[Kharon]

Is the magic carpet burning?

Got feel for Heff, frustration is too mild a word.  It is a long, long time to next estimates and he can't really put anyone on oath and cross examine with serious intent of bringing charges.  I reckon he'd have the Murky Machiavellian crew in the box for a long time, thumbscrews would be the least of it.  

Not sure if the Bankstown 'Master plan' will now be executed as the field is once again up for sale.  But close scrutiny of that plan is a shocker; there is a mares nest of 'legislation' to untangle, that of itself in a hellish job; but while that is happening, the conveniently drafted 'approval' clauses which rely simply on the work being completed will steal the march, hard and expensive to start removing completed works.  The seek forgiveness, not permission wheeze is definitely on the marked cards.   The notes below are not finished, I started to do them for estimates; but time beat me.  I'll file them for later, perhaps if Heff gets cranky enough he'll call for some kind of inquiry then it will be worth tearing the AQoN apart.  FWIW notes and stray thoughts - with (maybe) MTF.  You'll need the AQoN to follow my scribbles - 

Careful reading of the AQoN (re Q125) provides an interesting adventure into the word weasels world; it truly does.  If, and it is a big IF, everything is as 'on the square' as represented then the need for extreme, finely tuned, carefully scripted, much delayed explanation would not be needed.  The sheer volume of the answer suggests that the patina of respectability is a carefully applied coat of wax on a mudguard.  

For starters, I would like to see the survey data which defines the slightly glib Americanism 'precinct'; as being a humble 13% of the total area is claimed as the "SWP".  If the provided maps are representative and my high school maths are not rusted solid, I would beg to differ.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 (Pages 5 - 6) are representative of a hand tooled, work shop answer. There is just enough 'truth' in there to persuade the reader that it can be skimmed through.  That would be an error as the words avoid conflict, while providing the legal eagles a smorgasbord of choice.  It is all nicely, albeit finely balanced.  But, for my two bob, if I were Heff, I'd be seeking a second opinion; on all of it.

I rather like page 10 – General requirements.  I has a certain, Oh, je ne sais quoi; blithe statements abound, like; that 'borrow' pits must be refilled, furry muff, but fails to state with what or where that fill will come from.  Surface water is all headed down to the water table, even the water from the 'sealed' Asphalt and concrete sections, has to go somewhere and down is the natural path – sooner or later.  Paragraph 9 tickles my fancy – it begs the question – 'but if they are not, what then?, Para 10 same – same; after the party is over, we'll check it out to make certain every little thing is just as it should be; after you have done it.  Can we have an independent civil engineer please, just to be sure; to be sure?

Eventually, you arrive at page 20 – more 'general requirements' and they are general, with enough space to drive a horse cart through, at a gallop.  Civil engineer/pilot mate has a hilarious take on the strikethrough of paragraph 2.  Alas, I regret not for publication.

[the] Airport Building Controller (ABC)

Building and works approvals are issued by the ABC in consultation with the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) and in reference to the provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the associated regulations – Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 and Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997.

o The ABC is contracted to the Department to undertake functions on behalf of the Commonwealth on Commonwealth owned airport land.

o Approvals can be issued with conditions attached, including conditions relating to environmental issues based on specialist advice such as that provided by the AEO.

The ABC works permits (Attachments A and B) note the approvals have ‘effect until’ 23 March and 5 August 2011. This is the date by which works must have ‘substantially commenced’ in order for the permit to remain open. ABC approvals do not expire.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has no operation in relation to land use planning and building control on Bankstown Airport. This is the consequence of s 112 of the Airports Act and the Building Control Regulations.

112  Exclusion of State laws
(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State.
(2) In particular, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State relating to:
(a) land use planning; or
(b) the regulation of building activities.

[Peetwo]

Is the magic carpet burning?

Got to feel for Heff, frustration is too mild a word.  It is a long, long time to next estimates and he can't really put anyone on oath and cross examine with serious intent of bringing charges.  I reckon he'd have the Murky Machiavellian crew in the box for a long time, thumbscrews would be the least of it.  

Not sure if the Bankstown 'Master plan' will now be executed as the field is once again up for sale.  But close scrutiny of that plan is a shocker; there is a mares nest of 'legislation' to untangle, that of itself in a hellish job; but while that is happening, the conveniently drafted 'approval' clauses which rely simply on the work being completed will steal the march, hard and expensive to start removing completed works.  The seek forgiveness, not permission wheeze is definitely on the marked cards.   The notes below are not finished, I started to do them for estimates; but time beat me.  I'll file them for later, perhaps if Heff gets cranky enough he'll call for some kind of inquiry then it will be worth tearing the AQoN apart.  FWIW notes and stray thoughts - with (maybe) MTF.  You'll need the AQoN to follow my scribbles - 

Careful reading of the AQoN (re Q125) provides an interesting adventure into the word weasels world; it truly does.  If, and it is a big IF, everything is as 'on the square' as represented then the need for extreme, finely tuned, carefully scripted, much delayed explanation would not be needed.  The sheer volume of the answer suggests that the patina of respectability is a carefully applied coat of wax on a mudguard.  

For starters, I would like to see the survey data which defines the slightly glib Americanism 'precinct'; as being a humble 13% of the total area is claimed as the "SWP".  If the provided maps are representative and my high school maths are not rusted solid, I would beg to differ.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 (Pages 5 - 6) are representative of a hand tooled, work shop answer. There is just enough 'truth' in there to persuade the reader that it can be skimmed through.  That would be an error as the words avoid conflict, while providing the legal eagles a smorgasbord of choice.  It is all nicely, albeit finely balanced.  But, for my two bob, if I were Heff, I'd be seeking a second opinion; on all of it.

I rather like page 10 – General requirements.  I has a certain, Oh, je ne sais quoi; blithe statements abound, like; that 'borrow' pits must be refilled, furry muff, but fails to state with what or where that fill will come from.  Surface water is all headed down to the water table, even the water from the 'sealed' Asphalt and concrete sections, has to go somewhere and down is the natural path – sooner or later.  Paragraph 9 tickles my fancy – it begs the question – 'but if they are not, what then?, Para 10 same – same; after the party is over, we'll check it out to make certain every little thing is just as it should be; after you have done it.  Can we have an independent civil engineer please, just to be sure; to be sure?

Eventually, you arrive at page 20 – more 'general requirements' and they are general, with enough space to drive a horse cart through, at a gallop.  Civil engineer/pilot mate has a hilarious take on the strikethrough of paragraph 2.  Alas, I regret not for publication.

[the] Airport Building Controller (ABC)

Building and works approvals are issued by the ABC in consultation with the Airport Environment Officer (AEO) and in reference to the provisions of the Airports Act 1996 and the associated regulations – Airports (Building Control) Regulations 1996 and Airports (Environment Protection) Regulations 1997.

o The ABC is contracted to the Department to undertake functions on behalf of the Commonwealth on Commonwealth owned airport land.

o Approvals can be issued with conditions attached, including conditions relating to environmental issues based on specialist advice such as that provided by the AEO.

