An Aviation Fairy Tale
Thread Starter
An Aviation Fairy Tale
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away, the citizens got together and paid for an airport to be built on land the citizens own as common wealth. Let’s call the airport ‘Bairnfair’.
Bairnfair became a base for part of the country’s Defence Force as well as a facility for all of the citizens of the land to use for air transport, flying training and other civil aviation activities. Soon there were a couple of Defence Force squadrons and numerous civilian general aviation charter and flying schools operating along with the airlines operating flights in and out of Bairnfair.
The citizens were happy because Bairnfair was part of and contributing to the common wealth. Many other airports in the land far away were also built on common wealth land at the cost of the common wealth.
Then one day someone in the government of the land far away came up with a brilliant idea: Why not lease Bairnfair to someone, so that the someone would maintain and operate the airport while paying money to the common wealth in return? What could possibly go wrong? Let’s lease lots of these common wealth airports to someone!
The government of the day wasn’t stupid. No way. It passed an Act called the Land Far Away Airports Act, the first object of which is to “promote the sound development of civil aviation”. The lessees of these common wealth airports would be obliged under the Act to maintain and operate the airport in accordance with a master plan approved by a government Minister. The Minister would be obliged under the Act to have regard to the extent to which carrying out the plan would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport, before approving the plan.
Surely civil aviation would not only survive but thrive at these common wealth airports under this brilliant plan in the land far away!
The government then went about the process of implementing its brilliant plan. In the case of Bairnfair, a 50 year lease with a 49 year option was granted at a reported cost to the lessee of $65 million. On those numbers, that’s nearly $650,000 a year paid to the common wealth. What a great outcome!
But then…
One dark day the Defence Department received a rent bill for the land on which its facilities were built at Bairnfair. The rent bill was about $1.2 million per month. (Yes children, that’s $1.2 million per month.) The Defence Department also received a bill for landing and parking charges for Defence Force aircraft using Bairnfair. That bill was about $160 thousand per month.
This perturbed the Defence Department somewhat. The Defence Department – part of and paid for out of the common wealth – occupying land owned as common wealth and using facilities that were built at the cost of the common wealth – was now liable for around $1 billion in rent and aircraft landing and parking charges over the remaining life of a lease, for which the lessee will pay the common wealth $65 million.
What a bargain for the citizens! $65 million paid to the common wealth and only $1 billion paid out of the common wealth for a common wealth Department to occupy and use common wealth land!
But that billion is chicken feed in this land far away. The Defence Department occupied only a small area of Bairnfair.
In a different part of Bairnfair, the citizens involved in civil aviation received their own new rent bills and landing and parking charges. Most could not afford them and eventually moved out. No flying training organisation remained.
This suited the lessee of Bairnfair’s interests, because a lot of this civil aviation activity was nowhere near as lucrative as the output of the work of building offices and shops and other things that had nothing to do with civil aviation but produced new rivers of gold. Alas, no part of those rivers flowed into the common wealth. They flowed mostly into the pocket of a single citizen who slowly climbed the far away land’s ‘rich list’.
Where aviation facilities interfered with these lucrative non-aviation developments - not lucrative for the common wealth, mind you - the aviation facilities were sacrificed. Runway getting in the way of more lucrative property development? Shorten the runway! At some common wealth airports, runways inconvenient to non-aviation developments were simply bulldozed. These airports shouldn’t have been clogged up with all these pesky runways in the first place. After all, how many do you need?
The airlines flying in and out of Bairnfair received similar treatment. At one point the CEO of the far away land’s flag carrier, Satnaq, likened the lessee of Bairnfair to “a crew of Somali pirates” after – according to Satnaq – the lessee effectively ransomed one of Satnaq’s aircraft by parking an escort vehicle in its way, blocking its take off, until an $18,000 fee was paid to the lessee by credit card because the aircraft had to divert to Bairnfair at short notice. What a wonderful way for the citizens on board the aircraft to be treated at an airport which is part of their common wealth. They rejoiced at the opportunity to be in the middle of a willy-wagging competition between obscenely rich people. After all, that’s why these common wealth airports exist in this land far, far away.
And where was the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department administering the Land Far Away Airports Act in all this? Surely the only way the Minister could have proper regard to whether carrying out the master plan for Bairnfair would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users, would be to consider independent analysis of what those requirements were first. Alas, the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department simply accepted the airport lessee’s own assessment of those requirements, as well as the lessee’s assertion that more non-airport property development was necessary to ‘support’ the aviation activities of the airport. No independent analysis was done or considered by the Minister or the Minister’s department. Why bother? After all, the common wealth Minister and the common wealth public service in this far away land are not there to administer the common wealth Land Far Away Airports Act to achieve its objects.
