[Peetwo]

Budget Estimates 2024-25 and unanswered QON?? -

Via the RRAT Committee Budget Estimates webpages: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus..._estimates

Quote from the report - see Budget estimates 2024-25 :

Questions on notice and Hansard Transcript

1.10 In accordance with standing order 26(9)(a), the committee agreed Thursday 1August2024 as the date for the return of written answers or additional information in response to questions placed on notice during the initial hearings. The committee agreed Friday 8 August 2024 as the date for the return of written answers or additional information in response to questions placed on notice during the additional hearing.

So it would appear that Betsy, his minions and all his associated agencies have less than a week to answer all written QON and all other QON are now officially overdue...  

Hmm...so how's that working out??? Well from my calculation the total QON answered for Dicky King's department and supposedly oversighted agencies (including CASA, ATSB and ASA) is currently at a miserly 64 AQON, leaving a total of 358 QON yet to be answered (including I believe zero written QON)?? -  

Some interesting WQON...

Question on notice no. 161

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on 14 June 2024—

1. Part of the consultation was regarding bilateral service agreements and a number
of stakeholders made specific responses regarding significant improvements to TransTasman travel that could be implemented. Has the department begun work on any
specific projects to reduce barriers to trans-tasman travel?
2. Since the Minister rejected the Qatar application to increase capacity and reduce
airfares to Europe by up to 30% last year, has any further application been made by
Qatar?
3. Has any country made application to increase capacity beyond what was announced
late last year?
4. Has the department or government received any offers of open skies agreements by
another nation since being elected? which nation/s?
5. has the department provided any briefs to the Minister regarding new capacity
between Australia and any other nation since the Minister's announcement in
December?
6. Has the department modelled or done any work on removing cabotage barrier?

---

Question on notice no. 172

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on 14 June 2024—

1. Where can I find the white paper in the Budget papers?
2. What is the total cost of the project from 2023-24 through the forward estimates?
can you break it down?
3. Has the department finalised the consultation process and provided a draft to the
Minister?
4. When was the final draft submitted?
5. Has any of the outcomes from the white paper been included in the budget?

---

Question on notice no. 402

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on 1 July 2024—

1. When was the last time the tender was awarded to a different bidder?
3. The ACCC has been critical of the ownership arrangements of the slot manager,
Qantas and Virgin majority own the entity, and they are the largest beneficiaries of
the scheme, yes?
4. How can the slot manager maintain its legislative requirements and be owned by
the two largest customers?
5. How does the ACA monitors compliance with the 80:20 rule?

---

Question on notice no. 416

Senator Bridget McKenzie: asked the Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development, Communications and the Arts on 1 July 2024—

1. How many Quarterly Reports has the Department and Minister received from
AirServices Australia in response to the new Statement of Expectations issued by the
Minister last year?
2. Has the Minister provided any written responses to AirServices Australia's
Quarterly Reports, raising concerns with the level of progress being achieved by the
agency in relation to air Traffic control staffing, flight cancellations and delays?
3. Has the Minister requested meetings with AirServices Australia in response to their
Quarterly Reports to raise concerns about progress on complying with the Statement
of Expectations?

MTF...P2

[Sandy Reith]

Senator McKenzie is on the the right track but the General aviation community needs to be asking what are the policies being developed to cause fundamental reform in order to cure the same old same old repeating ad Infinitum problems that are the hallmark of the aviation independents.
CASA, ATSB, and AirServices Australia are the high salaried monopoly fiefdoms within ‘Government Industries’ that are outside of where they should be, that is within Departments with a responsible Minister at its head.
It’s called the Westminster system of Parliamentary government.

[Peetwo]

Dicky King too little too late??

Via Oz Aviation:

Sydney slot management out to tender
August 5, 2024


The Federal Government has put slot management at Sydney Airport out to tender, a week after Rex went into voluntary administration.

Announced in February as part of a slew of government reforms, the competitive tender process will require prospective slot managers to demonstrate how they would deliver on those reforms, and “manage and mitigate conflicts of interest in a transparent way”.

The company that currently manages the slots, Airport Coordination Australia (ACA), has board representation from Qantas, Virgin, the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, and the airport itself, and was last week criticised by former ACCC chair Rod Sims.

“We are getting on with the job of delivering the reforms that were announced in February,” said Federal Transport Minister Catherine King.
“The recommendations for change were handed to the previous Government in February 2021. On coming to office, it was clear that the previous government had shown little interest in issuing a serious response to the findings.

“In contrast, the Albanese Government started the White Paper process and undertook consultation, including targeted consultation, on responding to the Harris Review. We are serious about making long term reforms to aviation in Australia that are much needed after a decade of neglect.”
Petra Popovac, CEO of ACA, has stood by her company’s reputation.

“We welcome an open tender, this is not the first open tender at Sydney,” she told Australian Aviation.

“We are exceptional at our job and are recognized globally by positions that we hold within industry advisory groups, such as the World Airport Slots Board, where I am Chair.”

The Government earlier this year announced a major package of reforms for Sydney Airport, though stopped short of ditching the controversial “80/20 rule”, which allows airlines to keep a take-off slot indefinitely as long as they operate it at least 80 per cent of the time.

“The Government has already implemented a number of these commitments including an independent audit of slot usage, with results to be released once completed; and has re-established the Compliance Committee for Sydney Airport that manages compliance with the slot regime,” the Government said in a press release.

“The reforms will be finalised with forthcoming legislation which will include changing the allocation process to free up more slots and changing the definition of ‘new entrant’ to make it easier for new airlines to obtain slots.

“Other reforms include modernising the compliance regime with penalties that address anti‑competitive behaviours, updated and strengthened enforcement tools for the Government to watch airlines more closely and take effective legal action where necessary, and requiring airlines to provide regular information on how they use slots, such as reasons for cancellations or major delays, which will be regularly published.”

And from Oz Flying:

RAAA calls for Broad Regional Focus

5 August 2024




The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) has called on the Federal Government to consider the challenges facing all regional airlines in the wake of Regional Express going into voluntary administration.

Although REX was placed in administration last week, only the B737 services on trunk routes have ceased, with SAAB 340 operations into regional centres continuing. Training and charter/aeromedical operations are also not affected.

The Federal Government has been under some pressure to provide support to REX to ensure regional centres remain connected, but the RAAA says the problem is not isolated to one carrier alone.

“Aviation is the lifeblood of regional Australia and RAAA member airlines connect people, communities and businesses across our vast nation every day,” RAAA CEO Rob Walker said in a statement released today.

“Whilst Government considers the support required to ensure the continuation of essential regional air routes, the RAAA urges government to carefully consider all regional airlines that are currently servicing or are capable of servicing affected routes, and not to focus on any one individual operator."

The RAAA said it shared community concerns about the administration of REX, highlighting the plight of regional
communities serviced by the airline, and the REX staff that face an uncertain future.

"The RAAA highlights the importance of industry playing a key role in working with Government to ensure the best possible outcome for these communities, long term sustainability of regional aviation, and the Australian taxpayer," the statement says.

RAAA Chair Malcolm Sharp said the future of regional aviation required an all-of-industry approach.

"All sectors of the Australian aviation industry must step up and work together," Sharp said. "Governments, regulators, aviation agencies, airlines, airports, and industry suppliers must ensure regional aviation thrives and grows stronger for the benefit of the regional communities we serve."

The RAAA also said it hoped that the government’s long-term strategies for the aviation industry would "go beyond a focus on decarbonisation and address real cost reductions, equity in investment of training costs, ongoing removal of red tape, and consideration around the true costs of providing regional services in modern aircraft."

Last week, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King said her department was looking into what could be done for REX.

"REX is an important airline for regional and remote communities and REX’s continuation is in the best interests of regional Australians, the travelling public, its workers and the aviation sector," King said.