The ABC works permits (Attachments A and B) note the approvals have ‘effect until’ 23 March and 5 August 2011. This is the date by which works must have ‘substantially commenced’ in order for the permit to remain open. ABC approvals do not expire.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 has no operation in relation to land use planning and building control on Bankstown Airport. This is the consequence of s 112 of the Airports Act and the Building Control Regulations.

112  Exclusion of State laws
(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State.
(2) In particular, it is the intention of the Parliament that this Part is to apply to the exclusion of a law of a State relating to:
(a) land use planning; or
(b) the regulation of building activities.

Very interesting "K", by the sound of it you are a lot more 'in the know' on this than most..

Hitch also mentioned this in his weekly wrap:

Bankstown and Camden Airports are back on the market, with the holding company looking to off-load the leases for both. Reports say there was an aborted attempt to sell both back in 2012, but it was canceled when the shareholders decided to hold out for "a better sale environment." So, apparently that's now. There have been reports in mainstream media that the airports are up for sale. That can't happen as the consortium doesn't own the land, just the leases on the land and the development opportunities that brings. It does make you wonder, though, what conditions have changed that make the sale a better option in 2015 than it was in 2012. The more mischevious out there might say the only change is that the consortium is more desperate now.

  
Got a feeling there will be much MTF on this matter....P2

[thorn bird]

Passing strange?
Our political masters are elected allegedly to serve the "Public Interest"
Property sharks are known to make enormous contributions to political parties.
Are these contributions because they share the ideals of these parties?
Wouldn't seem so as they make contributions to all parties no matter what colour they are.
To extend that question
Are these contributions made to encourage the political parties in their quest to better serve the public interest?
All very magnanimous.
Being rather cynical, its not too hard to imagine that perhaps these donations are made, more to encourage the political parties to better serve the developers interests than the publics.
It occurs to me that many say the Federal Airort, sorry Airports Act takes precedence over the Airport head leases.
Yet the act was written before the leases were signed.
The same government who wrote the act wrote the leases.
There are many clauses in these leases that define what a lessee can and cant do, there are also clauses which state categorically that State Law applies with regard to these leases.
Why on earth would these clauses be included if they could be overridden by the Act?
Were these clauses just for show? never intended to be complied with?
All passing strange.

[Peetwo]

Passing strange?
Our political masters are elected allegedly to serve the "Public Interest"
Property sharks are known to make enormous contributions to political parties.
Are these contributions because they share the ideals of these parties?
Wouldn't seem so as they make contributions to all parties no matter what colour they are.
To extend that question
Are these contributions made to encourage the political parties in their quest to better serve the public interest?
All very magnanimous.
Being rather cynical, its not too hard to imagine that perhaps these donations are made, more to encourage the political parties to better serve the developers interests than the publics.
It occurs to me that many say the Federal Airort, sorry Airports Act takes precedence over the Airport head leases.
Yet the act was written before the leases were signed.
The same government who wrote the act wrote the leases.
There are many clauses in these leases that define what a lessee can and cant do, there are also clauses which state categorically that State Law applies with regard to these leases.
Why on earth would these clauses be included if they could be overridden by the Act?
Were these clauses just for show? never intended to be complied with?
All passing strange.

"All roads lead to Rome Moorebank"

Interesting Thorny when you talk about contributions to political parties??- I came across a fascinating passage of Hansard - from last week's Thursday session in the Federation Chamber - about another Federal block of land upstream on the Georges river from your beloved Bankstown Airport.

Courtesy of the Member for Hughes Mr Craig Kelly MP (take note of the last paragraph in bold ):

I take this opportunity to rise to speak about a proposal to develop a concrete recycling plant in my electorate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot think of a more inappropriate location than what has been proposed. The proposed location is actually between a beautiful new housing estate on the Georges River called Georges Fair, where many young families have moved in, and an area proposed as a marina—a $200 million development that will open up the Georges River in south-west Sydney. In between, there is a proposal to dump a concrete recycling plant.


I have spoken many times in this parliament about particulate matter, and that is one specific issue I would like to raise in relation to this development. Particulate matter is a combination of extremely small solid particles and liquid droplets that are found in the air—things like dust and smoke. Concrete recycling plants are one of the largest emitters of particulate matter in our society.

Why should we be concerned about particulate matter? It has already been known for many years that air pollution and particulate matter increase the risk of diseases, especially respiratory and heart diseases, but in 2013 the International Agency for Research on Cancer actually classified particulate matter as a cancer-causing agent. Their evaluation showed that an increasing risk of lung cancer with increasing levels of exposure to outdoor air pollution and particulate matter was absolutely established. In 2005 the World Health Organization issued a global update on particular matter. They noted:

… an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations. This is especially true of airborne particulate matter.

After undertaking a review of all the accumulated scientific evidence, they published guidelines on thresholds for particulate matter measurements in our cities. For what is called particulate matter 10, which is the largest size of the dust, they said that annual average exposure should not be any more than 20 microns per cubic metre. For the smallest size of particulate matter, 2.5, which is considered a greater risk to health because it is smaller and easily absorbed into your lungs and respiratory system, they set a standard of 10 microns per cubic metre. But they noted that, even though they set these thresholds, there is no level below which adverse effects do not occur. They stressed that even those guideline values could not fully protect human health.

Now we come to this development proposal. Using the developer's own numbers, what the developer proposes will substantially increase the particulate-matter exposure to local residents. Using their own numbers for PM10, they will push particulate-matter exposure above those World Health Organization guidelines.

For PM2.5, even though there is very little discussion in the developer's proposal, we can assume they will also push particulate-matter exposure above World Health Organization standards. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that residents anywhere should have to put up with a development—in their backyards—that exposes them to an increase in particulate matter that is above the thresholds established by the World Health Organization.

How has this proposal got so far? Firstly, the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has a complete fixation with climate change. They have taken their eye off the ball on particulate matter. This guideline they set for particulate matter is not 20 microns per cubic metre, as an annual average, it is 30. There are simply no assessment standards, whatsoever, to assess PM2.5. Not one. The assessment standards in New South Wales are completely unsatisfactory and completely out of touch. They go back to 1997. They do not take recent scientific discoveries into consideration. We could also ask how this development has got so far.

We went through some of the political donations. We found that the proponent of this concrete-recycling plant was, during the time the rezoning occurred, a major donator of the Labor Party. We went through the Australian Electoral Commission. We have cash donations from the developer—of $8,800, $22,000, $15,000 and $8,000—to the New South Wales Labor Party. And we wonder why this is being recycled. We call on the Planning Assessment Commission to reject this development completely.

  
Intermodal co-nuptials - 'safe skies are empty, polluted skies'.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Interesting Thorny when you talk about contributions to political parties??- I came across a fascinating passage of Hansard - from last week's Thursday session in the Federation Chamber - about another Federal block of land upstream on the Georges river from your beloved Bankstown Airport.

Courtesy of the Member for Hughes Mr Craig Kelly MP (take note of the last paragraph in bold ):

We went through some of the political donations. We found that the proponent of this concrete-recycling plant was, during the time the rezoning occurred, a major donator of the Labor Party. We went through the Australian Electoral Commission. We have cash donations from the developer—of $8,800, $22,000, $15,000 and $8,000—to the New South Wales Labor Party. And we wonder why this is being recycled. We call on the Planning Assessment Commission to reject this development completely.

