There were some interesting 'side bars' from last estimates in 'Part 1'. The link –
HERE – will get you there, but be warned, some of it is stultifying; so I've chased some timer marks to save sanity. For starters - this
CHAIR: You are asking infrastructure questions. I might just see whether there is anyone else—I do not think there is. Does anyone have questions on corporate? Could I go back to the airport issue briefly? My understanding is that there is an appeal coming up with the AAT on the action plan for the Archerfield Airport Master Plan. As I am instructed, if permitted to stand unchallenged by the chamber representing the airport users, the Minister's approval (reversed reversal?l)would 'clear the way for Archerfield Airport Corporation to proceed with an irreversible and permanent downgrading of the critical aviation infrastructure that exists at Archerfield Airport. This includes the unacceptable loss of runway complex 04/22, the Archerfield Control Tower, the fuel farms and above all would obliterate many aviation businesses without compensation.' The correspondence I have here goes on about the 'land grab', which we are familiar with around airports. Is the department aware of this coming up as an appeal with the AAT; and is that your view of the consequences if it confirms the master plan, which was set up by a previous government?
Mr Mrdak : Certainly, we are aware of the AAT appeal against the minister's decision to approve the master plan. Certainly, our view is not—as you have outlined—that that has that impact on the general aviation industry. (not 'air transport' operations) The master plan has been carefully assessed, and our advice and the advice of the aviation regulatory agency is that the master plan does provide for a continuation of aviation operations. We would not share the view expressed in your correspondence there in relation to the impact on general aviation. (My bold and comments)
Then, a little later there is an interesting passage of play – Hansard fails the reader here and without the 'vision' (as they call it) so to explain properly you need to watch the 'vision'; it is in the early morning session, Part 1 – starts at 01.06.00 – ends at 01.19. on the timer.
Ms. Nicole Spencer – is romping along, full bottle on even Bills blasted mudguards (which you can skip, but worth watching) answering questions almost from memory, details at her fingertips, from the magic manual which she seems to have put together with care. Certainly a good example of a public servant on top of the Senate game. Enter the dragon (Gasp) Part 61 and a mundane question; the previous smooth, easy flow of answers stops – dead. Suddenly the magic manual fails, long pregnant silence interrupted only by the frantic turning pages. Then the Murky Machiavellian crew weigh in – one would assume to fill the void; Mrdak and Wilson in full flight, question unanswered and the motley crew depart the 61 fix for less inflammatory topics. Apart from taking an inordinate amount of the limited time for others members questions; you get the feeling that Conroy is part of the team.
At least he's not piddling about with Chemilnecal Trails; or, farting on about smokers; or, bewailing the lack of federal coppers in Hobart, to protect 'important' personages travelling from there. Is there something in the Hobart water I wonder?
Anyway – FWIW – I thought it was all worth a post
Senator CONROY: Can I refer to one saving identified by CASR, in particular part 21. Are you familiar with that one? You might have mentioned it earlier.
Ms Spencer : I did not mention that specific one.\
Senator CONROY: What is the value?
Ms Spencer : It would be in our list of 160 potentially.
Senator CONROY: What is the value of that saving for that particular one? You can gasbag. Let me hear about this one.
Mr Mrdak : We will get you that detail. I am not sure we have it with us. Can I take that on notice?
Ms Spencer : It is $500,000.
So far – so good, the lady earns her corn; then the stumble:-
Senator CONROY: I know that Senator Heffernan is going to be interested in this one as well. Could I ask about removing the requirement for a student pilot licence and pilot proficiency checks in certain circumstances, part 61? What is the change there that you have identified?
Ms Spencer : Sorry, if I can just have a moment to find that answer.
Senator CONROY: No worries.
Ms Spencer : Sorry, there are 160 to go through. Are there any other questions that you wanted to ask whilst I am looking for that particular one?
Senator CONROY: What are the savings? What is the change? Has a risk assessment been undertaken for this measure?
Mr Mrdak : The part 61 measures were the subject of many years of consultation and study in terms of the future changes. We will come back to you on notice with some advice from Civil Aviation Safety Authority, if you do not mind, on that one.
Senator CONROY: I do not have to release you, under the new standing orders, until I get the answers to my questions during the day. You should be advised that I am not releasing this section and, if necessary, will call you back on Friday under the new standing orders. You will be able to track this information down for me during the morning.
Mr Mrdak : I do not think I was giving you any indication I would do other than that.
Senator CONROY: No. You are taking it on notice, which means you did not have to come back. I am saying to you no, I am prepared to wait. Under the new standing orders I do not have to release you until my questions are finished. My questions will not be finished until you give me that information. No-one, when they get up from the table at whatever stage—Etc. etc.
As so it goes on; but the transition from swanlike graceful swimming, to faltering ugly duckling paddling is remarkable. I think the lady took a hit – for team MM. Bravo anyway.
Toot toot. (I figure if I keep blowing the houseboat foghorn, sooner or later the minuscule will arouse from his self induced Zen state and reconnect with the real world). Perhaps if I change the sound it makes, we'll get on better.
Houseboat Hooter :-