"The government will work closely with the administrator to determine a path forward that ensures regional aviation has a strong future in this country."

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry - Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise 28/08/24: Hobart Public Hearing

Via APH website: 

28 Aug 2024
Hobart, TAS
- program
- submissions

For definitely a less emotive, more informative and common sense expert evidence provided (so far in this inquiry), please refer to the following YouTube audio segment from Shannon Wells, MD Airlines of Tasmania...

Tabled doc from SW: 

19  Cambridge Aerodrome & Airlines of Tasmania, Standard Instrument Arrival flight path maps provided by Shannon Wells at a public hearing in Hobart (received 28 August 2024)

WELL DONE THAT MAN! - 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

For inquiry?? - 

Via Senate:

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 [Provisions]

On 10 October 2024, the Senate referred the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 [Provisions] to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2024.

Making a contribution

Thank you for your interest in the committee’s inquiry. The committee’s task is to receive evidence in relation to its terms of reference, prepare a report, and make recommendations to the Senate. As such, the committee is not able to investigate or assist with individual matters or complaints.

Individuals are welcome to make a submission addressing the terms of reference to assist the committee with its consideration of the issues. Information on making a submission to a parliamentary inquiry is available on the Senate’s website, here.

Committee Secretariat contact:

Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3511
rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

Plus from Senator Lambie:

 

Tasmania: Aviation Industry

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (13:39): Australia's aviation sector has one big bully, in the shape of a flying kangaroo. Qantas recently announced its decision to reduce its 27 weekly flights out of Devonport by seven. Time and time again Qantas plays a game of survival of the fittest, but it's strategy has always been to weaken the competition so that Skippy doesn't fall from the sky. As we saw following the Rex and Bonza collapses, airfares on major city routes went up 12 per cent. It feels like we've been here before. Qantas pushed out Rex from flying into Burnie just over a decade ago, and on cue the price of airfares went up. Now we have an issue with flights being cut again on the north-west coast.

Qantas says the use of bigger planes will mean more seats will be available, but what it really means is fewer options for north-west coasters wanting to fly out of Devonport and Burnie. With these changes, some people travelling for work will need to travel the day before, as same-day travel will no longer be possible. This cuts off businesses on the north-west coast from the national economy and health professionals on the mainland. The Devonport Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said that this decision will hurt tourism and increase costs for local businesses, and it will. Prices will most likely go up, and Qantas will flex its muscle to ensure they stay up.

More than 20 regional airlines have collapsed in Australia since the 1990s, yet the Aviation white paper doesn't say much about supporting regional communities to get affordable and reliable access to airlines. A senior constituent wrote to me explaining that travelling out of Devonport to get to Sydney costs almost $1,000 more than flying out of Launceston, which is one hour up the road. He asked how this is justifiable. Well, I don't know why he's asking me, because Qantas needs to come to the table and start telling us why this is going on. You say you've got more seats, but it costs us more. How is this working?

I'll tell you what I'd like to do. I'd love to refer Qantas to the ACCC. But, let's be real, they are about as much use as a wet paper bag.

Plus update to Impact & Mitigation of Aircraft Noise inquiry:

Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise

3 new submissions have been added

A new additional information has been added - Dr Andrew Hede, Opening statement, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 30 September 2024)

A new answer to question on notice has been added - John Hicks, Gold Coast Lifestyle Association, response to questions taken on notice, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 20 September 2024)

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senator McKenzie Bill and Inquiry amendment??

Follow on to above, via the Senate Chamber yesterday:

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) (11:30): I move an amendment to part (b) of the motion:

Omit "14 November 2024", substitute "31 January 2025".

The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024—53 pages of legislation—which was handed to the parliament at midday yesterday, makes the biggest change in three decades to the slot-management system, the access, into Sydney airport, our busiest airport in this country.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the crossbenchers, who last year worked with me to set up an inquiry into the Qatar Airways decision, which unmasked the government's lack of action around competition in the aviation sector and around these very longstanding, protected relationships, which, the Prime Minister and Alan Joyce notwithstanding, go back a long time and have had a significant impact on the reliability and price of aviation for everyday Australians.

I believe the significance of this change requires a longer inquiry. I appreciate that the government wants to get this through before going to an election and I don't want to stand in the way of changing a regulatory environment that is costing Australians each and every day, but I do believe that it is this chamber's responsibility to give the committee and stakeholders a chance to have an authentic and genuine engagement with the material, with the bill, and to provide, once again, the Senate and the government with sensible recommendations, as we did with the Senate bilateral air services agreements inquiry last year.

I'm not seeking an endless inquiry. This is a Labor government-controlled legislation inquiry. I know that right now senators and committees are very pressed for time. This will require more than two hearings to do it justice and to get it written and reported on in time for our next sitting date. If there are more submissions than we expect or there are more complexities than we've already uncovered in the brief time we've had the legislation before us, it won't allow us the opportunity to extend the inquiry. That is why I've set the reporting date at 31 January: it's so that the report can be delivered in time for the legislation to appear before the Senate and be debated and moved prior to heading to an election.

I know that the crossbench and the Greens supported the setting up of that bilateral air services agreements committee. It handed down an incredibly sensible array of recommendations. The Harris review has been around for a while. My initial reading of this bill is that it doesn't implement the Harris review recommendations, as the government is running around and saying. It actually only implements a couple of them. So there is some sensible work that can be done by senators, in conjunction with stakeholders, to ensure that the problems with getting access into Sydney, from right around the country, can actually be addressed. So I implore the crossbench and I implore the Greens to reconsider their position on extending the date. It's great to see the chamber has realised this is an issue Australians care about and that we're prepared to now have an inquiry, but let's make it an inquiry that doesn't hold the bill up unnecessarily prior to an election and that actually allows us to do our job and provide sensible recommendations, as this Senate and this particular committee have done in the past. I commend my amendment.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Senate Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 - Aviation Industry stakeholder submissions

Courtesy the RAAA submissions page:

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

Written by Natalie Gane on 30 September 2024 - Submissions

The RAAA acknowledges the government’s policy intent to reduce net immigration to ensure that housing affordability is kept at a reasonable level for Australians. However, the Association is deeply concerned that what has been proposed has serious implications for Australian aviation businesses that provide and rely on flight training activities in support of the Australian economy.

If the allocated caps that are due to come into effect from 1 January 2025 are to proceed there will be a number of large, medium, and small flight training businesses that will no longer remain viable – they will be forced to cease operations and close down resulting in significant job losses.

The RAAA strongly requested in our submission to the Senate Inquiry that the Federal Government does not include pilot training candidates in the international student caps or at least reconsiders and revises up the numbers of international student places that have been allocated to Australian flight training organisations.

Read Submission

Plus, via the Senate Inquiry submissions pages:

73 Flight Training Adelaide (PDF 153 KB)

---

 
97 Moorabbin Aviation Services (PDF 98 KB)

---

103 BASAIR Australia (PDF 1260 KB) 

---

137 Royal Victorian Aero Club (PDF 1011 KB) 

---

138 Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (PDF 1136 KB) 

---

145 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (PDF 192 KB) 

---

149 Airlines of Tasmania (PDF 63 KB) 

---

180 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 218 KB) 

TICK TOCK goes the (Oz international flight training industry) DOOMSDAY CLOCK!!?? -   

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

Senate Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 - Aviation Industry stakeholder submissions

Courtesy the RAAA submissions page:

Submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024

Written by Natalie Gane on 30 September 2024 - Submissions

The RAAA acknowledges the government’s policy intent to reduce net immigration to ensure that housing affordability is kept at a reasonable level for Australians. However, the Association is deeply concerned that what has been proposed has serious implications for Australian aviation businesses that provide and rely on flight training activities in support of the Australian economy.

If the allocated caps that are due to come into effect from 1 January 2025 are to proceed there will be a number of large, medium, and small flight training businesses that will no longer remain viable – they will be forced to cease operations and close down resulting in significant job losses.