  
Intermodal co-nuptials - 'safe skies are empty, polluted skies'.

All roads & railways lead to Moorebank

A presser off the miniscule's website this AM:

Agreement reached for Sydney freight project at Moorebank

Media Release
WT165/2015
04 June 2015

Joint release with:
Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance
 
The Government's Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) has signed an agreement with the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) for the development of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.

The agreement will see SIMTA develop and operate an intermodal freight terminal and warehousing across both Commonwealth and SIMTA-owned land at Moorebank, with direct rail access to Port Botany via the Southern Sydney Freight Line. Combining the site into a single development optimises the outcomes and minimises taxpayer exposure.
SIMTA is a consortium which represents two of Australia's largest logistics companies, Qube Holdings and Aurizon Holdings.

The facility will include an import-export terminal with ultimate capacity to handle up to 1.05 million containers a year and a separate interstate terminal that will ultimately have capacity for up to 500,000 containers a year.

SIMTA will provide up to $1.5 billion in private investment for the project. Leveraging that significant private sector investment means the Commonwealth's commitment, through MIC, will be limited to around $370 million instead of around $900 million under the previous government's business plan.

This new, major interstate terminal will get more freight off our highways and onto rail, driving significant improvements in national productivity. There will be open access for rail operators and other users of the Moorebank facility to promote competition.

The total economic benefits of the project are estimated at close to $9 billion, including relieving traffic congestion on Sydney's roads, reducing costs to business and better environmental outcomes. 

Over 1,300 jobs will be created during the construction phase, with up to 7,700 jobs created mainly in South-West Sydney once the intermodal terminal precinct is fully developed.

Environmental and planning approvals are being sought for the combined precinct, to address community concerns and minimise any potential adverse impacts on local residents and businesses.

The planning process will require the project to contribute over time to local traffic intersections where the project will add pressure and require environmental offset investment in green corridors around the facility to enhance the biodiversity and ensure conservation of important vegetation.

Subject to the approvals by the Commonwealth and state planning and environment authorities, work on the project will begin this year and the Moorebank intermodal terminal is planned to be operational from late 2017. Further information about the project can be found at: www.micl.com.au.

9 billion reasons (+9000 jobs) why Bankstown Airport is doomed...

MTF...P2

Ps Like to see the political donation trail on that deal...

[thorn bird]

"Ps Like to see the political donation trail on that deal... Huh"
I imagine just what is "discoverable" would keep you and I in reasonable comfort for the rest of our lives. What's not? well I guess that would be answered by the number of new houses etc. bought by the various pollies and mandarins.
One thing for sure, none of them would be anywhere near Moorebank.
Now who's electorate was it over near Botany that suffers from traffic congestion from port botany? Hmm??
Moving the congestion to someone else's electorate it would seem.
Pity the poor punters in Moorebank and surrounds,a few lighties over their houses pales into insignificance next to thousands of trucks 24/7 past their front windows.

[Peetwo]

While we're waiting to see where the Heff (& Senator Fawcett) heads with the dodgy deals inquiry & Secondary Airports campaign, I came across a topical & inspirational article from popular US Pilot publication AvWeb, that IMO show some remarkable parallels...  -  A Tale of Two Aviation Lawsuits

The following is the first part of the AvWeb article:

The month of May brought verdicts in two lawsuits, providing some good news to those who care about aviation, users of airports and the value of small, general aviation airports to our country as a whole.

By Rick Durden | June 7, 2015



“Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits. Fanatics will never learn that, though it be written in letters of gold across the sky. It is the prohibition that makes anything precious.” Mark Twain

The month of May brought some good news to those who care about aviation, users of airports and the value of small, general aviation airports to our country as a whole. The trials of two lawsuits due to, in my opinion, some of Mark Twain’s fanatics, seeking prohibition of an airport long recognized as a regional asset, in one case, and a popular, long-established commercial skydiving operation, in the other, concluded with resounding written verdicts by the trial judges in favor of the airport and the skydiving operator.

While trial court verdicts, even if written, have far less value as legal precedent than those from courts of appeal and Supreme Courts, the written opinions in each case included clear explanations of the sometimes esoteric law affecting flyover noise and airports as well as a ringing affirmation of the value of general aviation airports to the general public.

Solberg-Hunterdon Airport, New Jersey (N51)

Following a 48-day bench trial (trial before a judge, no jury, so the judge makes findings of fact and law) over the issue of whether the Township of Readington, New Jersey’s attempt to take over the Solberg Airport via eminent domain, the judge ruled against the Township and in favor of the airport owners in one of the most harshly-worded opinions that has ever been my pleasure to read.

Judge Armstrong opened with a finding that the Township’s condemnation plan “was orchestrated to prevent airport expansion under the pretexutal banner of open space policy amounting to a manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain. Moreover, the resulting lack of transparency in the Township’s action subverted the political process and weakened private property rights protection.”

Powerful stuff—but the judge was only firing an opening salvo in his exposure of the tactics used by Township personnel to destroy the commercial viability of an historic general aviation airport and wipe out the livelihood of its private owners/operators. The tactics included, but were not limited to, hiring a public relations firm to actively spread disinformation about the airport and its owners to inflame community fears about the airport and using the subterfuge of open space acquisition to condemn and take over the airport through eminent domain proceedings.

Judge Armstrong related some of the history of the airport in his Opinion as part of his findings of the value of the airport to the community and State of New Jersey. Founded as an intermodal transportation facility for the region’s general aviation needs by aviation pioneer Thor Solberg, Sr. in 1939, Solberg-Hunterdon is a 726-acre, privately owned airport open to the public. It was later designated as a reliever airport for Newark’s Liberty Airport. The National Air Transport Association designated it as one of the nation’s 100 most-needed airports.



As time went by, population increased and use of the airport increased—as did use of roads in the area. The Airport owners planned for growth to handle the increased need for its service to the public.

Anti-airport forces in the Township of Readington blocked all attempts for extensions of the two runways, including approving paving of one runway to a length of just under 4000 feet and then reneging on the deal and physically stopping the paving when 3000 feet had been completed—creating a potential safety hazard as most general aviation piston-powered twins have an accelerate-stop distance of over 3000 feet on a standard day.

After the airport published its Master Plan calling for a paved, 5600-foot runway, the Township began a complicated series of actions to condemn and acquire much of the land around the airport to prevent any runway extension. The actions would destroy the commercial viability of the airport and put the Solberg family out of business. The eminent domain actions evolved into a complete taking of the Airport under a claim by the Township that it would preserve open space while the Township would continue to run the airport as a recreational facility.

In the meantime, the Township’s PR firm was actively carrying out a campaign against the Solbergs and the Airport. Websites and flyers played on public fears of “jets” at the Airport—without mentioning that the jets that could use the airport were usually quieter than many of the airplanes currently capable of using it.

