This debate won't get off the ground

The debate centers on whether and where to build a second airport for Sydney. The article describes a lot of political posturing, competing proposals and public commentary, but no clear government commitment to act. Proposals and counterarguments have included capacity upgrades at Mascot, Badgerys Creek as a preferred site in an internal report, and Wilton as an alternative.

The article highlights Badgerys Creek and Wilton as the main contenders. An intra-government report reportedly backs Badgerys Creek ahead of Wilton as the site for a second aviation hub, while Wilton remains under consideration with several environmental and cost questions raised.

Sydney Airport's chairman suggested that modest increases in Mascot's flight capacity—an example quoted was an extra five flights an hour—might reduce the pressure for a second airport. The article notes this view but also points out population growth projections and ongoing debate, so expansion at Mascot is presented as one argument rather than a resolved solution.

The article flags Wilton as a sensitive location for Sydney's water supply: a tunnel runs through Wilton to Broughton Pass and water passing Wilton feeds reservoirs and lakes such as Avon, Nepean, Cordeaux, Cataract and Woronora. Concerns include potential fuel jettisoning in an emergency, and runoff of brake soot, grease and other chemicals during heavy rain—issues that could complicate planning and raise environmental objections.

No. According to the article there is no sign that any level of government has committed to taking action. The intra-government report favoring Badgerys Creek is described as at risk of becoming an unused document rather than prompting a decision or project start.

The article notes the report lists 'water catchment areas' under 'major costs' for Wilton but does not explore the issue in detail. That suggests potential remediation, mitigation or infrastructure costs related to protecting water supplies could be significant, though specific cost estimates are not provided.

The article emphasizes that much of the debate is political: elected representatives are balancing noisy inner-city electorates, western Sydney seats, and broader political messaging. High-profile politicians and ex-ministers are quoted offering opinions, and political considerations appear to be a major factor holding up concrete action.

The article says a politician would face a tough path: environmental sensitivities (especially water catchments), community opposition in affected electorates, noise concerns for inner-city residents, potential technical and remediation costs, and strong local political consequences. So far, no politician has shown the willingness to lead the decision.