Kharon - You are being badly and deceitfully advised Minister; appoint Mike Smith with David Fawcett to oversight; and deal with the very real issues before disaster (in one form or another) strikes. Shirley there must be one of the 'inner circle' who can see through this flummery and advise the Minister that Pink Bats in the belfry may sound like one of those good ideas, but get it wrong and lives are lost.
The fallout from the HIP RC is unlikely to claim any major public service heads (at least at the level of RED & his fellow Mandarins) but it is still not a good look:
Findings against public servants in royal commission ‘regrettable’
The royal commission says public servants should be examined for wrongdoing in the home insulation rollout. The Public Service Commission calls it “regrettable”.
The public service commissioner says it’s “regrettable” findings were made against senior public servants in the royal commission into home insulation. And the federal department responsible for the management of the botched pink batts program is examining the recommendations, including whether senior public servants should face action.
It has been the long held belief that the primary role of the Mandarins is to protect their Minister first & foremost, while administering the Government of the day's policy agenda. But has the HIP RC opened up a rift between Executive Government and the PS Mandarins? And as a consequence will Ministers now be looking more retrospectively at the proposed advisements from their senior bureaucrats??
So RED is probably high enough up the food chain to be filtered from any real scrutiny in the aftermath of the HIP RC but will he escape such scrutiny in certain other areas that fall within his remit??
It has been suggested that one major area of vulnerability for RED is Government leased airports. Since Senator Fawcett's first foray into Senate Estimates one of his major campaigns has been to expose this vulnerability of RED and his Department.
The following is a long passage of Hansard from the Supp Estimates from October 2011 but it is IMO important to put in full:
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing what those comments are. I do not believe that those comments are in any way reflective of the regulatory arrangements and the actual situation at a number of airports, particularly those. I am aware of recent criticism of decisions, but I do not think that some of the media commentary reflects the facts.
In essence our role is set out in the act and also under the airport leases, which provide for the way in which we go about ensuring that the airport master plan provides for growth at the airports for aeronautical and non-aeronautical activity and to make sure that demand is being met. We also have a range of statutory requirements in relation to building control, environmental regimes and operations of the airport that we administer. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority obviously has responsibility for safety at the airports.
In relation to particular planning matters there are obviously differences of views at times between those of the airport operators in relation to development and those of some of the customers at that airport, particularly general aviation customers. I would characterise that at times as being robust, but I do not believe I would agree at any time that the act, the regs and the statutory requirements have not been met.
Senator FAWCETT: You mentioned that one of your requirements it to ensure the potential for growth. Are you referring there to growth in the aviation use of the airport or growth in the commercial use of the airport?
Mr Mrdak: Both. Our primary focus is to make sure the airports are available to provide facilities for aviation growth. That is the primary focus of the master planning process and the way in which we regulate the airports.
Senator FAWCETT: Perhaps if we go to a couple of examples that might help to unpack some of the concerns of industry. We will start with Archerfield and runway 28 right in particular. There have been some concerns in terms of the new corporate hangars and warbird hangars that have been built very close to runway 28 right and the impact that has in terms of instrument flight rules departures from that runway. One of the initial actions when that was raised was that the runway take-off distance available was shortened. If you look at the on-route supplement in the annexe at the rear, that restriction is still there. That starts to limit the type of aircraft that you can operate. If you are looking to operate a business jet or even something like a King Air 350, for example—which in Archerfield's case would need a weight exemption—that starts limiting rather than enhancing the growth of the airport. Can you explain that inconsistency for me?
Mr Mrdak: I am not sure there is. I will ask Mr Doherty to comment. I am certainly not aware that there has been any restriction on anyone's ability to operate from that field.
Senator FAWCETT: Shortening the runway is one heck of a restriction.
Mr Mrdak: I would be interested in seeing whether that has actually in practice impacted on any operation, but I will ask Mr Doherty to comment on the specifics.
