[Peetwo]

Tardy, but tidy.

Finally, the DoIT word weasels have finished their AQON and they are good, very good.  Mind you the answers should be, considering the amount of time and care lavished on them.  But will anyone read through the entire offering?   Is it going to be a battle, or "Ok, thanks boys, that's just fine and dandy" from Heff?  It's going to come down to homework I expect.  The MM crew seem to have done theirs, lots of tidy corners, a little 'poetic' licence here and just a dab of legal sleight of hand there.  You could, if you were naive enough, take it as gospel and believe that development was a fine thing, which, provided you didn't want to run an aviation business or live in a quiet, clean, residential area free of heavy traffic, it is.  

But it's curious thing, just past Warwick farm, Liverpool way toward Holsworthy there is another 'reasonable' development looming on the residential horizon.  This too will cause no great inconvenience or bugger up anything, the word weasels assure us this is true.  Just like Bankstown and Archerfield, this development is touted to be highly beneficial: to whom, remains a mystery.

We shall have to wait and see what cards Heff has to play. 

Links below, for those who like puzzles.......

1    2    3

WOW that was quick, personally I thought the Mandarins would thumb their noses at that QON till Farmer Truss bought the (figuratively speaking) political farm...err thank you (I think ) M&M & Co..  

Got to hand it to the good RRAT Committee Secretariat they don't muck around when they put their mind to it...

As a gentle reminder I sent this little tweep on Wednesday 20 May...

.&.. lo and behold two days later we get the AQON...

But to the AQON to QON 125 where I totally agree with Old Tom that is the most comprehensive answer to a QON from the Murky Machiavellian Mandarin (& his cronies) that I think I have ever seen...   Passing strange for M&M is that IMO the QON has actually been over answered:

CHAIR: Could you provide to this committee the environmental approval that allowed that build-up to be done?


Mr Wilson: Certainly, Senator. I do not have it with me, but I can take that on notice.
…
Mr Mrdak: What we might do, Senator, is, if you could set out the issues, then we will answer what we can tonight or take them on notice and give you detailed answers. So, if you could give to us your questions or assertions.

CHAIR: As you know, the destruction of this flood plain is going to have an affect on the residential people in the area in the event of a flood incident. It is going to have a serious impact on the people who have had nothing to do with this dodgy deal, but who happen to live adjacent. The flood plain has been filled and the flood has to go somewhere. The council knows about it and the guys that did it knew about it as they were doing it. To add to that the fill, which was the cheapest that they could
find, is full of contaminated material, which allegedly was supposed to be supervised under the environment approval process. I rest my case. You have a problem, boys.

Mr Mrdak: Senator, with those matters, we will take them up and come back to you with a detailed response.

     
Finally for mine one of the key points of interest from the AQON was this part:

Other issues raised in recent Ministerial correspondence

7. Proposal from aviation tenants to ‘buy out’ the Airport lease from BAL [this issue was also raised by

Senators Heffernan and Fawcett in June 2014]

• BAL holds a 50 year lease (to 2048) over the Airport site, with an option to renew for a further 49

years.

• BAL has not been found to be in breach of its lease, and there is no cause to terminate the lease.

• This proposal appears to seek to split the Airport site into smaller blocks of land. It is not the

Commonwealth’s intention to split the Airport lease, nor would the Commonwealth consider resuming

responsibility for the maintenance of aviation assets in the manner implied.

• Proponents wishing to take over the Airport lease would need to approach BAL in the first instance.

• If BAL agreed to the sale of the lease of Bankstown Airport, the Airports Act 1996 sets out restrictions

on acquisition and transfer of airport leases.

• There is a process for the airport lessee company to transfer the lease:

o It is a decision for the airport lessee company, not the Commonwealth.

o The lease would be transferred as a whole to a new airport lessee company which would step into the

role of BAL.

• The Commonwealth would need to review the proposed ownership structure and be satisfied that any

foreign ownership or cross ownership was consistent with the Airports Regulations 1997.

• An airport lease must not be transferred without the written approval of the Minister (s24(1) Airports

Act 1996).

• The Minister may refuse consent on several grounds (s2.02 Airports Regulations 1997), including:

(a) that the proposed transferee does not have the financial strength and managerial capabilities

necessary to:

(i) operate and develop the airport over the remainder of the lease period; or

(ii) provide high-quality airport services consistently with the sound development of civil

aviation;

 
Hmm...fascinating the machinations of Ministers their minions & Mandarins...

MTF..P2