The RAAA strongly requested in our submission to the Senate Inquiry that the Federal Government does not include pilot training candidates in the international student caps or at least reconsiders and revises up the numbers of international student places that have been allocated to Australian flight training organisations.

Read Submission

Plus, via the Senate Inquiry submissions pages:

73 Flight Training Adelaide (PDF 153 KB)

---

 
97 Moorabbin Aviation Services (PDF 98 KB)

---

103 BASAIR Australia (PDF 1260 KB) 

---

137 Royal Victorian Aero Club (PDF 1011 KB) 

---

138 Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (PDF 1136 KB) 

---

145 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia (PDF 192 KB) 

---

149 Airlines of Tasmania (PDF 63 KB) 

---

180 Australian Federation of Air Pilots (PDF 218 KB) 

TICK TOCK goes the (Oz international flight training industry) DOOMSDAY CLOCK!!?? -   

MTF...P2 

[Kharon]

ASA Dealing – from a stacked deck?

Daff said “he believed the real reason behind the circuit cap is to combat a rising number of reports to Airservices' Corporate Integrated Reporting and Risk Information System (CIRRIS), which collects data on safety, environment and risk management issues.”

Anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting the 'tower', meeting the crew and observing them at work would have noted the number of ATCO on the job; there's a fair few – or there used to be when three runways were in use; IFR departing and arriving, VFR same, training area dispatch & returns and the odd first solo – plus the 'choppers'. On a 'busy day, those in the tower earned their money. However, this latest offering from ASA smells a little 'off' to me. Consider the TIBA debacle and the shortage of ATCO and the time it takes to train one and certify a new start to operational work. How would you short circuit that? Easy – reduce the number of operations at secondary aerodromes to a maximum which can be managed by a smaller ATCO crew and 'pinch' the others into the mainline operation. All the fury related to TIBA, delays and etc. slips way. ASA will be full of bounce at the next Estimates - “Oh, we've solved the Halfwit's legacy problem; ain't we brilliant.  Aye, call me cynical if you will – but watch closely as the pageant unfurls and the Senators smile while the band plays 'believe it if you like' – in waltz time..

RAAA - “The circuit cap is believed to be one of a number of measures to combat rising operational deviations at Moorabbin when compared to the other metro Class D towered airports.”

'Operation deviations and 'Crisis' – BOLLOCKS. Since Pontious rolled down the first runway, student and occasionally the odd 'qualified' pilots have made a mess of 'something' – usually sorted out by the ATCO – ops normal at a 'training' aerodrome. The odd (in old money) 225 floating about, even tea and biscuits with a FOI for a grievous 'deviation' – but mostly routine for a busy training area. Unless instructors have become useless and students are willfully disregarding the 'rools' and their lessons – the notion of 'combating' 'deviations' by reducing the traffic numbers the argument for it become nugatory. If the 'training is 'failing' then that demands immediate rectification; if the students are constantly 'deviating' then operational norms; then this is a grass roots problem and reducing the traffic cannot possibly rectify this. Carts and horses - anyone..

No matter - If I ever find a bundle of nine dollars notes; I'll toddle off to ASA HQ and cash 'em in for three's (less the small commission - of course). -

Yours in happy horse shit-

Toot toot....

[Peetwo]

Senate Supp Estimates program out?? -   

For what it's worth, today the RRAT Senate Supplementary Estimates program was finally published...

Via the APH:

2024-25 Supplementary budget estimates

Program

Monday, 4 November 2024 Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, excluding Communications and the Arts
Tuesday, 5 November 2024 Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Program (PDF 380KB)

MTF...P2 

PS: I note Popinjay doesn't get a guernsey?? -

[Peetwo]

Noise and Impact Inquiry: Betsy AQON?? - 

Via RRAT webpages (note the following Betsy approved word salads -   )

24
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, response to questions taken on notice, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 22 October 2024)

Matthew Canavan asked:

CHAIR: I will just go back to my original question, and I'm happy to take this on notice. What are the government's priorities? What's more important: reducing carbon emission or reducing noise on local communities?

Ms Werner: The government is already taking into account noise impacts, through the master plan and major development plan process. CHAIR: Take it on notice and ask your minister what's more important. Ms Werner: Okay. I'm happy to take it on notice.

CHAIR: It's a very simple question. What's more important? Are they equally important? Is one more important than the other? That's all I want to know. Thank you

Answer: The Australian Government’s aviation priority is safeguarding the community as well as ensuring the current and future safety, viability and growth of aviation operations at Australian airports. This is achieved through balanced consideration of policy, legislative and regulatory requirements.

25
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, response to question taken on notice, public hearing 20 September 2024 (received 29 October 2024)



Next note the chalk and cheese (Grand Canyon) difference between the Qantas and Virgin submissions to the RRAT Senate Inquiry into 'Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 [Provisions]'...





MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Bucolic v Ominous.

Canavan and McKenzie, both seem to groping their way through a thick fog; the same miasma as previous Senators been lost in, when it comes to matters aeronautical. Perfectly understandable, the artificial fog is thick, cloying and there's precious little in the way of 'guidance'. Groping their weary way through the murk, constantly stumbling into unseen trees, ditches, thorns, traps and piles of Kool – Aide generated excrement. They could probably be aided by some of their mates, outside the swamp lighting a candle or even offering to carry some of the load. Alas, it is a story we have witnessed unfold many times; this reenactment of the Hansel and Gretel tale, except the witch wins every time.

Motive is always a key element to any story; why were the innocents out in the forest in the first place? It is a grim, dark, treacherous place decidedly not for children alone. So what is the purpose in McKenzie and Canavan wandering about in there, groping about in the vague hope of finding what, exactly?

The guardians of this forest have lived deep within it forever; they know every track, tree , swamp and dead end; can find their way round it almost blindfold; move the track, change the signs and create a fetid, confounding fog whenever it pleases. So we must ask, once again, what is the object of all this thrashing around?

To navigate the swamp, successfully a map, a spotlight and solid advice is required minimum equipment. That 'equipment' is readily and freely available; all faithfully recorded on the Hansard, in history and in the minds of folk who have traveled the road before them. Any sensible, careful study of the history will reveal the hidden paths, cunning traps and every 'dead-end' gambit. Perhaps a close study of the last Estimates foray into 'Slots' could provide clues. No great intellectual leaps required; just a quiet moment or two to read the submissions from Qantas and Virgin. Perhaps a translation would assist.

The Qantas statement reflects a bucolic approach; very comfortable within their ability to co-exist with the burgeoning bureaucratic rule of the nation; the fundamental mindset being closely aligned, cozy within the relationship and structured much the same.

The Virgin statement shows a very different 'approach' – they see the ominous signs of further departmental 'make work' through even more 'reporting and ever deepening 'interference' in matters which do not – in real terms – concern them. More controls, more penalties and ever more control over an 'independent' business.

Should the good Senators wish to free of the swamp and it's dangers, they must, absolutely, understand the complexities of actually operating 'air services'. It is, truly, a seriously complex task to actually get an aircraft 'off blocks' – on time. To manage to keep a schedule for a day is almost remarkable; to run flawlessly, for a seven day is as close to mission impossible as you can get. Planning and system integrity and good crew always strive to meet targets – however:-remember............

“No Plan survives first contact with the enemy.” This quote has been variously attributed to Helmuth von Moltke, Carl von Clausewitz, Dwight D Eisenhower, and others. Or significantly less prosaically “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” - Mike Tyson.

Best bet; bring in some 'outside' assistance – independent, capable and finite; before this debacle becomes lost in the great mists of the Canberra swamp.

Toot – toot...

[Sandy Reith]

The trouble with the said Canavan and McKenzie is that their righteous protesting the Albanese government hasn’t translated into concrete and positive policies to deal with the obvious dysfunctions in aviation.

