over people's houses and ruining their lives.
Our line is to sell it and shift it to the outskirts of Sydney, as far away as possible from residential areas. Kingsford Smith should be sold for residential development and the proceeds used to build an airport where it's not going to worry anybody.
We are also quite firmly against any privatisation.
Murphy: Having a major airport close to a densely populated area is not a good idea — for pollution factors, risk factors and the noise problems.
Providing the aerodrome is developed fully and the transport infrastructure is developed, then a replacement airport at a site suitably chosen to minimise impact on people and the environment is the best option.
Fletcher: Ultimately, Kingsford Smith must go. It's testament to the method of urban planning that puts commerce and profit ahead of people's quality of life and safety.
Is Badgerys Creek the alternative?
Fitzgerald: Badgerys Creek was always to be an overflow airport for KSA. It's what the Labor Party is still pushing for. Bob Carr and Laurie Brereton want to fast-track Badgerys, but only as an overflow airport, so it won't mean a reduction in the flights at KSA.
I think it's too late for Badgerys because of residential encroachment. There are problems with the water reservoirs, and any run-off will drain into the Hawkesbury-Nepean.
A full EIS must be done, and if it can't go there we'll have to look at other sites.
Greenland: A replacement airport has to be built on the outskirts of Sydney, as far as possible from residential areas — that may now rule out Badgerys Creek.
Badgerys was only ever conceived of as a spill-over airport, and the EIS is at least 10 years old now. We're now almost 100% sure that an EIS would rule out Badgerys Creek because of the water catchment, the residential developments and the fact that air pollution is already very bad.
Murphy: There has been a certain amount of residential development at Badgerys Creek, and there is also some concern that the site is not large enough to accommodate a truly efficient international airport.
Fletcher: An airport at Badgerys would be a disaster. This area is one of the fastest growing residential areas in Sydney's metropolitan region. And densely populated areas like Penrith, Blacktown, Liverpool, Fairfield and Cabramatta could all be adversely affected by excessive noise.
Badgerys is also the site of the Prospect Dam, which supplies one-third of Sydney's water supply. What will be the impact of aircraft emissions, the dumping of kerosene and fuel, on our water supply?
The western basin is already home to the most serious air pollution in this state. Add aircraft emissions and you get an ever-more lethal toxic soup.
What about community consultation?
Fitzgerald: The CAC started off as part of the "community consultation" process, spent two and a half years on unpaid, stressful work and were completely ignored. The formation of the CAC was very limited in that they only advertised in newspapers; a lot of people didn't know there was a consultation going on.
The Federal Airports Corporation also held workshops, but they were FAC representatives or other experts telling people what the FAC and their experts wanted to tell them. These workshops were just a con job.
Greenland: The EIS process has been corrupted by the EIS being done by proponents of the scheme rather than a public body that is in some way publicly accountable.
The EIS process has also been corrupted by the fact that the full social, economic and environmental costs don't have to be looked at. Finally, agreement of local councils in the region must be a requirement if the proposal is to be accepted.
Murphy: We would suggest a body such as the CAC, which has developed a fairly high level of expertise with the technical aspects of airport-related matters. The community is now much more involved in the CAC too, and this puts us in a position where we have a basic structure to develop policy and provide genuine, considered input and full community consultation.
Fletcher: At the heart of this issue is the question of democracy — community control over our environment and quality of life.
Community consultation is clearly not adequate. What we need is actual community control, a decision-making process in which those people affected by a decision get to make that decision. That is a far cry from the way the major political parties operate in this country.
We need to build an alternative political process and organisations which can involve more and more people in grassroots campaigns to defend and extend our rights, to make more of the decisions about our everyday lives and to guarantee that the health and welfare of the majority is put before business profits.