And so it was at many other common wealth airports across the land far away. They were milked for private gain while many of the citizens who had been involved in civil aviation at those airports were charged into the wilderness.
But then the citizens thought really hard about it. They wracked their brains and couldn’t recall anyone who had become a millionaire on the back of the common wealth airports when they were maintained and operated by the government.
And then it struck the citizens: Individuals now had the opportunity to become not just millionaires - but billionaires - on the back of these airports, this being an obvious manifestation of the efficiency of the free market (in monopoly assets comprising vast open spaces of flat land which only entrepreneurial geniuses would be able to perceive were being wasted on pointless civil aviation trivia).
Hooray! cried the citizens!
This success so inspired the government of the land far away that it set up an Air Navigation Service Provider whose executives accumulate millions even if vast tracts of airspace are, through incompetent mismanagement, frequently declared TIBA. The citizens were not worried, though, because the Land Far Away Aviation Safety Authority, whose executives also accumulate millions, said there is nothing to worry about.
And everyone in the land far away lived happily ever after, comforted in the knowledge that ever-increasing amounts of common wealth were ending up in an ever-diminishing numbers of hands.
THE END
(Don’t worry kiddies: These sorts of things would only happen in the kinds of places where governments hound poor and defenceless people for money that isn’t lawfully owed. If these sorts of things happened in Australia, people would start losing faith in politicians and government institutions.)
Bairnfair became a base for part of the country’s Defence Force as well as a facility for all of the citizens of the land to use for air transport, flying training and other civil aviation activities. Soon there were a couple of Defence Force squadrons and numerous civilian general aviation charter and flying schools operating along with the airlines operating flights in and out of Bairnfair.
The citizens were happy because Bairnfair was part of and contributing to the common wealth. Many other airports in the land far away were also built on common wealth land at the cost of the common wealth.
Then one day someone in the government of the land far away came up with a brilliant idea: Why not lease Bairnfair to someone, so that the someone would maintain and operate the airport while paying money to the common wealth in return? What could possibly go wrong? Let’s lease lots of these common wealth airports to someone!
The government of the day wasn’t stupid. No way. It passed an Act called the Land Far Away Airports Act, the first object of which is to “promote the sound development of civil aviation”. The lessees of these common wealth airports would be obliged under the Act to maintain and operate the airport in accordance with a master plan approved by a government Minister. The Minister would be obliged under the Act to have regard to the extent to which carrying out the plan would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport, before approving the plan.
Surely civil aviation would not only survive but thrive at these common wealth airports under this brilliant plan in the land far away!
The government then went about the process of implementing its brilliant plan. In the case of Bairnfair, a 50 year lease with a 49 year option was granted at a reported cost to the lessee of $65 million. On those numbers, that’s nearly $650,000 a year paid to the common wealth. What a great outcome!
But then…
One dark day the Defence Department received a rent bill for the land on which its facilities were built at Bairnfair. The rent bill was about $1.2 million per month. (Yes children, that’s $1.2 million per month.) The Defence Department also received a bill for landing and parking charges for Defence Force aircraft using Bairnfair. That bill was about $160 thousand per month.
This perturbed the Defence Department somewhat. The Defence Department – part of and paid for out of the common wealth – occupying land owned as common wealth and using facilities that were built at the cost of the common wealth – was now liable for around $1 billion in rent and aircraft landing and parking charges over the remaining life of a lease, for which the lessee will pay the common wealth $65 million.
What a bargain for the citizens! $65 million paid to the common wealth and only $1 billion paid out of the common wealth for a common wealth Department to occupy and use common wealth land!
But that billion is chicken feed in this land far away. The Defence Department occupied only a small area of Bairnfair.
In a different part of Bairnfair, the citizens involved in civil aviation received their own new rent bills and landing and parking charges. Most could not afford them and eventually moved out. No flying training organisation remained.
This suited the lessee of Bairnfair’s interests, because a lot of this civil aviation activity was nowhere near as lucrative as the output of the work of building offices and shops and other things that had nothing to do with civil aviation but produced new rivers of gold. Alas, no part of those rivers flowed into the common wealth. They flowed mostly into the pocket of a single citizen who slowly climbed the far away land’s ‘rich list’.
Where aviation facilities interfered with these lucrative non-aviation developments - not lucrative for the common wealth, mind you - the aviation facilities were sacrificed. Runway getting in the way of more lucrative property development? Shorten the runway! At some common wealth airports, runways inconvenient to non-aviation developments were simply bulldozed. These airports shouldn’t have been clogged up with all these pesky runways in the first place. After all, how many do you need?