As far as General Aviation is concerned if they can’t bring themselves to put the administration back where it should be in a proper Department then some easy ‘one offs’ could offer some hope.

Such as implementing the government’s own Forsyth recommendation of revoking the pointless, expensive and much hated ASIC requirement, and thus put virtually the whole of the GA community onside. A political ‘no brainer,’ if they are serious.

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates DITRDC (Betsy's Duck UP Fairies in all things transport): 4/11/24

In pictures and words IE Hansard...

Corporate:

Senator CANAVAN: You are the head of the organisation. If you have an organisation that had its employee expenses grow by more than 10 per cent in one year, I would have thought you would be across the detail of what those people are doing. Independently of any measures or announcements a year and a half ago, what are these extra people doing that is making life better for Australians?

Mr Betts: I will give you a description of some of the key activities which the department has undertaken over that 12-month period, some of which would have been subject to supplementary funding in the budget before last, which is the budget you are currently asking me questions about. That would include things such as the Aviation white paper, which is a major piece of policy generation that has been undertaken by the Australian government and was published earlier this year.

Hmm...a 'major piece of policy generation' for the benefit of whom??

Outcome 1:

Outcome 2:

Airservices:

CASA:

This is amusing...

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. CASS has again refused to provide, in SQ24-001131, the number of times myocarditis and other conditions are mentioned in your medical records system. What are you hiding?

Ms Spence : Nothing. As we've explained before, the medical records don't allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you've asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren't airworthy. Nothing. As we've explained before, the medical records don't allow themselves to be interrogated in the way that you've asked. But, as we have indicated previously, we have no evidence or examples of any pilot who has been impacted by a COVID vaccination in a way that has meant they weren't airworthy.

Su_Spence thinks pilots are merely machines and subject to airworthiness regulations??? Does that mean we can do away with AvMad and the onerous CASR Part 91...

Finally tabled docs :

Mr Jim Betts, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development Communications and the Arts
Documents requested by Senator the Hon. Matthew Canavan. 4 November 2024 PDF - 23,284KB

Senator the Hon. Matthew Canavan
Copies of emails regarding Deputy Secretary’s Qantas Chairman Lounge access obtained through Freedom of Information request. 4 November 2024 PDF - 126KB

Senator the Hon. Matthew Canavan
Copy of approval for the acceptance of gifts for Deputy Secretary obtained through Freedom of Information request. 4 November 2024 PDF - 78KB

Senator the Hon. Linda Reynolds CSC
Cape Peron Transport Needs Study: Executive Summary, City of Rockingham.
4 November 2024 PDF - 1,241KB

Senator the Hon. Matthew Canavan
Answer to written question on notice No. 466, House of Representatives, asked by Mr Garth Hamilton MP on 6 February 2024.
4 November 2024
PDF - 41KB

Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie
Capital Brief article titled, Cabinet documents went missing at Doha airport ahead of Labour's Qatar decision. 4 November 2024 PDF - 2,813KB

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 Inquiry?? -

About this inquiry

The Bill amends the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 which regulates the allocation and use of slots for aircraft to take off and land at Sydney Airport. The bill intends to increase efficiency of aircraft movements within the current movement caps. The bill also seeks to address anti-competitive behaviour by producing a stricter compliance regime around the slot allocation to reduce the potential for slot-hoarding and slot-misuse.

If you ever wanted to get an idea of where the real power lies in the Aviation industry, which is fully backed and professionally obfuscated by the associated Mandarins and their minions residing in various silos under the Canberra bubble, check some of the following witnesses and the evidence given to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 inquiry...

Qantas:

RAAA/FlyPelican :

FedEx:

AAA/YSCB/YSSY:

ASA:

See Hansard for the ACCC and Betsy's Duck-up Fairies - HERE.

However, for evidence that was actually factual while challenging the status quo of the aviation industry elite, IMO you can't go past the COG (Capacity Optimisation Group) segment with CEO Ms Popovac, even Sterlo was impressed...

CHAIR: I now welcome representatives of Capacity Optimisation Group. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you both. I ask both of you if you'd like to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions.

Ms Popovac : Thank you for allowing our company to appear today. In my address, I'll be speaking from a place of truth and fact. Something has been lacking in the public rhetoric around slots in recent times. The Capacity Optimisation Group is supportive of the changes to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act. We're especially supportive of the changes to increase the transparency of the slot process. COG has always been extremely transparent with the stakeholders involved in the slot management process, and it allocates slots and provides data in accordance with the SADMA and the WASG.

CHAIR: The SADM?

Ms Popovac : The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act.

CHAIR: And the other one?

Ms Popovac : Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines.

CHAIR: Beautiful. That's not for me; that's for everyone else out there!

Ms Popovac : No problems. We've just heard it a lot today, so I thought I'd make it shorter.

CHAIR: It was for me!

Ms Popovac : However, viewing the misinformation and fabricated narratives spread by some members of the public across the media has highlighted just how little is understood about this highly technical and nuanced global system. I specifically question the remarks made by Rod Sims, as it is evident he lacks knowledge on the topic and is providing misleading information to the public.

The truth of the matter is that Sydney is not a congested airport. There are slots available throughout the day. Rex received excellent slots in the peak for their domestic services, only to hand some back as they did not have the fleet to operate the slots they held. Bonza never asked for a single slot at Sydney, so they had no grounds to claim a slot issue at Sydney. They did, however, apply for—and were granted—slots in Darwin and Melbourne, so they knew what the process was.

Over the last few years all new entrant airlines into Sydney have received slots at times close to what they requested. The facts I have presented show that there is no slot issue in Sydney. In fact, Sydney is one of the least congested airports that we coordinate. Over the last 20 years we've coordinated 47 airports in seven different countries. We have seen many highly congested airports, and Sydney is not one of them.

COG also supports measures in the new bill to shine a light on reasons for airline cancellations—a new reporting requirement in the entire industry—and the strengthening of the justified non-utilisation of slots criteria, through a specific register for reasons for JNUS. Measures include reviewing parts of the JNUS, such as the Australian holiday period, and agreeing on a method that will ensure fair use of the slot whilst continuing to support vital regional operations in off-peak periods. COG is also supportive of the changes to the compliance process at Sydney—something we've been passionate about improving for the last 10 years. COG is also supportive of improving data integrity by aligning data collection from a single source across the industry in Australia.

We as a company have also heard the perceived conflicts with our company structure. We were set up 25 years ago in the same manner as other international coordinators, such as the UK. However, what differs is that those coordinators, like the UK, are protected by their government and not subject to competitive processes, unlike Sydney. We realised that, like the SADM, we needed to move with the times. With our new name comes a new independent chair, a new independent director and a willingness to change our perceived conflicts.

We've always allocated slots in a neutral, non-discriminatory and independent manner and we will continue to do so. We will continue to set the bar for slot coordination worldwide, with our fair and professional practices ensuring that we most effectively allocate the available capacity at all of our airports. We will continue to be audited by our clients, including Sydney Airport, that noted from an audit of our coordination this year that they would have lost opportunities through poorer capacity utilisation had they, or others, performed the allocation. We will continue to be industry leaders and to provide high-quality coordination using our experienced and skilled Australian staff. We will continue our advocacy work around the world to help coordinators, airlines, airports and regulators improve coordination practices.

As CEO of COG and Chair of the Worldwide Airport Slots Board, I'm proud to represent our company and country on industry boards. Our strong reputation has led us to these prominent roles, allowing us to make a significant impact in the industry. Thank you for your time, and I invite your thoughtful questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Popovac. You certainly didn't hold back; we should've started with you today. That would've been really interesting.