Much of the verdict reached by Judge Armstrong was based on New Jersey law, although much of it is consistent with the law of other states. The judge explained that when a Township takes action to acquire property for public use under eminent domain, there is a presumption that its action is proper—which can only be “reversed on improper motives, bad faith, or some other consideration amounting to manifest abuse of the power of eminent domain.” That erected a very high hurdle for the Solbergs to clear to prevent the Airport from being taken from them.

After hearing the testimony and examining hundreds of pieces of evidence, the judge ruled that the Solbergs had not only cleared the legal hurdle, they had provided enough objective evidence to enter low earth orbit.


Solberg-Hunterdon Airport


Judge Armstrong ruled that, “objective evidence depicts nothing less than deliberate subterfuge on the part of Readington Township in its efforts to obfuscate the desire to preclude airport expansion under the auspice of environmental policy solely in response to community fears regarding the proposed use of the airport.”

The judge went on to rule that “Township officials testimony was un-forthright, evasive, nonresponsive, untrustworthy, argumentative, lacking credibility and therefore unworthy of belief.” The judge said that the Township used a “sophisticated PR process that demonized the Airport by disseminating a catalogue of fears and appeals to mistrust which characterized Airport operations and a 5600-foot runway as much like the jets used by Continental out of Newark.”

I couldn’t help but wonder whether New Jersey law allows a private right of action against Township officials, personally, when thy act in egregious violation of their fiduciary duties and obligations.

Value of General Aviation

What struck me as important to our national airspace system and network and the aviation community beyond the arguably criminal actions of the Township officials, was the trial judge’s express recognition of the value of Solberg and other, small general aviation airports to the State of New Jersey and the United States.

In response to the Township’s incredible assertion that Solberg Airport provided no public benefit, the judge started by saying that it has long been the law that land may be taken through eminent domain to build an airport because an airport serves a public benefit.

The judge went on to say that general aviation provides services that airlines cannot and enumerated a list of such benefits, including emergency medical services, fire fighting, time-sensitive air cargo and flight instruction. There is a national system of general aviation airports that are interconnected and interdependent, involved in a national plan of an integrated airport system that is open to the public. General aviation airports support commerce and provide a safety net for emergency aircraft services. The judge referenced a New Jersey general aviation study that said that general aviation airports provide benefits to the surrounding community without providing economic rewards to the airport owners—general aviation airports contribute to the quality of life of the community as well as positively impacting the local economy.

The judge went beyond hard economics in describing the benefits of general aviation airports by ruling that they are the “cradle of aviation” for our country, essential to its economic vitality and national security by providing “the laboratories of flight where future airline and military pilots are born.” On page 37 of the Opinion, Judge Armstrong touched on some of the intangibles: “Finally, there is a certain freedom that defines general aviation. Men and women throughout history gazed longingly at the soaring effortless freedom of birds, pondering release from the symbolic bondage of gravity. Only here can a man or woman walk onto some old farmer’s field and turn dreams into reality.

As Charles Lindbergh once said: ‘What freedom lies in flying, what Godlike power it gives to men . . . I lose all consciousness in this strong unmortal space crowded with beauty, pierced with danger.’”


Santa arrives at Solberg-Hunterdon Airport

Judge Armstrong went on to rule, “Thus, general aviation airports serve a myriad of public purposes. The record substantiates the importance of general aviation and Solberg Airport’s role in particular. The Defendant (Solbergs) offered documentary and testimonial evidence, which this Court found persuasive in its determination of public purpose. The objective evidence demonstrated that general aviation generates over a billion dollars in revenue and creates thousands of jobs across the state. It has a substantial economic impact on communities and contributes directly to local business transportation capability.

The evidence also demonstrated that New Jersey’s general aviation infrastructure provides many health, welfare, and social benefits: emergency medical services, schools, fire and emergency services, law enforcement, tour operators, and traffic surveillance directly benefit from general aviation airports.

Judge Armstrong’s words are moving and inspiring to those of us who have fought what sometimes feels like a rearguard action to keep airports open. The ruling provides powerful ammunition when we explain the value of general aviation airports to those who do not understand the worth of the little airport at the edge of town and seek to close it. I recommend reading the Opinion and keeping it close for reference in the future.   

And this was the AvWeb (feel good) conclusion for both cases...

Conclusion

As one who has worked on airport access and noise matters, I’ve interviewed a number of people who have complained bitterly about aircraft noise—at least one time in circumstances where the noise around us was well in excess of aircraft flyover noise. In many instances, the complainers were not offended by a motorcycle going by at over 60 dB or by a loud lawnmower next door. However, if they could see an airplane, they would object to the noise—even if others couldn’t hear it. Irrational people? Perhaps. Desiring to prohibit something enjoyed lawfully by others? Absolutely.

The two recent cases demonstrated that there are some good laws for aviation in existence, and there is significant evidence supporting the value of general aviation in the U.S. I hope the cases will provide ammunition for those who are trying to support airports and aviation against those who are committed to preventing general aviation from existing—reforming other people’s habits. The two cases also demonstrated that a determined minority who sadly, appear to believe what they believe against objective evidence to the contrary, can make life terrible and hideously expensive for those who are pursing the dreams of legitimate, legal aeronautical activities such as running little airports and skydiving.

That these lawsuits happened is a sad commentary on empowering the, in my opinion, irrational. For all of us who care about aviation and our national airspace system, the massive costs borne by those who successfully defended general aviation has meant two rulings that should prove helpful in the battles to come.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

All roads & railways lead to Moorebank


A presser off the miniscule's website this AM:

Agreement reached for Sydney freight project at Moorebank

Media Release
WT165/2015
04 June 2015

Joint release with:
Mathias Cormann
Minister for Finance
 
The Government's Moorebank Intermodal Company (MIC) has signed an agreement with the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance (SIMTA) for the development of the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal.

The agreement will see SIMTA develop and operate an intermodal freight terminal and warehousing across both Commonwealth and SIMTA-owned land at Moorebank, with direct rail access to Port Botany via the Southern Sydney Freight Line. Combining the site into a single development optimises the outcomes and minimises taxpayer exposure.
SIMTA is a consortium which represents two of Australia's largest logistics companies, Qube Holdings and Aurizon Holdings.

The facility will include an import-export terminal with ultimate capacity to handle up to 1.05 million containers a year and a separate interstate terminal that will ultimately have capacity for up to 500,000 containers a year.

SIMTA will provide up to $1.5 billion in private investment for the project. Leveraging that significant private sector investment means the Commonwealth's commitment, through MIC, will be limited to around $370 million instead of around $900 million under the previous government's business plan.

This new, major interstate terminal will get more freight off our highways and onto rail, driving significant improvements in national productivity. There will be open access for rail operators and other users of the Moorebank facility to promote competition.

The total economic benefits of the project are estimated at close to $9 billion, including relieving traffic congestion on Sydney's roads, reducing costs to business and better environmental outcomes. 

Over 1,300 jobs will be created during the construction phase, with up to 7,700 jobs created mainly in South-West Sydney once the intermodal terminal precinct is fully developed.

Environmental and planning approvals are being sought for the combined precinct, to address community concerns and minimise any potential adverse impacts on local residents and businesses.