The airlines flying in and out of Bairnfair received similar treatment. At one point the CEO of the far away land’s flag carrier, Satnaq, likened the lessee of Bairnfair to “a crew of Somali pirates” after – according to Satnaq – the lessee effectively ransomed one of Satnaq’s aircraft by parking an escort vehicle in its way, blocking its take off, until an $18,000 fee was paid to the lessee by credit card because the aircraft had to divert to Bairnfair at short notice. What a wonderful way for the citizens on board the aircraft to be treated at an airport which is part of their common wealth. They rejoiced at the opportunity to be in the middle of a willy-wagging competition between obscenely rich people. After all, that’s why these common wealth airports exist in this land far, far away.
And where was the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department administering the Land Far Away Airports Act in all this? Surely the only way the Minister could have proper regard to whether carrying out the master plan for Bairnfair would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users, would be to consider independent analysis of what those requirements were first. Alas, the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department simply accepted the airport lessee’s own assessment of those requirements, as well as the lessee’s assertion that more non-airport property development was necessary to ‘support’ the aviation activities of the airport. No independent analysis was done or considered by the Minister or the Minister’s department. Why bother? After all, the common wealth Minister and the common wealth public service in this far away land are not there to administer the common wealth Land Far Away Airports Act to achieve its objects.
And so it was at many other common wealth airports across the land far away. They were milked for private gain while many of the citizens who had been involved in civil aviation at those airports were charged into the wilderness.
But then the citizens thought really hard about it. They wracked their brains and couldn’t recall anyone who had become a millionaire on the back of the common wealth airports when they were maintained and operated by the government.
And then it struck the citizens: Individuals now had the opportunity to become not just millionaires - but billionaires - on the back of these airports, this being an obvious manifestation of the efficiency of the free market (in monopoly assets comprising vast open spaces of flat land which only entrepreneurial geniuses would be able to perceive were being wasted on pointless civil aviation trivia).
Hooray! cried the citizens!
This success so inspired the government of the land far away that it set up an Air Navigation Service Provider whose executives accumulate millions even if vast tracts of airspace are, through incompetent mismanagement, frequently declared TIBA. The citizens were not worried, though, because the Land Far Away Aviation Safety Authority, whose executives also accumulate millions, said there is nothing to worry about.
And everyone in the land far away lived happily ever after, comforted in the knowledge that ever-increasing amounts of common wealth were ending up in an ever-diminishing numbers of hands.
THE END
(Don’t worry kiddies: These sorts of things would only happen in the kinds of places where governments hound poor and defenceless people for money that isn’t lawfully owed. If these sorts of things happened in Australia, people would start losing faith in politicians and government institutions.)
The following 9 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
The following users liked this post:
short flights long nights
I know it is just a fairy tale…that could never happen!
Hidden from the prying gazes of the hapless, tax paying citizens of this far away land, many, many such magnificent deals are struck within the rarified air of the Satnaq Stoolman’s Club. The munificence of the leaders and civil servants of these humble tax payers is legendary across the known universe.
I remember after 9/11, they banned curbside drop offs and pick ups. That muppet, Steven Byron, was interviewed and of course called it a response in the interest of safety. Of course
it was their way of forcing people through the turnstiles of the carpark whilst maintaining the illusion of being responsible managers. Fooled no-one.
it was their way of forcing people through the turnstiles of the carpark whilst maintaining the illusion of being responsible managers. Fooled no-one.
Seems to be a contradiction between this:
And this:
To clarify it in my mind, does "by the above" mean Defence or Canberra Airport P/L?
The Defence Department – part of and paid for out of the common wealth – occupying land owned as common wealth and using facilities that were built at the cost of the common wealth – was now liable for around $1 billion in rent and aircraft landing and parking charges over the remaining life of a lease, for which the lessee will pay the common wealth $65 million.
Excluding premises constructed, or caused to be constructed, by the above at Defence Establishment Fairbairn.
Thread Starter
The latter. The 'above' are the two specified corporate entities. That's why the dollar amounts are given next to the corporate entities.
My logic was that if the airport lessee constructed premises or caused premises to be constructed at DEF, it's reasonable for the lessee to charge Defence rent to occupy them. The focus of my FOI request was on finding out how much the Commonwealth is being charged to occupy premises built at the cost of the Commonwealth on land owned by the Commonwealth (and how much the Commonwealth is being charged to land and park ADF aircraft on land owned by the Commonwealth).
(The focus of my FOI request to the portfolio Department administering the Airports Act was on finding out the extent of any rigorous and independent analysis, by or organised by the portfolio Department, of the present and future needs of civil aviation users at the airport. Answer based on the documents to which I was given access: Little if any at all. And there was no material that I could find indicating much, if any, independent analysis of the airport lessee's suggestion that the non-aviation developments were necessary to support the aviation activities.)