Closely followed by Mr Peter Harris in a private capacity (author of the Harris Review):

Mr Harris : I have formerly been responsible for transport policy in the 1990s out of the department, including the development of the original slot scheme and the act and regulations that supported it. I retired from the Australian government at the end of 2018. In 2020 I was asked by the department to come back and review the scheme as it stood, because the Productivity Commission—which was my former home between 2013 and 2018—had recommended in 2019 that there be a further review of the scheme related to some aspects of it, which the Productivity Commission had expressed doubts about in terms of the impact on efficiency at Sydney airport. The department, when asking me to do this, pointed out that the legislation was due to sunset in 2024, and therefore asked me if I could make sure the report effectively addressed the review that has to take place before the sunsetting regulation is renewed. I did that over a period of about three or four months at the end of 2020 and January 2021, and completed this report, I think, in the first week of February 2021, and the department published it at some later point.

I should clarify for the committee: I haven't been engaged by the department since then in any sense and have not had any role in the development of this legislation. But I have re-read the report in the last few days, just to familiarise myself, and I looked at the bill that's in front of you and a few other things, and I can see some clear linkages between the report and the legislation that's in front of you today.

In terms of my opening statement, that was the bulk of what I was going to say to you anyway. But the bottom line is this: the report I made to the government in 2021 showed that the scheme had been set in regulation rather than, as is the case for most capacity constrained airports around the world, developed via a cooperative scheme that then can evolve and, because our regulation was fixed, this scheme has not evolved since 1997. It's a very long time. As a consequence, as I pointed out to the government, the regional ring fence that has protected regional access to Sydney airport had an unexpected cost. They included poorer quality choices for starting new regional services or improving schedules—and that's because a fence not only keeps predators out but keeps the protected stock in, if you like—and stranding of slots inside the ring fence that could not practically be accessed by any airline, making the airport less efficient and potentially reducing employment and investment in associated dependent industries, like tourism. We used a priority system in allocating slots amongst applicants that was world leading at the time in 1997 but today gives much weaker support to new competition than occurs at similar capacity constrained airports around the world. On the question of ensuring airlines comply with their obligations under the capping process, we leave too much responsibility in the scheme to a form of self-regulation managed by the compliance committee. It is weaker, again, than what occurs now at similar airports around the world. We have an operational cap applied by Airservices Australia every 15 minutes, which creates an unnecessary delay to passengers, with no reduction in noise impacts. It was put in place originally to ensure that airlines respected the compliance process but is unnecessary today. Finally, because of that construct, we've prevented Airservices Australia from having opportunities to assist the airport to recover from security or weather shocks.

Those are the primary elements in my report to the government. Not being the author of the legislation, I'm not here to answer specifically for it, but I can see some substantial similarities to some of the things that I had recommended.

CHAIR: Thank you. And the biggest issues for Sydney airport?

Mr Harris : I think the biggest issue for Sydney airport is to maintain community support. I think this is a little bit of a shock to people who, today, look at a highly regulated scheme for access, like we have at the airport, and think that it's probably unnecessary now. The community definitely demanded it in 1996 and 1997. When we were developing the original scheme, there was a substantial amount of opposition to it and queries as to whether or not it would actually help to manage flows—in other words, to enable air traffic control to switch the airport around at times of lesser movements to share the noise, as it were, across the Sydney basin. It's pretty clear now that, though the community demanded a regulatory structure in 1996 and 1997, the value in preserving it today, which I did say in my report should happen, is primarily because the community has accepted that the scheme does help to manage aircraft noise and enables, therefore, this balance of cooperative existence to occur between people who are affected by aircraft noise and consumers and businesses that supply them that need access to the airport.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 Inquiry?? -

About this inquiry

The Bill amends the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 which regulates the allocation and use of slots for aircraft to take off and land at Sydney Airport. The bill intends to increase efficiency of aircraft movements within the current movement caps. The bill also seeks to address anti-competitive behaviour by producing a stricter compliance regime around the slot allocation to reduce the potential for slot-hoarding and slot-misuse.

If you ever wanted to get an idea of where the real power lies in the Aviation industry, which is fully backed and professionally obfuscated by the associated Mandarins and their minions residing in various silos under the Canberra bubble, check some of the following witnesses and the evidence given to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 inquiry...

Qantas:

RAAA/FlyPelican :

FedEx:

AAA/YSCB/YSSY:

ASA:

See Hansard for the ACCC and Betsy's Duck-up Fairies - HERE.

However, for evidence that was actually factual while challenging the status quo of the aviation industry elite, IMO you can't go past the COG (Capacity Optimisation Group) segment with CEO Ms Popovac, even Sterlo was impressed...

CHAIR: I now welcome representatives of Capacity Optimisation Group. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to Senate committees has been provided to you both. I ask both of you if you'd like to make a brief opening statement before we go to questions.

Ms Popovac : Thank you for allowing our company to appear today. In my address, I'll be speaking from a place of truth and fact. Something has been lacking in the public rhetoric around slots in recent times. The Capacity Optimisation Group is supportive of the changes to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act. We're especially supportive of the changes to increase the transparency of the slot process. COG has always been extremely transparent with the stakeholders involved in the slot management process, and it allocates slots and provides data in accordance with the SADMA and the WASG.

CHAIR: The SADM?

Ms Popovac : The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act.

CHAIR: And the other one?

Ms Popovac : Worldwide Airport Slot Guidelines.

CHAIR: Beautiful. That's not for me; that's for everyone else out there!

Ms Popovac : No problems. We've just heard it a lot today, so I thought I'd make it shorter.

CHAIR: It was for me!

Ms Popovac : However, viewing the misinformation and fabricated narratives spread by some members of the public across the media has highlighted just how little is understood about this highly technical and nuanced global system. I specifically question the remarks made by Rod Sims, as it is evident he lacks knowledge on the topic and is providing misleading information to the public.

The truth of the matter is that Sydney is not a congested airport. There are slots available throughout the day. Rex received excellent slots in the peak for their domestic services, only to hand some back as they did not have the fleet to operate the slots they held. Bonza never asked for a single slot at Sydney, so they had no grounds to claim a slot issue at Sydney. They did, however, apply for—and were granted—slots in Darwin and Melbourne, so they knew what the process was.

Over the last few years all new entrant airlines into Sydney have received slots at times close to what they requested. The facts I have presented show that there is no slot issue in Sydney. In fact, Sydney is one of the least congested airports that we coordinate. Over the last 20 years we've coordinated 47 airports in seven different countries. We have seen many highly congested airports, and Sydney is not one of them.

COG also supports measures in the new bill to shine a light on reasons for airline cancellations—a new reporting requirement in the entire industry—and the strengthening of the justified non-utilisation of slots criteria, through a specific register for reasons for JNUS. Measures include reviewing parts of the JNUS, such as the Australian holiday period, and agreeing on a method that will ensure fair use of the slot whilst continuing to support vital regional operations in off-peak periods. COG is also supportive of the changes to the compliance process at Sydney—something we've been passionate about improving for the last 10 years. COG is also supportive of improving data integrity by aligning data collection from a single source across the industry in Australia.

We as a company have also heard the perceived conflicts with our company structure. We were set up 25 years ago in the same manner as other international coordinators, such as the UK. However, what differs is that those coordinators, like the UK, are protected by their government and not subject to competitive processes, unlike Sydney. We realised that, like the SADM, we needed to move with the times. With our new name comes a new independent chair, a new independent director and a willingness to change our perceived conflicts.

We've always allocated slots in a neutral, non-discriminatory and independent manner and we will continue to do so. We will continue to set the bar for slot coordination worldwide, with our fair and professional practices ensuring that we most effectively allocate the available capacity at all of our airports. We will continue to be audited by our clients, including Sydney Airport, that noted from an audit of our coordination this year that they would have lost opportunities through poorer capacity utilisation had they, or others, performed the allocation. We will continue to be industry leaders and to provide high-quality coordination using our experienced and skilled Australian staff. We will continue our advocacy work around the world to help coordinators, airlines, airports and regulators improve coordination practices.