The planning process will require the project to contribute over time to local traffic intersections where the project will add pressure and require environmental offset investment in green corridors around the facility to enhance the biodiversity and ensure conservation of important vegetation.

Subject to the approvals by the Commonwealth and state planning and environment authorities, work on the project will begin this year and the Moorebank intermodal terminal is planned to be operational from late 2017. Further information about the project can be found at: www.micl.com.au.

 MONEY TALKS - Err..."division required??"

Reflecting on the nearly 2 week old presser (above) from the miniscule's office, I note that the member for Hughes made an interesting Federation Chamber Constituency Statement, which he then expanded on in an Adjournment speech yesterday in the H of R...

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (10:57): Last week, there was a great deal of fanfare and hoopla about the announcement between the Moorebank Intermodal Company and the SIMTA Consortium on a financial deal for the proposed Moorebank intermodal terminal. It should be noted that this is not the final go-ahead; it still has to go through all the environmental and planning approvals. During the last week there has been a lot of talk about the premise that this is going ahead which is based on three simple ideas. Firstly, it will take trucks off the road; secondly, it will reduce pollution costs; and, thirdly, it will save costs to the economy. If you do any type of analysis of those three premises, you will find that they are all completely and utterly misguided and mistaken. Firstly, take the concept that it would take trucks off the road. That is a very simplistic idea—that you take the trucks off the road and put them on rail. That seems to be a wonderful solution but that occurs only if you are taking containers and dumping them in a big hole at Moorebank. You have to consider where the containers are actually going and where the goods are actually going.  

When it comes to an analysis of those questions, the Moorebank Intermodal Company put out a map of Sydney showing where the containers go which was simply and utterly misleading. The map creates the false impression that there is a large and existing market for containers in Sydney to go to Moorebank when any further analysis of where the containers go simply shows that that is factually incorrect. The majority of the containers from Port Botany that are distributed around Sydney currently go to three basic areas: they go around the Enfield area, they go to the Eastern Creek area or they go the Wetherill Park area.  

Moorebank as an area for containers currently being delivered to has simply been rejected by the market. Very few containers actually go today from Port Botany to Moorebank. By locating the intermodal terminal at Moorebank, the idea is that the containers would go from Port Botany to Moorebank, be unloaded and then put onto the road and taken out to Wetherill Park or Eastern Creek. This is simply completely illogical. It will not take containers off the road; it simply transfers the starting point from Port Botany and transfers that to Moorebank. Port Botany, yes, there is road congestion there, but there is far greater road congestion in the Moorebank area and in Western Sydney. This is a very bad idea.

Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (21:05): I would like to continue from where I was speaking this morning on a few mistaken concepts surrounding the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. The first is that it takes trucks off the road, the second is that it reduces pollution and the third is that it will save costs—all simplistic, motherhood statements, but when you dig down to the facts they are all completely misguided.

Firstly is the idea that it takes trucks off the road. You need to look at where the containers actually go in Sydney and you also need to look at where the goods from those containers go to work out that this will not take trucks off the road. It will simply relocate the starting point for those containers from Port Botany out to Moorebank.

The goods still have to get on the road and there are two ways that can happen. Firstly, the containers will be transported and relocated from the site. Rather than currently, where a container goes directly by truck from Port Botany to, say, Eastern Creek or to the Wetherill Park area, where most of the containers go in Sydney, the idea is that it will actually go on a train all the way around to Moorebank. It will then be unloaded from the train, put on a stack and then put on another truck and trucked from Moorebank up to Wetherill Park or Eastern Creek. This does not take trucks off the road; it puts trucks on the road. It increases the congestion in Western Sydney.

The other possibility is that the containers are actually unpacked on site and distributed from Moorebank. Again, that fails to take trucks off the road because Moorebank is too far away from the demographic centre of Sydney. The demographic centre of Sydney is around the Parramatta area. If you look, that demographic centre actually becomes a proxy for where the centre of distribution of goods will be. This is why we see the majority of the containers going into Eastern Creek, or going into the Wetherill Park area, because they are the closest major industrial areas to the demographic heart of Sydney. Instead of distributing those goods from a warehouse in those areas, if you move your distribution point down to Moorebank, your smaller trucks have more miles of Sydney to cover than they otherwise would. By all accounts, the idea that it takes trucks off the road is simply and completely mistaken.

The second failed concept is that this somehow reduces pollution in Western Sydney. It is true that if you move goods on rail, as compared to road, you use less diesel fuel. In fact, using the proponents' own numbers, you use half the diesel fuel. So, yes, it is true that with just the container movement compared to road movement, you will reduce carbon dioxide emissions—that clear, odourless, harmless gas that makes the plants grow. The real dangerous air pollution is fine and coarse particulate matter that causes lung cancer, heart disease and childhood asthma, and kills thousands of people in Sydney every single year. By taking a container off a truck and putting it on these old locomotives, these 40- and 50-year old locomotives, without any pollution controls actually increases the pollution almost tenfold. It does not double it. It does not triple it. It is almost a tenfold increase in particulate matter pollution for moving that container into Western Sydney.

The third failed logical idea of this is that it will save costs. An intermodal concept of shuffling goods out to Western Sydney is simply a case of double-handling. You have a second lift. You have to lift at the port and you also have a lift at the intermodal. We also have the costs. Moorebank is located almost on an island around the Georges River. For this project to have any hope of working—for the containers to have any hope at all of getting out of that side of Moorebank—we need almost a $750 million upgrade to access the M5. The current bridge across the M5 takes 120,000 cars a day. Compare that to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which takes 160,000. Can you imagine fully laden semitrailers trying to merge into traffic on the Harbour Bridge and then merge across lanes? This is the insanity that they are trying to do at Moorebank. Without that $150 million, at least, upgrade the terminal will simply not work; it will be a white elephant.

And there is the opportunity cost. This money should be invested for the benefit of the nation either at Badgerys Creek, where the airport is, or out at Eastern Creek.

   

For an insight on the subject of suspect & dodgy political donations - especially from property developers - it is worth watching this segment from the other Aunty's 7:30 Report last week: MONEY MAN

It is also worth remembering that Farmer Truss has a strong friendship & party association with certain political donors that could be regarded as suspect by certain sections of the commentariat :

Senator Xenophon queries political donations by regional airline Rex  

• by: ANTHONY KLAN
  
• From: The Australian
  
• January 21, 2015 12:00AM
  

INDEPENDENT senator Nick Xenophon has called large political donations by listed regional airline Rex “incredibly baffling” and said he would be buying shares in the company so he could press board members on why the donations were made.  

Mr Xenophon, who led a Senate committee inquiry into much criticised government investigation into the crash of a Rex-owned passenger plane off Norfolk Island, said the airline had an “obligation” to disclose why the donations were made.

Between July and November 2012 — amid a three-year inquiry into the Norfolk Island crash — Rex made a $250,000 donation to the ALP, $95,700 to the federal Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberal Party. This made the small airline one of the biggest political donors in the country.

“Rex is a public company and it had an obligation to explain whether even one (word) regarding the crash was spoken with any of the political parties,” Mr Xenophon told The Australian.

