[Peetwo]

The OneSky Great White Elephant emerges from the clouds - 




Via the Oz:

OneSky deal: Defence ‘pays more to get less’

The joint OneSKY project was saved only when Defence yielded to down-scoping it had previously rejected. Picture: Alex Coppel.

• The Australian
  
  
• 12:00AM May 7, 2018
  
• [size=undefined]3[/size]EAN HIGGINS
  
• [size=undefined]
  Reporter
  Sydney
  @EanHiggins
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

The $1.5 billion plan to integrate Australia’s military and civilian air traffic control and navigation systems nearly fell over when Defence refused to accept massive downgradings of the services the RAAF was to receive to keep its fin­ancial contribution within budget.

The joint OneSky project was saved only when Defence yielded to down-scoping it had previously rejected, including abandoning the original agreement with Airservices Australia to introduce new approach systems for Darwin and Townsville. Rather than have Defence air traffic controllers guide approaches to those two airfields with new OneSky technology installed at each of them, pilots will now be talked down by controllers in Brisbane.

While the scope of the equipment and services Defence will get out of OneSky will be sharply cut by up to $250 million, the total cost of Defence’s contribution has nonetheless blown out from $521m to $764m.

As late as February 18, documents released under Freedom of Information show Defence and Airservices Australia were in fierce disagreement.

That afternoon, one of Airservices Australia’s point men on OneSky, Paul Logan, wrote to Rear Admiral Anthony Dalton at Defence saying Airservices had “rejected the changes that are unacceptable” and it was necessary to consider whether “we need to meet tonight to determine whether this sidelines the agreement”.

Government-owned but aviation industry-funded Airservices runs the country’s civilian air traffic control and navigation system, which is separate from the RAAF’s systems.

OneSky, scheduled for introduction by 2025, is designed to integrate them with new state of the art technology.

The documents show testy exchanges, with one of Defence’s senior officers on the project, Group Captain Richard Haines, in August telling Airservices that Defence would not put any more money into OneSky unless convinced it was affordable which, he said, he did not think likely.

In another exchange, Captain Haines said one of Airservices’s down-scoping proposals was “completely at odds with the undertaking that Paul Logan has given”.

Six weeks after he first proposed the cuts, in November Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield wrote to Chief of Air Force Gavin Davies acknowledging that Defence “does not support the consolidation of Darwin and Townsville approach services into Airservices’ Brisbane facility”.

Mr Harfield warned Air Marshal Davies that without those cuts, “our assessment is that the remaining cost reductions will not achieve this outcome”, being to keep Defence’s contribution to its budgeted $521m.

A Defence spokesman yesterday said “consolidation of these approach services ensures the Defence component of the (One­Sky) project remains affordable, without compromising the integrity or safety of Defence air traffic services”.

The FOI documents were obtained by Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who said they showed the government was going to “get less for more”.

“Defence seems, on the evidence, to have paid $243m more for up to $250m less equipment,” Senator Patrick said.

“This equates to a half-billion dollar shift in price from the original program costs.

“We see government cutting health, education and aged-care spending, which is under intense scrutiny in the Senate, but Defence can wipe a quarter of a billion dollars from taxpayers’ ledger in the secret stroke of a pen.

“They were not forthcoming with this information under questioning at estimates — indeed they misled through omission.”

Despite leaks coming out of Defence and Airservices that the project was not going well, Mr Harfield repeatedly told senators, and The Australian, that the project was going to plan.

An Australian National Audit Office report in February found OneSky was running more than two years behind schedule, saying “delivery of (OneSky) may be impacted by dependent Airservices and Defence organisational in­efficiencies, driven by divergent goals, or lack of oversight and control”.

An Airservices spokeswoman said the organisation had been “completely transparent”.

And today also from 'that man' Higgins, via the Oz: 

Regionals to subsidise Defence bill

EAN HIGGINS
Airservices Australia will hit regional air service operators to help subsidise the cost of hosting military air traffic controllers.

---

Regional airlines to subsidise Defence bill

Airservices Australia will hit Top End regional air service operators with higher charges to subsidise the cost of hosting military air-traffic controllers in Brisbane to guide pilots flying into Darwin and Townsville.

The bizarre measure was part of a desperate bid by government-owned Airservices, which runs civilian air-traffic control, to keep Defence from dropping out of the troubled $1.5 billion OneSKY project to integrate the civilian and military airspace management systems with state-of-the-art technology by 2025.

Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick said Airservices would likely be grilled on the price increase when its officers next come before Senate estimates, including whether it breaches competition law about cross-subsidisation.

As revealed by The Australian last week, documents obtained by Senator Patrick under Freedom of Information law show last year Defence threatened to put no more money into OneSKY until it was convinced it was still affordable, something military chiefs doubted.

A massive blow-out in costs of the project, which has suffered a series of budget over-runs, disagreements, delays and questions about probity meant Defence could no longer get all the original benefits from OneSKY that had been agreed under the original deal with Airservices.

To keep Defence’s contribution to the budgeted $521 million, Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield proposed a series of “down-scoping” measures worth up to $250m.

These included not installing OneSKY approach services in Darwin and Townsville for military air-traffic controllers who now direct both civilian and ­military traffic at those airports, contrary to what had originally been agreed.

Rather, the Darwin and Townsville approach services would be “consolidated” in Brisbane, Mr Harfield proposed, and Airservices would host military controllers in its Brisbane centre for that purpose. Defence recoiled from the proposal, and Mr Harfield offered a sweetener: free office accommodation.

In September, he wrote to Chief of Air Force Gavin Davies: “I would like to reassure you that Airservices will provide, at no cost to Defence, the facility and equipment necessary in Brisbane.”

Eventually, Defence buckled and agreed to the consolidation to keep to the $521m budget, but subsequently, the federal government nonetheless agreed to give a further $243m to Defence for its side of the project, amounting to a half-billion-dollar loss of value for taxpayers.

Airservices funds its budget by charges on the aviation industry, and in the letter to Air Marshal Davies, Mr Harfield wrote: “We would intend to recover these costs (of hosting military controllers in Brisbane) by extending our existing charging regime at Darwin and Townsville for civilian aircraft.”

Senator Patrick said: “This somewhat flippant remark from the head of Airservices is very disturbing and indicates the organisation is out of touch with community expectation.”

Airservices spokesman Tim de Raadt refused to answer questions about the price-hike plans, including how much extra Airservices would charge air operators, whether the industry had been told, how the organisation justified charging the private air sector more, and whether it was sure this did not raise competition law issues.

Hmm...no comment - 


MTF...P2