As CEO of COG and Chair of the Worldwide Airport Slots Board, I'm proud to represent our company and country on industry boards. Our strong reputation has led us to these prominent roles, allowing us to make a significant impact in the industry. Thank you for your time, and I invite your thoughtful questions.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Popovac. You certainly didn't hold back; we should've started with you today. That would've been really interesting.

Closely followed by Mr Peter Harris in a private capacity (author of the Harris Review):

Mr Harris : I have formerly been responsible for transport policy in the 1990s out of the department, including the development of the original slot scheme and the act and regulations that supported it. I retired from the Australian government at the end of 2018. In 2020 I was asked by the department to come back and review the scheme as it stood, because the Productivity Commission—which was my former home between 2013 and 2018—had recommended in 2019 that there be a further review of the scheme related to some aspects of it, which the Productivity Commission had expressed doubts about in terms of the impact on efficiency at Sydney airport. The department, when asking me to do this, pointed out that the legislation was due to sunset in 2024, and therefore asked me if I could make sure the report effectively addressed the review that has to take place before the sunsetting regulation is renewed. I did that over a period of about three or four months at the end of 2020 and January 2021, and completed this report, I think, in the first week of February 2021, and the department published it at some later point.

I should clarify for the committee: I haven't been engaged by the department since then in any sense and have not had any role in the development of this legislation. But I have re-read the report in the last few days, just to familiarise myself, and I looked at the bill that's in front of you and a few other things, and I can see some clear linkages between the report and the legislation that's in front of you today.

In terms of my opening statement, that was the bulk of what I was going to say to you anyway. But the bottom line is this: the report I made to the government in 2021 showed that the scheme had been set in regulation rather than, as is the case for most capacity constrained airports around the world, developed via a cooperative scheme that then can evolve and, because our regulation was fixed, this scheme has not evolved since 1997. It's a very long time. As a consequence, as I pointed out to the government, the regional ring fence that has protected regional access to Sydney airport had an unexpected cost. They included poorer quality choices for starting new regional services or improving schedules—and that's because a fence not only keeps predators out but keeps the protected stock in, if you like—and stranding of slots inside the ring fence that could not practically be accessed by any airline, making the airport less efficient and potentially reducing employment and investment in associated dependent industries, like tourism. We used a priority system in allocating slots amongst applicants that was world leading at the time in 1997 but today gives much weaker support to new competition than occurs at similar capacity constrained airports around the world. On the question of ensuring airlines comply with their obligations under the capping process, we leave too much responsibility in the scheme to a form of self-regulation managed by the compliance committee. It is weaker, again, than what occurs now at similar airports around the world. We have an operational cap applied by Airservices Australia every 15 minutes, which creates an unnecessary delay to passengers, with no reduction in noise impacts. It was put in place originally to ensure that airlines respected the compliance process but is unnecessary today. Finally, because of that construct, we've prevented Airservices Australia from having opportunities to assist the airport to recover from security or weather shocks.

Those are the primary elements in my report to the government. Not being the author of the legislation, I'm not here to answer specifically for it, but I can see some substantial similarities to some of the things that I had recommended.

CHAIR: Thank you. And the biggest issues for Sydney airport?

Mr Harris : I think the biggest issue for Sydney airport is to maintain community support. I think this is a little bit of a shock to people who, today, look at a highly regulated scheme for access, like we have at the airport, and think that it's probably unnecessary now. The community definitely demanded it in 1996 and 1997. When we were developing the original scheme, there was a substantial amount of opposition to it and queries as to whether or not it would actually help to manage flows—in other words, to enable air traffic control to switch the airport around at times of lesser movements to share the noise, as it were, across the Sydney basin. It's pretty clear now that, though the community demanded a regulatory structure in 1996 and 1997, the value in preserving it today, which I did say in my report should happen, is primarily because the community has accepted that the scheme does help to manage aircraft noise and enables, therefore, this balance of cooperative existence to occur between people who are affected by aircraft noise and consumers and businesses that supply them that need access to the airport.

MTF...P2

PS: Note the following ASA AQON...



Kind of backs up the COG CEO evidence provided...

[Peetwo]

SADM Amendment Bill 2024: Report released - status quo remains IE Red Rat rules...

The last post highlights how QF and the Albo Govt believe that this amendment bill will little to no impact on the bottom line of QF's profit and operational capacity for YSSY airport, The RRAT inquiry report totally backs this up...

Via the RRAT webpages: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow...ntBill2024[Provisions].pdf

Committee view

2.41 The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, enacted by the Howard Government, has played an essential role in balancing operational capacity at Sydney Airport with community concerns around aircraft noise, as well as ensuring critical access to regional NSW cities and towns. However, evidence received during the inquiry makes it clear that, over time, this framework has become too restrictive – after over 25 years this is to be expected.

2.42 This amendment bill proposes a suite of reforms which will deliver operational efficiencies, improve market competition, and better consumer outcomes, whilst maintaining the original commitments made to the community around limiting and sharing aircraft noise.

2.43 The introduction of a recovery period is overwhelmingly supported by the sector and stands to benefit the travelling public. The efficient functioning of Sydney Airport is essential to the operation of the entire domestic network. Being able to clear an additional ten flights after a major disruption at Sydney Airport will have positive flow-on effects that go beyond just those ten aircraft movements at Sydney Airport. The committee is also reassured that safety will remain the overarching consideration when determining if, and when, these additional flights are authorised.

2.44 The committee understands that a definition for 'disruption' and thresholds that trigger the recovery period are still being determined and will be outlined in subordinate legislation. The committee recommends that the department continues to engage with all interested stakeholders on the drafting of the regulations.

2.45 The committee supports the bill's strengthening of the compliance regime. The additional civil penalty provisions introduced in the bill will better enable the Government to manage slot misuse at Sydney Airport.

2.46 The committee also welcomes the additional transparency powers introduced in the bill. These powers and airline reporting requirements will help ensure that the public has better access to information about airline performance.

2.47 The committee notes that the full details of these additional reporting requirements will be laid out in the regulations. The committee recommends that the department continues to engage with stakeholders, particularly smaller regional airlines, to ensure these additional reporting requirements are fit-for-purpose and do not impose an unnecessary burden on these businesses.

2.48The committee is satisfied that the Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 will support the government's commitment to enhancing competition and productivity in Australia's aviation sector.

Recommendation 1

2.49The committee recommends that the Senate passes the bill.


Senator Glenn Sterle

Chair

In other words...'nothing to see here, move along!!'

The Coalition did have some 'additional comments'...

Coalition Senators' additional comments

1.1 The Coalition continues to advocate for a more affordable, reliable and competitive aviation sector for all Australians. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 is the most significant change to the rules governing Australia’s biggest airport in nearly 30 years. The Bill aims to improve transparency, reliability and compliance, but it falls significantly short of delivering a more competitive ecosystem for all airlines.

1.2 The Sydney Airport Demand Management Amendment Bill 2024 is in direct response to the former Coalition Government’s review of the demand management scheme by former chair of the Productivity Commission, Peter Harris AO (the Harris Review).[1] The review’s recommendations had been with the Albanese Government for nearly two years before the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Catherine King, announced on 21 February 2024 the Government’s response to the review.[2] At the time of this report, that is nearly nine months ago.

1.3 It is noted by Coalition Senators that the Albanese Government chose to delay the implementation of its response to the Harris Review (the Bill) until very late in the life of this Parliament and had sought to rush the Bill through the Senate without an inquiry until the Senate insisted. Even then, the Government nominated an unachievable reporting date and had to push out the tabling of this report by almost a week. The Coalition is also disappointed that there was only one hearing held into this very important aviation Bill and that the hearing was held in Canberra and not in Sydney. It is also noted that evidence to this inquiry suggested the regulations that are critical for the Bill to have effect would not be published until as late as April 2025.