“This largesse to political parties is inexplicably baffling and I will be buying some shares in Rex and asking them to explain it.”

Rex spokeswoman Alicia Chapple has declined to respond to repeated questions from The Australian this week regarding the donations and other matters, saying that the airline did “not see the need to devote additional resources to this matter”.

The airline had earlier incorrectly claimed it had made no donations to the LNP; however, when shown otherwise, Ms Chapple said the airline had meant it had made no donations to the Queensland LNP.

Of particular interest was Rex’s $250,000 donation to the federal ALP given the airline was a highly vocal critic of the Labor government.

In 2013 Rex publicly said the ALP was “hellbent” on destroying regional aviation and “along with it pretty much the rest of the economy”.

Mr Xenophon said it appeared to defy reason why Rex would donate heavily to a government it would shortly afterwards describe as “destroying its industry”.
“Perhaps Rex had a case of Stockholm syndrome?” he said.

In 2009 a Rex aeroplane — operated under the group’s Pel-Air brand — ditched into the ocean with six passengers on board, badly injuring one.
A lengthy Australian Transport Safety Board investigation blamed the Pel-Air pilot involved in the crash but failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air.

Mr Xenophon headed a Senate committee inquiry into that botched investigation, which led to the federal government last month calling on the ATSB to reopen the investigation.
Rex has also come under the spotlight after it was last year awarded a series of key Queensland government contracts which had previously been held by Cairns-based rival Skytrans.

   
One day all this could be yours...



MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Now a cynic could construe meaning into those two pictures shown above.  Aunt Pru has offered a Tim Tam prize for the best captions offered.  One caption per picture is all you may submit, the winning caption and photograph will be the AP Blog front page – next month.

My entry 

Pic 1 = “What say you and me slice up the aviation cake.

Pic 2 = “One day all this will be yours”

Toot toot.

[Ziggy]

Now a cynic could construe meaning into those two pictures shown above.  Aunt Pru has offered a Tim Tam prize for the best captions offered.  One caption per picture is all you may submit, the winning caption and photograph will be the AP Blog front page – next month.

My entry 

Pic 1 = “What say you and me slice up the aviation cake.

Pic 2 = “One day all this will be yours”

Toot toot.


Caption #1:

"Oh Shucks Mr Minister, come on...Smile, just say Geeez! We'll even help you with our own hands Sir to push the knife through Australian Aviation, Trust US, Mr Truss"

Caption #2:

"Unable to hear you Mr S, one of your aircrafts bloody wings is poking 
in my left ear..but carry on, you are my Treasurer and Chair this Company under current Investigation, again. Yup
I agree, whatever you say. Can you get the wing out of my ear though...um, should I move??"


 Ziggy

[Gobbledock]

Pic 1 = 'Here's to celebrating another 50 years of aviation corruption'.

Pic 2 = 'FFS Warren, you really do look like the Don of the GWM'. Or;
'Its good to be the king'.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg

[thorn bird]

"The Man in Black"
"Knew I had that memory wiper thingy round the wrong way. Who am I again?"

[Peetwo]

Not wanting to distract too much from the caption comp, but I thought it would be fair to balance the ledger somewhat, with one of Gobbledock's favourite polly pics...


   

Err.."Hands up! Your busted for spraying saliva through your teeth.."

While on the subject of Albo & airports, a couple of highlights from the Hansard for yesterday's 2nd reading of the Airports Amendment Bill 2015.

Albo:

..I am somewhat disappointed, if not surprised, that the Greens political party in New South Wales have a formal policy that Sydney should not have a second airport. What is more, they also have a position that says they do not support Sydney's first airport, Kingsford Smith—that is, the Greens political party argue that a global city such as Sydney should not have an aviation facility. It is an absurd proposition, in which people could get into Sydney by parachuting out of planes as they fly over, but it is unclear how they could actually leave Sydney...

...Constituents in my electorate are adversely affected by Kingsford Smith airport, but I accept that that is a by-product of a piece of infrastructure that is vital for not just Sydney but New South Wales and Australia, as a generator of economic activity and jobs. The Greens political party, of course, say that you can have no airport in Sydney or in Western Sydney but a high-speed rail line to a mythical location somewhere else. The problem with that is, of course, that a high-speed rail line would include 67 kilometres of tunnel through Sydney, which the study that I commissioned as minister showed would also in practice be likely to be opposed by the Greens political party, just like the Greens in the UK opposed the high-speed rail proposals that had the support at the last election in Britain of the UK Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party. The fact is that they should not be allowed to have this absurd proposition whereby in inner Sydney they argue that they want to close Kingsford Smith, but they also argue against any location for a second airport...

 
And for Ben's benefit - Plane Talking: Does Labor really want a jet curfew at Sydney’s new airport?...

...While the opposition will be supporting this legislation as a means to ensure that we get the planning right, I do want to raise the fact that the rail connection needs to be built just as the roads need to be built. It makes no sense to go back after an airport is built and a runway is in place to build a railway line.


As much as an airport is a piece of economic infrastructure, it is also a public asset. To facilitate its efficient use, it should be connected to the existing public transport network. A rail link that connects the existing south-west line—that has been extended thanks to the decision of the former Rees government in New South Wales—to the western line should be part of the initial development. That would ensure it was built into the price when the airport is leased as well.

This would mean benefit for the people of Western and south-western Sydney regardless of whether they are going to airport or not. That is an example of what can drive public support for this proposal. I think very strongly that this should occur. During the New South Wales election, I did a press conference with the New South Wales Labor leader Luke Foley to express our view there. I would urge the government to have a close look at the propositions that we have put forward in a constructive way and get on with ensuring that this occurs.

The fact is that no airport, without public transport access, operates as well as an airport once it has that public transport access. Look at Melbourne: decades after the new airport was opened, they still do not have rail access, and it is still an issue. It is far harder once the airport has been built to go back and deal with those issues...

...the part in bold still does not make it clear whether Federal Labor is in support of a curfew at Badgery's or not - typical, hedging his bets again...FCOL
After Albo we got another excellent speech from the member for Hughes Craig Kelly, which included the following informative passage on Airports & competition..  

...I can give an example of how this can apply to airports and why it is very important. In July 2000, there was a decision by the European Commission called the Spanish airports decision. What happened in that case was that they found that the airports in Spain were operating what they called a discount structure, or charging smaller airlines a higher price. If you were an airline and you made one to 50 landings a month, you paid the rack price; if you made 51 to 100 landings, you got a nine per cent discount; with 101 to 150 landings per month, you got a 17 per cent discount; with 151 to 200 landings, you got a 26 per cent discount; and with more than 200 you got a 35 per cent discount. So, if you were a large airline operator with a lot of flights and a lot of planes, you were able to get a 35 per cent discount on your landing fees in airports in Spain against a smaller operator. This had the potential to destroy competition. It prevented new operators that were coming into the airline industry in Europe and landing in Spain from being able to compete on a level playing field. What the EU found was that that structure of charging those smaller competitors a higher price was anticompetitive, and they banned it. They said:

The existence of economies of scale, the aim of reducing air traffic noise or air congestion, for example, could be regarded as objective reasons—

for such discrimination.