Mr Doherty: Certainly the intention would not be to allow a development which was going to restrict the nature of the operation. I am aware that there has been controversy over a couple of buildings at Archerfield and I understand that there was basically disagreement between experts as to the extent to which that may or may not affect the operations of some aircraft at that airport. My understanding was that the most recent exercise on that was a study by the ATSB that indicated that those structures were, in fact, not an issue, so there was not an ongoing program. I am interested to hear you say that the restriction is still reflected in the documentation. The way the process should work would be that, if the airport lessee proposes a development, if would go through a building control process and would be referred to the expert agencies—in this case particularly, Air Services and CASA—for them to comment on any possible interference with aviation operations. As I understand in that case, it must have been around the interpretation at that stage. While it was given the clearance at the time, I think there are others who felt subsequently that it should not have been. But as I said, I thought the latest on that episode was that the ATSB had had a close look at it and advised that they did not see this as a problem.
Senator FAWCETT: You are correct that the ATSB did do an investigation and you are correct that there was a difference of opinion; but, interestingly, the ATSB investigation appears to have made the same error of interpretation of the Manual of Standards part 139, which looks at obstacle clearances, in that there are actually two tables in the back of that chapter which determine clearance gradients required. They took table 7.1, which applies to approach and landing clearances, and table 7.1-2 applies to the take-off requirement and expands the runway width requirement from 150 to 180 metres. With that, the splay that then goes out puts those two buildings well and truly in the zone where it impacts on the capability to use that for departures.
Mr Doherty: I am not able to comment that—that is not an area within my expertise—but it may be a matter that you can take up with ATSB.
CHAIR: Rather than spending the next 20 minutes inquiring, is this the place for Senator Fawcett to ask the questions about his concerns or is it ATSB?
Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.
CHAIR: Okay. This is fantastic. From a truckie to a test pilot, I do not mind what you do. What I am trying to say is we are not going to sit here all night if there is a quicker way of you getting answers. I am just going to put it to you that way. So I go back to my original question: are we in the right area?
Mr Mrdak: I think there are a range of issues Mr Doherty has been discussing with the senator. I think we need to have a look at what the senator wishes to put forward.
Mr Wolfe: I may add something. With regard to those particular claims that you have indicated in relation to the ATSB advice, my understanding is that the ATSB has responded to those claims, so I would definitely suggest you take it up with the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: Okay, let us have a look at the runway and safety area at the end of runway 28 right. You talked about the fact that there is a building inspector who works for the federal government, who is supposed to be involved as part of that development process. In fact the Archerfield Airport Corporation on their website when they talk about developments, very clearly lay out the criteria that should trigger the involvement of a federal agency, and the auction site which has been built in that safety area—or just over the road but still in the area concerned—was not referred—and please correct me if I am wrong—to the building inspector. The airport made their own determination that the site, which was a hardstand for the purpose of auctioning and selling large trucks and machinery and those sorts of things, did not constitute something that they needed to actually involve the federal government in.
Speaking as a professional pilot—and, thankfully, most of my aviation experience in single-engine aircraft means that I have had an ejection seat—if I have a large obstacle in front of me and the engine fails, I can leave the aircraft. The people on the ground will suffer the consequences. In this case part of the requirement in place is that the Queensland government has identified public safety areas around the runway ends.
CHAIR: If there is a question, Senator Fawcett, I would urge you to get to it, please.
Senator FAWCETT: My question is: why are the checks and balances not in place to make sure that when things occur that impact operations on airports which still come under Commonwealth or, where by lease, Commonwealth control, that the airport operator does actually refer things? And, if the subsequent activities on that land break state regulations, why are the checks and balances not there to make sure that we are supporting safe operations at airports? The Commonwealth has said that it wants to work with the state, and the minister has said in his recent speeches that he wishes to integrate more with the state and make sure we work with them. Clearly, the system has broken down in this case.
Mr Doherty: We may need to look more closely at the particular case, but my understanding is that, yes, there is a Queensland policy relating to public safety zones, and certainly in the white paper and beyond we are keen to have that reflected in planning particularly on the airport but also off-airport to the extent that it can. Those policies operate in different ways to define an area within which activity should be restricted because of the risk of exposing either the aircraft or persons on the ground to the risk of damage and, while it might be slight, it becomes a problem.
It does not work as a complete prohibition, however. There may be a range of activities which are still permissible in that area if they do not involve bringing a large concentration of people. So while it might be inappropriate to have a large shopping centre or something like that which involves congregating large groups of people, it may be quite appropriate to have a longstay car park or something which does not involve having large groups of people there at one time.