1.4 The Coalition also notes that the lack of community consultation is a broken promise by the Albanese Government in regards to the implementation of these intended reforms.

1.5 The committee also learned that in the nine months since the Minister issued a press release outlining the intended reforms to the Sydney Airport Demand Management Scheme, and specifically committing the ‘Government will be consulting with community and industry organisations on the best way to implement these reforms ahead of bringing forward legislation to Parliament’[3], the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts did not consult with the local community. The Albanese Government’s failure to conduct community consultation does not align with the Bill’s purported purpose of enhancing transparency around the Sydney Airport Demand Management Scheme.

1.6 The Coalition supports enhancing transparency measures in the Bill and the regulations that will underpin the scheme. Coalition Senators encourage the Albanese Government to ensure the regulations include provisions to report regularly on the use of the recovery period and that any declaration is published and available to the public on the day it is made. The evidence presented to the committee is that without seeing the regulations, it remains unclear what would constitute a ‘significant disruption’ and on what or who’s advice would a declaration be made. At the time of publication of the report, the Government has not yet made clear the timing of the regulations. It is therefore incumbent on the Minister, for absolute transparency, to ensure that the regulations include a requirement for Airservices Australia to provide a regular report to the Minister on the compliance with the cap and the ongoing use of the recovery period, and that the report be tabled in both houses of Parliament within 15 days of receipt by the Minister.

1.7 Finally, Coalition Senators would note that whilst the Bill, and the yet unknown regulations, will deliver some improvements to the scheme, they do not address the full recommendations of the Harris Review.

1.8 A significant element of the Harris Review recommendations was to improve the settings of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Scheme to promote competition within the domestic market. As was noted by the ACCC on the same day as this committee’s hearing, the market share of Qantas and Virgin has now reached 98.4 per cent under the Albanese Government.[4]

1.9 Management of Sydney Airport slots has been identified by the ACCC as important to promoting competition. The regulator warned the Albanese Government of the impact of restricted access to Sydney Airport slots on domestic competition:

Access to take-off and landing slots during peak times at Sydney Airport is critical for airlines seeking to build an intercity network. The most effective way that the Australian Government could enhance airline competition for the benefit of consumers would be to implement reforms to the way Sydney Airport slots are allocated to airlines. Without these slot changes, there will not be any material improvement in domestic airline competition in Australia in the foreseeable future.[5]

1.10 In its November 2024 report on Domestic airline competition in Australia, the ACCC stated:

One of the reasons behind the reforms was to make it harder for airlines to hold on to more take-off and landing slots at the airport than they needed, therefore making more slots available for new and expanding airlines.

...

The ACCC considers that the measures announced in February 2024, if implemented effectively, would help support greater airline competition, and therefore, improved consumer choice.[6]

1.11The committee heard in evidence from Qantas, Sydney Airport’s largest holder of slots, that they do not anticipate being required to hand back slots as a result of reforms in the Bill.

Senator McKENZIE: What slots do you hold today that you'll need to hand back when the changes are actually in force, under the 'use it or lose it' rule?

Mr Zeglin [Head Commercial Strategy and Performance, Qantas]: None ...

Senator McKENZIE: There won't be any change? This bill will effect no change? Is that what your evidence is here?

Mr Zeglin: The clarity is—in terms of our slot holdings—at HBD [hand-back date], we intend to operate all of those slots.[7]

1.12From the evidence to the inquiry and the reading of the Albanese Government’s intended changes to the regulations, Coalition Senators are not convinced the reform would lead to any substantial increase in availability of slots for a future third domestic airline to compete at scale. Combine this with the slot guidelines that rank ‘Historical Rights’ before new entrants, plus no proposed changes to the ‘use it or lose it’ rules and it would be logical to conclude the Government’s reforms will likely remain ineffective in creating a more competitive slot system, and that Australian travellers will continue to suffer higher airfares and less choice under the Albanese Government...

Really? Kind of like being slapped with a wet lettuce as far as the Red Rat and the Albosleaze Govt is concerned...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise inquiry - report tabled??

Via the RRAT webpages: Impact and mitigation of aircraft noise

REPORT - November 2024

Recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.80 The committee recommends that the conditions for approval of the Western Sydney Airport include a requirement for the Western Sydney Airport Corporation to study the impact of its flights on Australian native species.

Recommendation 2

2.116 The committee recommends that the Australian Government researches the impacts of aircraft noise exposure on human health, including sleep, and associated economic impacts.

Recommendation 3

3.63 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority urgently investigates the implementation of higher tailwind take-off thresholds for aircraft that are capable of doing so safely.

Recommendation 4

3.64 The committee recommends that Airservices Australia supports maximum possible use, within weather and operational constraints, of simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations (SODPROPs) at Brisbane Airport.

Recommendation 5

3.66 The committee recommends that Airservices Australia prioritises work to standardise the use of continuous descent operations and continuous climb operations as the preferential mode for landing and take-off at major airports, including Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, where it is safe to do so.

Recommendation 6

3.106 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts changes the rules for Brisbane airport such that aircraft operating at night must meet the requirements of the ICAO Chapter 14—Balanced Approach to Aircraft Noise Management rules. After an appropriate time of this rule's use, the Government should review whether the same standard could apply to other airports.

Recommendation 7

3.107 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts develops guidelines for 'noise envelopes' at Australian airports, against which airports should provide transparent reporting. The Government should review the record of airports in meeting certain noise thresholds once an appropriate amount of comparable data has been collected.

Recommendation 8

3.140 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amends the Airports Act 1996, and associated Regulations, to require airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (where applicable) to address the issue of compensation for residents affected by the additional noise generated by the airport.

Recommendation 9

3.141 As part of the approval process for airport Master Plans, and Major Development Plans which significantly alter or add new runways, the committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government considers whether an airport should be declared a leviable airport under the Aircraft Noise Levy Act 1995.

3.142 Any decision to designate an airport as leviable should be based on a threshold set by the Australian Government in consultation with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that the Commonwealth's interests are protected under the arrangements.

Recommendation 10

4.64 The committee recommends that the Australian Government moves Australia's flight path design principles towards an altitude based priorities approach—with a view to prioritising minimising noise for communities, and for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Parks (below a certain altitude). The Government should conduct an expert review to establish what altitudes should be set for Australian conditions.

Recommendation 11

4.68 The committee recommends the Federal Minister for Transport issues a direction stating that Airservices must respond to Flight Path Change Requests within a reasonable and clearly articulated timeframe, and publicly explain any delays.

Recommendation 12

4.70 The committee recommends that changes to flight paths and airspace management that result in significant community impacts should be subject to referral for review by the new, independent Aircraft Noise Ombudsman.

Recommendation 13

4.72 The committee recommends that, in cases where an airport in a metropolitan area adds a new or expanded runway, Airservices considers conducting a full-scale review of the broader airspace in the greater metropolitan area.

Recommendation 14

5.112 The committee recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government directs departmental representatives to participate fully in Community Aviation Consultation Group meetings, preferably attending in person.

Recommendation 15

5.114 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts facilitates the provision, through the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman or Airservices Australia, of appropriate technical support for noise related issues to community representatives, including access to technical experts, where necessary.

Recommendation 16

5.122 The committee recommends that Airservices Australia builds upon work already undertaken to improve its community engagement framework by urgently developing robust processes for considering, responding to, and—where applicable—implementing outcomes of consultation processes.

Recommendation 17

5.129 The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigates international approaches to the provision of public information about aircraft and noise and flight movements, and alternative models for noise complaint handling services. The Noise Complaints and Information Service function should be removed from Airservices Australia. A replacement service should aim to provide a more effective service for community members and allow Airservices to concentrate on its core functions. The Government should consult with affected communities about what alternative body should handle complaints and what oversight should be provided to the complaints handling service.