To anticipate a potential point, I do realise that if the airport was still being maintained and operated by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth could not do that 'for free'. But no one would in that event be climbing the 'rich list' off the back of the airport and maybe there'd still be a few civilian flying training organisations there. It is, after all, the only airport at the capital city of a country that claims first-world aviation status.
My logic was that if the airport lessee constructed premises or caused premises to be constructed at DEF, it's reasonable for the lessee to charge Defence rent to occupy them. The focus of my FOI request was on finding out how much the Commonwealth is being charged to occupy premises built at the cost of the Commonwealth on land owned by the Commonwealth (and how much the Commonwealth is being charged to land and park ADF aircraft on land owned by the Commonwealth).
(The focus of my FOI request to the portfolio Department administering the Airports Act was on finding out the extent of any rigorous and independent analysis, by or organised by the portfolio Department, of the present and future needs of civil aviation users at the airport. Answer based on the documents to which I was given access: Little if any at all. And there was no material that I could find indicating much, if any, independent analysis of the airport lessee's suggestion that the non-aviation developments were necessary to support the aviation activities.)
To anticipate a potential point, I do realise that if the airport was still being maintained and operated by the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth could not do that 'for free'. But no one would in that event be climbing the 'rich list' off the back of the airport and maybe there'd still be a few civilian flying training organisations there. It is, after all, the only airport at the capital city of a country that claims first-world aviation status.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 17th May 2023 at 05:04.
From the Wons Foundation website: "In 2006, Mr Wons was awarded an Order of Australia (AM) for his contribution to the city of Can't Berra as well as for his charitable work through the Wons Foundation. In October 2009 Mr Wons was announced as the inaugural recipient of the Can't Berra Business Council's Chairman's Award for his significant individual contribution to the economic development of Can't Berra and the capital region."
Only a matter of time before his tax deductible philanthropy earns him an upgrade to Companion in the Order of Australia (AC).
A great Australian.
Only a matter of time before his tax deductible philanthropy earns him an upgrade to Companion in the Order of Australia (AC).
A great Australian.
Last edited by gerry111; 17th May 2023 at 09:07. Reason: spelling
Thread Starter
A truly great Australian, GIII.
Thread Starter
Moderator
Clinton McKenzie
Airports - the gift that keeps on giving!
You oddly excluded the First Big Scam that lead to 21 airport leases - The Federal Airports Corporation, a devious and nefarious scam dreamed up by the Hawke Labour Government between January 1988 and June 1998 whose sole objective was to recover the capital cost of 22 common wealth airports. By 1997 the Federal Airports Corporation operated 22 airports and handled/(fleeced) over 60 million passenger annually, was a veritable gold mine. And who funded this program to "pay back" the cost of the common wealth airports - all those who travelled by air in Australia, through new fangled Airport Passenger Taxes, airline landing and parking fees, airline airport terminal leases, and airline airport hangar and infrastructure leases. It was a brilliant plan, the Australian public were buying back their own airports!
In April 1994, the Keating Labour Government came up with the next brilliant scam to lease 21 of these monopoly airports - which the Australian public "bought back" and now owed the common wealth nothing - to the highest bidders.
In 1996 by the Howard Coalition Government decided that each airport would be leased to an individual operator for 50 years, with an option for a 49-year extension.[size=8333px] [/size]Airport divestment was initiated in 1997 with the leasing of Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth Airports, followed by Adelaide, Canberra and Gold Coast Airports, the remaining smaller airports in 1998, Sydney Airport in 2002, and the Sydney Basin Airports of Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park in 2003. Airports, wonderful gift that keeps on giving.
Enter Clinton McKenzie's fantasy above, and surprise, surprise, these lessee's are now leasing these fabulous gold mines back to - you guessed it - the common wealth in the case of BairnFair and to the airlines and commercial aircraft operators and maintenance services at another 20 major Australian airports and guess who is paying both directly through airport taxes and indirectly through air5line ticket prices - the Australian public!
And you all thought Ponzi Schemes were illegal!!
Airports - the gift that keeps on giving!
You oddly excluded the First Big Scam that lead to 21 airport leases - The Federal Airports Corporation, a devious and nefarious scam dreamed up by the Hawke Labour Government between January 1988 and June 1998 whose sole objective was to recover the capital cost of 22 common wealth airports. By 1997 the Federal Airports Corporation operated 22 airports and handled/(fleeced) over 60 million passenger annually, was a veritable gold mine. And who funded this program to "pay back" the cost of the common wealth airports - all those who travelled by air in Australia, through new fangled Airport Passenger Taxes, airline landing and parking fees, airline airport terminal leases, and airline airport hangar and infrastructure leases. It was a brilliant plan, the Australian public were buying back their own airports!
In April 1994, the Keating Labour Government came up with the next brilliant scam to lease 21 of these monopoly airports - which the Australian public "bought back" and now owed the common wealth nothing - to the highest bidders.
