Senator FAWCETT: Essendon is a case in point, where it is proposed possibly to shorten a runway. I was asking CASA about their professional input, which says that the length of the runway, particularly for lower weight aircraft under 5,700 kilos, is not just a function of the flight manual but there are a number of factors that have to be applied which significantly lengthen the requirement that an operator has to meet to allow for engine failures and other things. CASA have confirmed that it is the case that they have to be applied. Can I ask: if the advice that a consultant gave as part of a master planning process did not include that factoring information and it was subsequently shown that CASA had verified that the figures they had interpolated from the flight manual were correct but they had not actually notified the department that the operator had to take these other things into account so that the runway that was proposed by the master plan ended up being too short for the aircraft that would be using it, what would happen to the master planning process? Would it be overturned? Would you go back and change it? What would the department do in that case?
Mr Doherty : Perhaps I could start the answer and Ms Horrocks may wish to add to it. With the general thrust of your question being about whether, in considering a master plan, we would look to the impact of a change in runway, not only in terms of the technical compliance with a manual but in terms of the overall impact about how that change would affect the operations, clearly our interest would be in being able to assess the impact on operations practically. In terms of the detail of how that assessment is conducted, I think it is correct that we would be looking to CASA for an assessment on some of those technical aspects. As for the advice that they provide in relation to each master plan, we would be looking for that sort of advice. When it comes to input from a technical expert or consultant engaged by the airport, we would be keen to understand whether that is reliable and would get an expert opinion ourselves on that. Initially that would come from CASA. If that information is available then to the minister, the minister would make his call in terms of whether that master plan is something that should be approved or not.
Senator FAWCETT: I guess the question I have for you is that I have had a large number of complaints from operators at Archerfield Airport who contend that the expert who was called to support the master planning process looked at the AF10, the flight manual, and derived from that, for each of the aircraft type that flies at Archerfield, a strip length for the new north
-south runway which was less than a thousand metres—I think it was about 900 metres—but it did not take into account the factoring that the CAOs require an operator to put into their operations manual. They contend that CASA, in double-checking the figures on behalf of the department, said yes, they accurately interpreted the AFM but did not highlight the fact that factoring had not been included; therefore, the master plan, which has been approved, endorses a runway which is too short to meet the legal requirements that CASA actually require the operators to meet. So my question is: if that contention is validated, what will happen to the master plan?
Mr Doherty : I think CASA took on notice last night the issue about what exactly their assessment was and what it covered in the Archerfield circumstance and I would certainly be happy to take on notice from our side too to look at that assessment. In terms of the impact of that decision, I am not entirely sure at this stage just where the process of the runway changes at Archerfield are and whether there would be some formal further approval required before they were actually given effect to.
Mr Mrdak : If I may add, I think our view would be, in the circumstances that you have outlined, where it was shown that there was any error or there was further information which may have changed that consideration, that would not necessarily invalidate the master plan. What it would mean, though, at the time the airport was to bring forward a major development proposal for the runway work—and I will ask Ms Horrocks to comment about the status of that—is that is the point at which that adjustment would need to be made and a separate approval process would apply. However, coming to your question, I do not think our view would be that the master plan would be invalid, because it is a concept planning document which is set out predominantly for zoning and planning purposes. The details of any runway shortening at either Archerfield or Essendon would have to be dealt with through an MDP and a specific approval program. If you do not mind, I will get Ms Horrocks to give us an update on where we think Archerfield is at on that runway proposal.
Ms Horrocks : Archerfield has not developed the MDP at this point in time. We would normally seek to look at any preliminary or exposure draft of an MDP and identify any required information at that point in time and then it would go through the legislative process for an MDP.
Senator FAWCETT: Can I just go to a broader issue now around the Commonwealth's responsibilities in terms of both airports it has gifted or sold or leased—and there are a number under that. There is a common theme here—and you would be very well aware of this, Mr Mrdak; I have raised at almost every estimates for a few years now—and it is the issues of aircraft operators, whether they be maintenance shops or flying schools or charter operators, which feel as though the monopoly power of an airport owner or leaseholder has led to unconscionable decisions in terms of conditions of lease renewal or barring them doing certain things on the airport, which, to a layman's reading, appears to be in direct contravention of the terms of the lease in terms of maintaining the airport for aviation and not barring reasonable access for airlines or aircraft operators for aviation-related activities. The feedback I have had from the department again and again is that it is a commercial issue and that those people should take up their commercial remedies. I have had feedback from a number that they have tried that with no success, from the point of view that people say, 'This is an issue between the Commonwealth as either the holder, the owner of the land and at the head of the lease or, in the case of Sale or Broome International Airport that was actually sold, the covenant that was signed between the purchaser and the Commonwealth points back to the Commonwealth having responsibility.' So could I just ask: has the department sought legal advice as to its responsibilities or any powers it may have to enforce the terms of a lease or the covenant that was signed by somebody that it sold an airport to?
Mr Doherty : You are right; there are two different categories. In relation to the ALOP deeds, which are the deeds that applied in relation to the transfer of many of the regional airports, not the leased federal airports, we have taken legal advice on issues from time to time which clearly shows some gaps in the capacity. The practice over a period with those leases has been that we are able to, and do as a matter of policy, ensure that the airports continue to operate as airports but that our powers to control what happens on the airport in any more detail would be very limited. In relation to the federal leased airports, we obviously have a range of more direct regulatory controls which go through the master planning and development plan processes and, in that circumstance, we are trying to achieve the right balance between the airport operators' rights in relation to the site, which they acquired through a tender process, and the development of the site and the interests of the users.
Senator FAWCETT: The question that arises, though, from somebody who has invested significant money in an asset—for example, a hangar—on an airport is that, if the Commonwealth has signed a lease or a sale document with a covenant that says, 'This will be maintained predominantly for an aviation purpose,' and then they are told that they cannot actually park private aircraft on the airfield because it is running out of space and yet the airport owner is selling off airport land for housing, how is that maintaining the prime purpose of that airport for aviation? And if, indeed, we have signed a covenant, what is the point of a contract or a covenant if it is not going to be enforced?