However, in the case of landing and take-off services such economies of scale do not exist. The services provided do not depend on the individual owner of the aircraft or whether they are rendered to the first or the tenth aircraft of the same airline.

They found that the fact that an airport:

… has applied dissimilar conditions to its commercial customers for the provision of equivalent services, thereby placing some of them at a competitive disadvantage, constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of … Article 82.

We have no such provisions in our competition laws, and that threatens effective competition in our airline industry...

  
Mr Kelly then went onto have another crack at the proposed Moorebank Intermodal project:

...The other issue I would like to talk about quickly is that I fear that we are making a terrible mistake involving the Moorebank Intermodal. By having an intermodal at Moorebank instead of at Badgerys Creek, we are losing one of our abilities to fund the railway line into Badgerys Creek. The member for Grayndler emphasised the importance of building that railway line, but our funding is not unlimited. By investing in Moorebank—by pouring Commonwealth money down the toilet in Moorebank—we are simply making it harder and harder. That money should have been put into the rail link to get it set up at Badgerys Creek...

...This is exactly what we have at Moorebank. It goes on, and it cites examples of how forecasts for rail projects have failed. It does a study across different continents, and for rail transportation infrastructure projects it finds the cost overruns, averaged across more than 50 projects, are 44.7 per cent measured in prices. It finds not only that the cost is more than 40 per cent higher but that the actual passage of traffic is 51 per cent lower than predicted. We have seen this in Sydney with our planning debacles: the Cross City Tunnel and the Lane Cove Tunnel...

...That is again the problem that we have with Moorebank. There is simply no answering of the critical questions. There are three completely failed premises: it takes trucks off the road, it reduces air pollution and it saves costs. Any critical analysis of those three premises shows that they are completely faulty. In the Moorebank Intermodal, we have another complete planning fallacy. This should be combined with the airport at Badgerys Creek...

Ahh enough of that, back to the caption comp, it is much more fun...

MTF..P2

[thorn bird]

"...That is again the problem that we have with Moorebank. There is simply no answering of the critical questions. There are three completely failed premises: it takes trucks off the road, it reduces air pollution and it saves costs. Any critical analysis of those three premises shows that they are completely faulty. In the Moorebank Intermodal, we have another complete planning fallacy. This should be combined with the airport at Badgerys Creek..."

Mate since when has common sense, and common Good ever overcome political donations, after retirement directorships, farms in New Zealand, etc, etc!
Money rules that is all that counts, and if you are lucky enough to be in a position to dip your nose in the trough, well good for you, but Karma has a nasty way of catching up with you, I hope and pray anyway.

[P7_TOM]

My turn:-

Pic 1 – “Now that I have my cake, can I eat it?.”

Pic 2 – “Imagine, what this could be, when it all belongs to ‘our’ Singapore friends”.

[thorn bird]

Well people.
Pretty much as expected.
Frantic activity on the southern side of Bankstown.
Men in protective gear digging up offending asbestos and loading up trucks to be driven who knows where.
Sanitization in progress?? but of course all that asbestos dust blowing nicely across Milperra road.

On ABC news yesterday, Labor's new Policy is to shut Bankstown and turn it into an industrial park.

Pretty much as predicted.

Wonder how much the development sharks paid for that little "Policy"?

[Gobbledock]

Dickheads. There goes another airport!
Then again Thorny, perhaps they are simply looking for the dead carcasses of Operators, Chief Pilots and Flying Instructors that Wodger has buried out there amongst all the asbestos and contaminated underground water??
I'm surprised the 'cleaners' aren't out there tidying up at midnight or during fog conditions. Reminds me of Queensland in the 80's!!

[Peetwo]

Well people.
Pretty much as expected.
Frantic activity on the southern side of Bankstown.
Men in protective gear digging up offending asbestos and loading up trucks to be driven who knows where.
Sanitization in progress?? but of course all that asbestos dust blowing nicely across Milperra road.

On ABC news yesterday, Labor's new Policy is to shut Bankstown and turn it into an industrial park.

Pretty much as predicted.

Wonder how much the development sharks paid for that little "Policy"?

Most disturbing news Thorny, even if somewhat expected - how do you think NSW Labor intend to get around the Airports Act, with that little shady deal?? Anyway TB when you find out more give us a link hey??

In mentioning the Airports Act I see the Badgery's amendment passed through the Senate yesterday - see here - & Senators Xenophon & Fawcett made contributions to the debate:

Quote from NX speech:

"..Back in 2002 it was thought to be a high price but, 13 years on, it is clear that Macquarie Bank got Australia's largest and oldest airport for a bargain. But it has gained a reputation for providing overpriced low levels of service, as a private monopoly, for those who have to use the airport. Sydney Airport Corporation pretty much charged what it liked for its services, including to the airlines and the travelling public, via landing and car-parking fees. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know—through chairing regional and rural affairs and transport committee inquiries—that landing fees for Qantas, for Australian airlines, are exponentially higher than they are for comparable overseas airports. It is a rip-off..."

& in conclusion...

"..It has not been that long since the privatisation—just 13 years. In that time Sydney Airport has had three CEOs, but its first, Max Moore-Wilton, is now the chair of Sydney Airport Holdings, which owns 84 per cent of Sydney Airport. He has come a long way since those days, before the privatisation, when he was secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He left to take up the helm of Sydney Airport Corporation just months later. He now has the unprecedented opportunity to create a privately owned multisite airport monopoly in Sydney.

Sydney Airport might not be the only private company that charges like a wounded bull and structures itself to pay as little tax as possible, but it is Australian and was created by our federal government. The privatisation of Sydney Airport has been a disaster, and that disaster is set to continue if Sydney Airport Corporation decides to take up its option to develop and operate Sydney's second airport. We will rue the day, if that happens..."

   
However for mine the speech that was more of interest was that from Senator Fawcett as we all know that he & Heffernan are strongly aligned on airport development matters, especially in regards to Secondary Airports.

Quotes from Senator Fawcett speech:

"...Unfortunately, I cannot say I am quite so supportive of our secondary airports, the likes of Bankstown and Archerfield and others around the country. As recently as last weekend, when I was up at Port Augusta speaking with the manager of the unincorporated lands, I was very aware of the fact that airfields owned by local government and particularly those that serve remote communities are constantly under pressure to maintain the airfields to be capable of taking the Royal Flying Doctor Service, mail services and other services they critically need.

There are a couple of aspects to privatisation. Those in secondary and remote areas I am not such a great fan of; we still need to find ways to invest in those and make them viable for the future. With our primary airports privatisation certainly has transformed Australia, particularly when you look at the role of the airports as a hub not only for passenger movements but also for freight. This week I met with people at the Sydney Airport to talk about the Western Sydney airport and understand what their plans are for servicing regional communities and having that connection with international flights. I certainly compare it with South Australia with the advent of international flights—for example, going direct from Adelaide Airport to Asia and places like Hong Kong and therefore China. There is the export industry—for example, our prawn industry, which does not have the volumes to justify a freight aircraft all by itself—and there are other industries in a similar case. Once you have a passenger service, it means that you have the ability to get freight onto an aircraft and into a market and it opens up new markets around the world, but the important part is to have that link...