In 1996 by the Howard Coalition Government decided that each airport would be leased to an individual operator for 50 years, with an option for a 49-year extension.[size=8333px] [/size]Airport divestment was initiated in 1997 with the leasing of Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth Airports, followed by Adelaide, Canberra and Gold Coast Airports, the remaining smaller airports in 1998, Sydney Airport in 2002, and the Sydney Basin Airports of Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park in 2003. Airports, wonderful gift that keeps on giving.
Enter Clinton McKenzie's fantasy above, and surprise, surprise, these lessee's are now leasing these fabulous gold mines back to - you guessed it - the common wealth in the case of BairnFair and to the airlines and commercial aircraft operators and maintenance services at another 20 major Australian airports and guess who is paying both directly through airport taxes and indirectly through air5line ticket prices - the Australian public!
And you all thought Ponzi Schemes were illegal!!
The following 4 users liked this post by tail wheel:
And if “councils” read about this they,ll get into the act as well. Some already have of course, Goulburn etc.
Bainfair and others just shows that careless and corrupt bureaucrats and politiciansknow that greed pays off with the right contacts/mates. And Joe public can just shut and pay up.
Where does Australia lie on the World Corruption Index. We’re world leader in everything so pollies keep saying so they should know
Bainfair and others just shows that careless and corrupt bureaucrats and politiciansknow that greed pays off with the right contacts/mates. And Joe public can just shut and pay up.
Where does Australia lie on the World Corruption Index. We’re world leader in everything so pollies keep saying so they should know
The following users liked this post:
And where was the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department administering the Land Far Away Airports Act in all this? Surely the only way the Minister could have proper regard to whether carrying out the master plan for Bairnfair would meet present and future requirements of civil aviation users, would be to consider independent analysis of what those requirements were first. Alas, the Minister of the day and the Minister’s department simply accepted the airport lessee’s own assessment of those requirements, as well as the lessee’s assertion that more non-airport property development was necessary to ‘support’ the aviation activities of the airport. No independent analysis was done or considered by the Minister or the Minister’s department. Why bother? After all, the common wealth Minister and the common wealth public service in this far away land are not there to administer the common wealth Land Far Away Airports Act to achieve its objects.
That Minister is now the Prime Minister of Land Far Away. He had a lot of help from his fellow minister, the Minister for Silly Dances, to ensure there were no pesky environmental barriers to the relentless progress of the concrete jungle...
That Minister is now the Prime Minister of Land Far Away. He had a lot of help from his fellow minister, the Minister for Silly Dances, to ensure there were no pesky environmental barriers to the relentless progress of the concrete jungle...
Thread Starter
I submitted an FOI request, to the Department responsible for administration of the Airports Act, to obtain access to documents relevant to the analysis and approval of Canberra Airport’s Master Plan 2020. One of the more disturbing aspects of what was revealed in the documents is the carefree contempt in which the Department of Defence is held, apparently encouraged by the Department and Minister responsible for assessing and approving airport Master Plans.
(The most disturbing aspect is that there is no evidence that the responsible Department did any independent analysis of the present and future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport, or of the lessee’s assertion that non-aviation developments were necessary to ‘support’ aviation activities. The responsible Department merely accepted at face value what the lessee said. That goes a long way to explaining why so much aviation infrastructure has been and continues to be destroyed at these Commonwealth-owned airports, to the detriment of civil aviation, despite the first object of the Airports Act being “to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.)
By letter dated 18 November 2019, the Department of Defence made a submission in response to the release of the draft Canberra Airport Master Plan 2020. That letter said, among other things:
Pause for a moment to let that sink in.
The draft Plan included a ‘possible future parallel runway’ located outside the current lease area and inside more Commonwealth owned and Defence used land. As we will soon see, the draft Plan also included a proposal for a future extension of runway 12/30 eastwards, beyond the current lease area and into yet more Commonwealth owned land. (Runway 12/30 is the one recently shortened by the airport lessee in the interests of ‘safety’, by displacing the threshold of runway 12.) So the airport lessee is licking its lips at the prospect of eventually getting hold of yet more Commonwealth owned land to milk for private gain.
Annex A to the letter said, among other things:
Bear in mind that the Department of Defence letter from which I am quoting was provided to me by the Department responsible for assessing the draft Plan about which the Department of Defence was raising concerns and making requests. The responsible Department was on notice of the Department of Defence's concerns and requests.
Was there any substantial change made to the draft Plan in response to the Department of Defence’s concerns and requests? Nope.
In its Minute to the responsible Minister recommending that the Plan be approved, did the responsible Department make any mention of the Department of Defence’s concerns? Nope. Not one syllable.