Recommendation 18

6.74 The committee recommends that, as part of its review of the Airports Act 1996 and associated regulations, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts seeks to modernise the process and requirements for Airport Master Plans and Major Development Plans (MDPs), including by:

• increasing the threshold for MDPs to an amount that appropriately reflects increases in construction costs since the existing threshold was set;
  
• requiring all future Master Plans (and MDPs, where relevant) to include easily-understood noise mapping, such as N65 and N60 contours, while maintaining the requirement for an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast;
  
• requiring Master Plans and MDPs to demonstrate consistency with the National Airports Safeguarding Framework;
  
• including clearer guidelines for assessing noise impacts as part of the environmental assessment process;
  
• including a requirement for airports to outline noise mitigation strategies in their Master Plans and MDPs; and
  
• introducing a requirement that, for major projects with the highest noise and environmental impacts (such as new runways), airports must conduct a comprehensive review of the accuracy of predicted noise outcomes within five years of operation and report their findings publicly and to government.
  

Recommendation 19

6.143 The committee recommends the that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government of Australia issues a revised Statement of Expectations for Airservices Australia within six months which outlines the Government's expectation that Airservices will:

• abide by statutory noise sharing arrangements, including those outlined in the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) for Sydney Airport;
  
• adequately staff and support air traffic control, including to ensure noise mitigation procedures can be operationalised;
  
• adequately staff and support the organisation's engagement and operational areas to ensure the timely consideration of its Post Implementation Reviews, other consultations, and the timely implementation of noise mitigation strategies; and
  
• prioritise the urgent recruitment, retention and training of air traffic controllers to return its air traffic control service to pre-pandemic levels within 12 months.
  

Recommendation 20

6.148 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts works with Airservices Australia, the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and aviation industry stakeholders to create a modern, user-friendly website that provides a 'single source of truth' for the community. This process should include comprehensive community consultation.

Recommendation 21

6.156 The committee recommends that the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group considers adopting a mechanism to require planning authorities to proactively notify airport corporations of significant proposed new developments close to airports.

Hmm...a bit like being slapped with a wet lettuce...

Guess what will happen next??

And then...

...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Supplementary Estimates QON finally tabled?? - 

ASA:

93 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber93

94 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber94

95 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber95

96 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber96

97 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber97

98 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber98

132 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber132

133 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber133

134 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber134

135 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber135

136 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloadestimatesquestions61/EstimatesQuestion-CommitteeId7-EstimatesRoundId25-PortfolioId47-QuestionNumber136

137 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber137


CASA:

99 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber99

100 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber100

101 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber101

102 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber102

 Betsy's aviation & airport minions:

49 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber49

50 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber50

53 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber53

54 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber54

55 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber55

56 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber56

57 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...onNumber57

125 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber125

Question

1. In terms of the performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices that the Department conducts, what performance reporting and monitoring data has the Department collected and reviewed about Airservices' performance in actually reducing noise and reducing the health and wellbeing harms associated with noise pollution experienced by Brisbane communities?
a. Has Airservices managed to deliver any net noise reductions in Brisbane in the last four years as promised to communities?
2. The Noise Action Plan currently being rolled out by Airservices contains no impact metrics. Airservices have been asked through AAB, through BACACG, through BFPCA, and during engagement sessions since the NAB started, to install proper assessment metrics and impact KPIs and measures, yet they refuse and to this date there are no proper ways provided to objectively assess whether any net noise reductions have been achieved or will be achieved. What is the Department's position on this failure, and when will they intervene as part of their performance reporting and monitoring of Airservices?

126 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber126

127 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber127

Question

1. How many ''Complaints about failure to provide regulatory oversight for Airservices Australia'' has the Department received from the public since 2023 to now?
2. What are the allegations of these complaints submitted by community members?
3. How has the Department investigated and processed these complaints?
4. How has the Department responded to complainants?

128 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber128

Question

Has the Department sought resources in the forward estimates for a full and extensive review of the Airports Act 1996 and associated regulations beyond what was suggested in Initiatives 38 - 40 of the White Paper to address the Act's flawed and inequitable consultation and assessment processes?

129 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber129

Question

1. Is the Department's strategic planning focused on enshrining the World Health Organisation's (WHO) health related noise metrics in a fully reviewed 1996 Airports Act; Australian Standard AS2021:2015; the Airservices Australia ANEF approvals; and, in the National Airports Safeguarding Framework (NASF) applicable to all airports and military airfields in Australia?
a. If not, what are the forward plans for the Department properly considering modern, evidence informed noise metrics to mitigate noise harm?
2. Has the Department considered the long term national benefits of adopting the WHO researched international health related noise metrics?
3. How is the Department responding to recent recommendations on community health from the WHO that the following new health related aircraft noise metrics be introduced to mitigate noise harm:
a. maximum environmental night-time noise level below 40 db.
b. maximum environmental day-time noise level below 45 db, and
c. the inadequacy of all current aircraft noise metrics to properly protect the health and wellbeing of communities

130 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber130

131 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber131

138 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber138

139 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber139

140 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber140

141 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber141

142 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber142

146 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber146

Question

The announcement of initiative 40 to review the Airports Act 1996 by 2030 via a comprehensive review is welcomed.

Are there any decisions that could occur in the interim prior to 2030 when the review is to be finalised, that could undermine our federally leased airports across Australia?

147 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber147

Question

1. Who makes decisions about general aviation businesses on site at our Federally leased sites?
2. Who is the regulator of Federally Leased Airports?
3. What role does the Department see itself in terms of the regulating federally leased airports?

148 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber148

Question

1. What is the process within the Department to assess a Major Development Plan MDP?
2. What Departmental oversight occurs on the processes or outcomes between the Airport Leasing Company (ALC) and the Airport Building Controller ABC?
3. Does the Department audit the applications between any of the ALC and their respective ABC to ensure that compliance is maintained?
4. How would the Minister of the day have any oversight on the processes or outcomes between the ALC and the ABC if the Department does not have any oversight?
5. Are these costs ever audited?
6. What is to stop the ALC and ABC from colluding to negate the need for a MDP?
7. Are the ALC's allowed to develop the land at the airport?

149 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber149

Question

1. According to the ALC lease, when the ALC develops land at the airport, they are required to have regard to the actual and anticipated future growth in, and pattern of, traffic demand for the Airport. How is it that there is no oversight into what is occurring at these airports?
2. How does the Department ensure that the leases are adhered to?
3. When a permitted, non-aviation, development is proposed by an ALC the Department, the Regulator does not see these applications if the ALC and the ABC state that that none is required?

150 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber150

Question

1. In the Moorabbin Airport Masterplan for 2021, the Department was made aware that multiple aviation tenants who were either unable to obtain a lease from the airport or unable to obtain a lease longer than 5 years.
2. How does the Department ensure that ALC are in fact providing for the use of Airports as an airport and having regard to 'actual and anticipated future growth'?
3. How does the Department regulate what is occurring on federally leased airport sites?

151 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber151

Question

1. What Act of Parliament covers ALCs?
2. What triggers a Major Development Plan?
3. Did the Department provide advice to the Minister of the Day that a MDP for the Moorabbin Airport was not required?
4. If a non-aviation building meets the required construction threshold, then is a MDP required?
5. How does the ALC at Moorabbin meet their requirements of their Lease with the Commonwealth of Australia that they must provide for the use of the airport as an airport and have had regard to the actual and anticipated future growth in, and pattern of, traffic demand for the airport.

Download question
Answer Unanswered.

162 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber162

163 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber163

171 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber171

176 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber176

177 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber177

178 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber178

179 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber179

180 https://www.aph.gov.au/api/qon/downloade...nNumber180

Hmm...not holding my breath that any of those QON will be answered before the calling of the next election...

MTF...P2