...I give credit to the former government for their aviation green paper and the white paper and the NASAG process that came out of that, which is the safeguarding of our airports process. It is the whole idea of trying to get co-operation between the federal government, state governments and local governments around planning permissions to safeguard airports. I am a little disappointed that it seems to have plateaued and the hard work of taking the policy concept and implementing it appears to have stalled. That may not all be the federal government's fault. It takes cooperation from states and local governments as well to make those things happen. We are seeing a lot of discussion with the Federation white paper and the COAG processes. I think both sides of politics suffer the frustration of our three levels of government and sometimes not being able to drive very good common sense ideas through.

But can I say that NASAG and the process of protecting our airports and the airspace that goes with them are things that we do need in the national interest to get some alignment between the federal government, of whichever political persuasion, and the state and local governments. Why? Because it is important to our economy and it is important to lots of social functions—things like banking, mail services and medical services. Where we do not protect airports and the airspace, we will see a degradation in the ability of the aviation industry to service Australia in the manner in which we have become accustomed. The reason it is important for this process to be in place is that I frequently come across people at both local and state government levels who are interested in developing their communities, and I fully understand and appreciate that. Whether it is housing close to airports or large high-rise buildings in a capital city that infringe into the airspace,—the PANS-OPS criteria—those things have a direct impact on the viability of airlines to carry the kind of loads they look at.

In South Australia, for example, there was a great deal of contention a year or so back when people looked at the height of the city buildings and complained about what they called the archaic regulations that stopped us having even higher buildings. There was quite some discussion in the media about that and a bit of a head of steam developing in that these were really archaic rules, we should change them and we should have higher buildings. People did not realise that the height limits were actually related to operations out of the airport. If you were taking off from Adelaide Airport on the north-easterly runway and were flying on a cloudy day with a low-cloud base or by night and you had an engine failure in a large transport aircraft with passengers or cargo, then the airspace has to allow for the worst-case in terms of your performance and your climb configuration for you to control the emergency and then return the aircraft to the airfield. If you build higher buildings, then the aircraft has to be able to out-climb the worst-case, which is an intersection with that building. This means that the operators are constrained to carrying less fuel, which means that they go a shorter distance, or they have to off-load passengers or cargo. Eventually, you start constraining the operations to the point where airlines are not prepared to actually service that centre.

The long-term planning that NASAG envisaged is something that is really important for us to get into place. We have seen some benefits with Western Sydney in how the site was originally identified as early as 1969. As a result, the Australian government acquired a site of approximately 1,700 acres over the next decade or so. Land that has been reserved is now having very tangible inputs. For example, around noise and curfew, the fact that those long-term planning restrictions have been associated with that land has largely protected it from incompatible residential development. That means that the typical noise footprint for aircraft does not affect the same number of people it would if unencumbered building had been allowed in those areas. It is going to affect only around 3,900 residents, whereas a similar noise footprint at Kingsford Smith affects nearly 130,000 residents.

Technology for aircraft is getting better, particularly with precision vertical navigation options. Australia is now one of the greatest users, particularly at Kingsford Smith airport. That and new generation aircraft with high-bypass ratio engines, with a low-noise signature, means that we can get higher volumes of traffic into airports. The point I am trying to make here is that long-term planning that allowed us to set aside that land is now going to have a very tangible benefit. That means Western Sydney Airport will be capable of having 24-hour operations. It will not necessarily have to have a curfew. The planning, combined with advancing technology, gives great capability which will benefit our economy and the number of jobs that can grow at Western Sydney Airport.

As we look at these kinds of developments and the threats enveloping other airports—and in your own state, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you would have seen media recently about Perth Airport and concerns about residential development—there are great concerns around incompatible development. Certainly, there are great concerns as I look at places like Archerfield, Bankstown and Jandakot in Western Australia. I just want to lay out, again, for both sides of politics that, for all levels of government, whether we do it through the Reform of the federation white paper or through the COAG process, we need to get on top of the NASAG concepts. I would argue that we even need to extend it to include what the Queensland government has, which are areas set aside in the approach and take-off paths of runway which allow for the fact that many secondary airports service single-engine aircraft with trainees. There is a danger that, if you have a failure, then, obviously, aircraft can come down in the area. Queensland has done a very good job of quarantining, if you like, a splay at the end of a runway. That is something we should be looking at more on a national basis.

So it is an important process, and I would certainly encourage state and local government associations to look at how they can work constructively with the federal government and realise that this is not just about a loss of rates they may suffer if they cannot build a particular subdivision of housing right next to an airport. If they look at the broader impact, the direct jobs associated with an airport and, also, what the airport enables in terms of tourism, in terms of business travel and, particularly, in terms of export for so many of our small- to medium-sized businesses, the economic impact on the state of having a reduced capability in that airport would be extreme. We really do need to take a long-term view around the issues of airport planning..."

For those of you who prefer pictures here is most of the Fawcett speech...

  MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Fawcetts speech was articulate, sensible, technical and clear. This was a speech from a man well versed, knowledgeable and experienced in aviation matters, a man who understands the parameters of operations, infrastructure, technology and planning. A man actually interested in aviation. Can you imagine the crusty headed Farmboy delivering such a quality presentation?? Even if his beloved PMC wrote the speech word for word old Farmboy wouldn't have a clue what any of it meant!

To put it bluntly Senator Fawcett is the man who needs to be placed in the role of Junior Minister for Aviation, sooner rather than later. We have experienced  decades of failed policy, failed planning, failed investment and a failed understanding of the importance of aviation in this country. We are decades behind the eight ball, and behind most other western countries. Imagine someone like Fawcett as junior aviation minister for lets say 5 years? 5 years in which he fosters and introduces positive change, puts us on a strong future track, reforms the alphabet soup bureaucracies, builds a strong aviation framework, and mentors a handful of close comrades who will take up the mantle when the good Senator retires. I know, it's the stuff that dreams are made of, but by god it would be great!

There is a serious lack of understanding about just how critical it is that in a country like Australia we have modern airport and aviation infrastructure. Aviation is the lifeblood of any country, particularly a country as diverse and challenging as Australia. Aviation keeps the economy not only ticking over and bringing in revenue, it enables the country to move forward, literally, on a day by day and hour by hour basis. Although some city Lord Mayors or regional Council CEO's don't always realise it, their local airport and associated infrastructure is the most valuable asset in their community/region. It's about time that we had people positioned in federal and state Government that supported this fact and ensured that needed funds be pumped in as and when needed, and not use airport and aviation services such as ASA as cash cows in which millions and even billions are raped from the asset and then pissed into the wind. 

When it comes to Australian aviation it is time to spend wisely, invest wisely and act wisely.

[P7_TOM]

Second the Gobbledock motion, a rudder for Skidmore, a challenge to the amateurs in CASA and the biggest feather possible in the DPM cap. So simple to achieve - all parties willing - what an asset Fawcett would make. Confidence, faith, leadership and trust, instant at the stroke of pen.

Mrdak would probably have a stroke; but then does anyone not cheering really care.

Not I.