The Minute did say: “Neither Airservices Australia nor the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raised any significant issues over the [draft Master Plan]”, and: “The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment were sought for comment on the [draft Master Plan] and did not raise any significant issues”.
Under the heading “Stakeholder Implications” the Minute says: “Nil further from those outlined above”.
If you go to Page 88 of the currently approved Plan, there is Figure 6.3 without any change in response to Defence’s request that the Figure acknowledge that there is no agreement from the Commonwealth to sell the land required for the proposed freight hub to CAG. If you go to Page 109 of the currently approved Plan, there is Figure 7.2 showing the possible future parallel runway on Defence land and proposed extension eastward of runway 12/30 into Defence land, despite the concerns raised by Defence.
So there you go: The potential impacts upon Australia’s defence capability as a consequence of the concerns raised by the Department of Defence were ignored by the responsible Department and responsible Minister. It’s little wonder to me that the airport lessee continues to do nothing about the Department of Defence’s concerns and requests.
Of course, this would only ever happen in the fictitious Land Far Away.
(The most disturbing aspect is that there is no evidence that the responsible Department did any independent analysis of the present and future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport, or of the lessee’s assertion that non-aviation developments were necessary to ‘support’ aviation activities. The responsible Department merely accepted at face value what the lessee said. That goes a long way to explaining why so much aviation infrastructure has been and continues to be destroyed at these Commonwealth-owned airports, to the detriment of civil aviation, despite the first object of the Airports Act being “to promote the sound development of civil aviation in Australia”.)
By letter dated 18 November 2019, the Department of Defence made a submission in response to the release of the draft Canberra Airport Master Plan 2020. That letter said, among other things:
In line with previous Defence comments made on the Draft 2014 Master Plan, Defence remains concerned about the impact of development of the Canberra Airport on Defence capability, and on the Defence estate in general.
In particular, Defence notes that the proposed construction of a parallel runway to the east of the existing main north-south runway at Canberra Airport would require the use of a portion of the Majura Training Area (MTA). Defence owned land to the north and east of Canberra Airport is required in support of Defence capability and Defence will continue to need this land for the long term. Defence has not agreed to any land sales to the Canberra Airport Group (CAG) in these areas and objects to the inclusion of a parallel runway on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
Defence remains of the view that managing the potential conflict in land use between Defence and Canberra Airport operations should be mentioned in the Master Plan document. Annex A highlights additional matters of concern to Defence and is submitted for the consideration of CAG in the Canberra Airport Draft 2020 Master Plan.
In particular, Defence notes that the proposed construction of a parallel runway to the east of the existing main north-south runway at Canberra Airport would require the use of a portion of the Majura Training Area (MTA). Defence owned land to the north and east of Canberra Airport is required in support of Defence capability and Defence will continue to need this land for the long term. Defence has not agreed to any land sales to the Canberra Airport Group (CAG) in these areas and objects to the inclusion of a parallel runway on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
Defence remains of the view that managing the potential conflict in land use between Defence and Canberra Airport operations should be mentioned in the Master Plan document. Annex A highlights additional matters of concern to Defence and is submitted for the consideration of CAG in the Canberra Airport Draft 2020 Master Plan.
The draft Plan included a ‘possible future parallel runway’ located outside the current lease area and inside more Commonwealth owned and Defence used land. As we will soon see, the draft Plan also included a proposal for a future extension of runway 12/30 eastwards, beyond the current lease area and into yet more Commonwealth owned land. (Runway 12/30 is the one recently shortened by the airport lessee in the interests of ‘safety’, by displacing the threshold of runway 12.) So the airport lessee is licking its lips at the prospect of eventually getting hold of yet more Commonwealth owned land to milk for private gain.
Annex A to the letter said, among other things:
It is noted that some of the proposed Airport and regional infrastructure identified on the maps in the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan are outside the boundary of the land leased by CAG. This proposed infrastructure impacts on Defence land. To date this land has not been identified as being surplus to Defence requirements and Defence has no intention of disposing of any part of it. Defence objects to the inclusion of Airport and regional infrastructure on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
…
If traffic frequency was to increase to the expected level, there will be an increasing number of potential conflicts between Defence live fire and aircraft operations which will become increasingly difficult to manage. Defence expects that while there may be changes in how military training at MTA is conducted, military training will continue for many years. CAG activities and an increased land presence will restrict the conduct of certain types of training and/or decrease training frequency; this would come at a significant cost to Defence.
…
There are a number of Defence facilities at Fairbairn on CAG and Defence land including the RAAF 34 Squadron operated SPA Facility. Defence requires that there are sufficient buffers surrounding the SPA and other facilities to ensure that incompatible land uses do not detrimentally affect security and operations. Defence notes that there is a wide variety of land uses listed in the "indicative land use table" at pages 140-l4l for the Fairbairn precinct. A number of these uses have the potential to create land use conflict and compromise security if located within close proximity to the various Defence facilities. It is noted however that an element of this area has been reserved for 34 Squadron expansion but this area is not explicitly shown on a map. Defence requests that CAG keep Defence informed of any proposed development within the area adjoining or adjacent to the various Defence facilities in order to enable Defence to prepare a detailed risk assessment.