My understanding of that case is that it has been looked at and that the nature of the activity conducted there does not infringe the public safety zone policy. But it is something that we can take further advice on.
Senator FAWCETT: I would ask you to, and to take that on notice. Certainly what is there, and there is photographic evidence of it being there—large pieces of plant as well as many members of the public attending auctions at that location—is problematical. As you read both the Queensland legislation and the federal, the obligation is a two-way street. One is to protect people on the ground—and there was an accident adjacent to that location a number of years ago when the pilot, and four people working in a factory, were killed when an aircraft crashed. There is also the obligation to the aircraft and its pilot and passengers to provide safety in a zone which is one of the most critical areas. US studies show that about 80 per cent of accidents occur in that area on takeoff, or landing when there is an undershoot, if you have an engine failure. The obligation is on your department to make sure that we provide a safe area around airports so that in the event of an emergency the pilots do have somewhere to land. It is not like military aircraft with ejection seats and the options to try and turn back. Civilians are constrained—
CHAIR: Senator Fawcett, I will remind you that if there is a question would you please come to it. The questions are very important, but I do not honestly believe we need all the preamble. You have the call and I urge you to get to the question.
Mr Wilson: We will take the issue with regard to the end zone at Archerfield on notice and provide the committee with a detailed response.
Senator FAWCETT: About the process: there was a repcon in Flight Safety Australia recently, which looked at the issue of building approvals again, this time well away from the airport. But things that affect what are called the PANS-OPS clearance requirements for aircraft that are in IFR—so they cannot see. What became very clear in that repcon was that as the redacted report went to different agencies the airport operators said, 'It is up to CASA'. And CASA said, 'We can't, actually—it's up to the department'. The department came back and said, 'Look, processes are in place'. But we have seen over the years that rather than saying, 'No, you can't build a building, because that actually infringes the requirements,' the building has gone ahead and instead there has been a reactive approach where the gradients and flight settings increase.
Senator Carr: Be fair. The minister put out a white paper on these issues, the first that had ever actually been produced by the Commonwealth. It outlined the procedures with regard to planning for development around airports. You have raised some issues with regard to one site, which the department has undertaken to have a look at. But I do think we have to get this in context; none of this work was ever done before.
Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?
Mr Doherty: There is work on foot on this. We do take the protection of those services very seriously. There is the OLS relating to visual flight and the PANS-OPS relating to instrument flight. The PANS-OPS is seen as non-negotiable; there is no scope for an intrusion into the PANS-OPS for any particular time.
We have provisions in the Commonwealth legislation which are designed to provide notice of proposed buildings which would go close to the controlled surface, to allow those to be assessed and to make a judgement. We are currently working with a group of state officials to try to do a couple of things. One is to make sure that those sorts of controls are expanded properly into airports which are not controlled under the Commonwealth's Airports Act provisions. And secondly, to make sure that we have robust arrangements in place for how they are administered. So we are keen to work on making sure that we have the right arrangements in place to make sure those are given effect to. We agree with you: those are extremely important.
Senator FAWCETT: I think if you look into it—and again, I am happy to be corrected—I believe that there are at least two examples in Brisbane and Sydney where the PANS-OPS base has been increased as a result of buildings that have gone up and have not been blocked, even though under our ICAO obligations we are supposed to. I encourage you to look into that and, if I could put that on notice to come back to me—
Mr Wilson: If you could put those two examples on notice that would be helpful.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly.
The Fawcett QONs and RED's answers can be read
HERE
We then jump to the Supp Estimates for 2012 where DF began with this...
"...I will just distribute this map. Mr Mrdak, I am sure you would be disappointed if I did not come back to the issue of leased airports and the lot of operators on airports versus airport use..." 
And if you thought that with the Coalition winning government that party politic may force DF to blunt his Airports campaign think again...
The parallels between the HIP RC disturbing findings against the PS and the apparent Dept obfuscation of Govt leased airports, may seem tenuous but there is no doubt that Senator Fawcett will not let up till it is sorted, & hopefully before an RC is called...
MTF...
Ps Hmm...I hear Barnaby, DF & NX are very close??