…
Defence also notes in Figure 7.2 proposed work on Taxiway Charlie, the possible extension of Runway 12/30 and the associated realignment of Scherger Drive to extend beyond the current boundary of the CAG lease.
The construction of this infrastructure would involve the use of part of the Commonwealth land currently managed by Defence as a buffer to the MTA. This land has not been identified as being surplus to Defence requirements. Defence objects to the inclusion of Airport infrastructure on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
…
It is noted that the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan identifies a future requirement for a parallel runway to the east of the existing main north-south runway. This proposed parallel runway would require a substantial amount of Defence land to the east of the current CAG lease boundary. This land has been identified as a requirement to meet future training outcomes of the ADF and Defence objects to the inclusion of a parallel runway on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
The MTA is essential for the efficient and effective delivery of a large part of the Royal Military College (RMC) weapons and field training requirements. MTA also provides training facilities that are used extensively by ADFA and Defence Force elements from Canberra and the Southern Tablelands area of New South Wales, including HMAS Creswell and HMAS Albatross, as well as Regular and Reserve Army units from Sydney. The construction of the proposed parallel runway would have a significant impact on existing Defence training and operations which may lead to the cessation of live firing activities at the MTA. The use of the MTA may become so inefficient and ineffective that it may no longer be viable for some training activities.
…
Defence notes that CAG is proposing to develop Canberra Airport into an international freight hub. Defence understands Figure 6.3 of the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan outlines the envisioned land requirements for this freight hub. Defence requests Figure 6.3 acknowledge that there is no agreement from the Commonwealth to sell the land required for the proposed freight hub to CAG.
CAG also outlines on page 90 of the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan that additional warehousing for a proposed freight hub maybe found on land surrounding the Airport without acknowledging that Commonwealth agreement would be needed for CAG to acquire Defence land. Defence requests CAG acknowledge this lack of an agreement with the Commonwealth and Defence.
…
Defence notes that High Intensity Approach Lighting (HIAL) and Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) will allow for more flexible flight paths into and out of Canberra Airport; enable aircraft to operate under Special Category 1,2, and 3 precision approach procedures; and land in low visibility weather from the north. Defence is concerned that these improvements and flexible flight paths may impact on building heights and activities at the MTA and ADFA.
Defence notes that supporting infrastructure is also proposed for sites within the MTA, Defence has not agreed to this and objects to the inclusion of that supporting infrastructure on Defence land in the Master Plan. The Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan does not outline how these improvements and flexible flight paths may affect properties surrounding Canberra Airport. Defence requests CAG provide greater detail in the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan of the effects these improvements may have on properties in the vicinity of the Airport.
Defence requests the Draft 2020 Master Plan include glide slopes for aircraft approaches from the north over the MTA and from the west over ADFA as done for the southern approach over Jerrabomberra. A glide slope from. these directions would enable Defence and other stakeholders to better understand how these improvements will impact current and future developments under these flight paths.
…
CAG would be aware of the publically available documents that identify the presence of UXO on the MTA and in particular in the south-east corner of the MTA where the parallel runway is proposed. Any development in that area would require significant UXO surveys and remediation, at CAG expense.
…
If traffic frequency was to increase to the expected level, there will be an increasing number of potential conflicts between Defence live fire and aircraft operations which will become increasingly difficult to manage. Defence expects that while there may be changes in how military training at MTA is conducted, military training will continue for many years. CAG activities and an increased land presence will restrict the conduct of certain types of training and/or decrease training frequency; this would come at a significant cost to Defence.
…
There are a number of Defence facilities at Fairbairn on CAG and Defence land including the RAAF 34 Squadron operated SPA Facility. Defence requires that there are sufficient buffers surrounding the SPA and other facilities to ensure that incompatible land uses do not detrimentally affect security and operations. Defence notes that there is a wide variety of land uses listed in the "indicative land use table" at pages 140-l4l for the Fairbairn precinct. A number of these uses have the potential to create land use conflict and compromise security if located within close proximity to the various Defence facilities. It is noted however that an element of this area has been reserved for 34 Squadron expansion but this area is not explicitly shown on a map. Defence requests that CAG keep Defence informed of any proposed development within the area adjoining or adjacent to the various Defence facilities in order to enable Defence to prepare a detailed risk assessment.
…
Defence also notes in Figure 7.2 proposed work on Taxiway Charlie, the possible extension of Runway 12/30 and the associated realignment of Scherger Drive to extend beyond the current boundary of the CAG lease.
The construction of this infrastructure would involve the use of part of the Commonwealth land currently managed by Defence as a buffer to the MTA. This land has not been identified as being surplus to Defence requirements. Defence objects to the inclusion of Airport infrastructure on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
…
It is noted that the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan identifies a future requirement for a parallel runway to the east of the existing main north-south runway. This proposed parallel runway would require a substantial amount of Defence land to the east of the current CAG lease boundary. This land has been identified as a requirement to meet future training outcomes of the ADF and Defence objects to the inclusion of a parallel runway on Defence owned land in the Master Plan.
The MTA is essential for the efficient and effective delivery of a large part of the Royal Military College (RMC) weapons and field training requirements. MTA also provides training facilities that are used extensively by ADFA and Defence Force elements from Canberra and the Southern Tablelands area of New South Wales, including HMAS Creswell and HMAS Albatross, as well as Regular and Reserve Army units from Sydney. The construction of the proposed parallel runway would have a significant impact on existing Defence training and operations which may lead to the cessation of live firing activities at the MTA. The use of the MTA may become so inefficient and ineffective that it may no longer be viable for some training activities.
…
Defence notes that CAG is proposing to develop Canberra Airport into an international freight hub. Defence understands Figure 6.3 of the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan outlines the envisioned land requirements for this freight hub. Defence requests Figure 6.3 acknowledge that there is no agreement from the Commonwealth to sell the land required for the proposed freight hub to CAG.
CAG also outlines on page 90 of the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan that additional warehousing for a proposed freight hub maybe found on land surrounding the Airport without acknowledging that Commonwealth agreement would be needed for CAG to acquire Defence land. Defence requests CAG acknowledge this lack of an agreement with the Commonwealth and Defence.
…
Defence notes that High Intensity Approach Lighting (HIAL) and Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) will allow for more flexible flight paths into and out of Canberra Airport; enable aircraft to operate under Special Category 1,2, and 3 precision approach procedures; and land in low visibility weather from the north. Defence is concerned that these improvements and flexible flight paths may impact on building heights and activities at the MTA and ADFA.
Defence notes that supporting infrastructure is also proposed for sites within the MTA, Defence has not agreed to this and objects to the inclusion of that supporting infrastructure on Defence land in the Master Plan. The Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan does not outline how these improvements and flexible flight paths may affect properties surrounding Canberra Airport. Defence requests CAG provide greater detail in the Preliminary Draft 2020 Master Plan of the effects these improvements may have on properties in the vicinity of the Airport.
Defence requests the Draft 2020 Master Plan include glide slopes for aircraft approaches from the north over the MTA and from the west over ADFA as done for the southern approach over Jerrabomberra. A glide slope from. these directions would enable Defence and other stakeholders to better understand how these improvements will impact current and future developments under these flight paths.
…
CAG would be aware of the publically available documents that identify the presence of UXO on the MTA and in particular in the south-east corner of the MTA where the parallel runway is proposed. Any development in that area would require significant UXO surveys and remediation, at CAG expense.
Was there any substantial change made to the draft Plan in response to the Department of Defence’s concerns and requests? Nope.
In its Minute to the responsible Minister recommending that the Plan be approved, did the responsible Department make any mention of the Department of Defence’s concerns? Nope. Not one syllable.
The Minute did say: “Neither Airservices Australia nor the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raised any significant issues over the [draft Master Plan]”, and: “The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment were sought for comment on the [draft Master Plan] and did not raise any significant issues”.
Under the heading “Stakeholder Implications” the Minute says: “Nil further from those outlined above”.
If you go to Page 88 of the currently approved Plan, there is Figure 6.3 without any change in response to Defence’s request that the Figure acknowledge that there is no agreement from the Commonwealth to sell the land required for the proposed freight hub to CAG. If you go to Page 109 of the currently approved Plan, there is Figure 7.2 showing the possible future parallel runway on Defence land and proposed extension eastward of runway 12/30 into Defence land, despite the concerns raised by Defence.
So there you go: The potential impacts upon Australia’s defence capability as a consequence of the concerns raised by the Department of Defence were ignored by the responsible Department and responsible Minister. It’s little wonder to me that the airport lessee continues to do nothing about the Department of Defence’s concerns and requests.
Of course, this would only ever happen in the fictitious Land Far Away.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 31st May 2023 at 07:43.
Wow, Clinton - well done!! It's nice to know who to turn to for bear-poking services...
Ever thought of looking into Western Sydney Airport?
Ever thought of looking into Western Sydney Airport?
Thread Starter
There are not enough hours in the day! But I can safely predict what the records will show about most if not all of the Master Plan approval processes.
The following users liked this post: