[Kharon]

Poor old Bankstown; thought it would at least have the tourism generated by it’s unique ‘glo-in-the-dark’ two headed ducks and cess pit theme parks; not to be.  Looks like many other airports are to have them as well and if Newcastle now have the fish and beaches to match, Bankstown will be forgotten, frogs and all.

What a mess Mr. Truss; the result of years of gouging and neglect, by all parties – now your responsibility.  Appointing David Fawcett to aviation may be your only way of dodging the large silver bullet of blame; think on, it’s a winner.  DF does the work and aviation crawls out of the cess and slurry it’s dying in, you get the credit for having the brains to bring in a hired gun, to sort it all out for you.  Brilliant, and there is no way it can backfire,; it’s such a ducking mess now that no one from my aging Grandmamma, to the office cat could fail to improve the disastrous situation that exists.

Bring in Fawcett, plead with Forsyth to help him for a twelve month, step back and accept the kudos. Piece of cake.

Monitoring is as you well know – a cop out.  Another hand crafted excuse for doing SFA.  The excuse of choice used by three of the most useless, incompetent, greedy, deceitful aviation agencies on the face of this long suffering planet.

Larry Pickering -  “Defence is a bureaucratic monolith responsible only to itself and poor little Abbott’s mate, Kevin Andrews, was one of many who were in the process of discovering their own Ministerial impotence when Turnbull presented the chortling chiefs with the cuddly Marise."

Reword as appropriate then consider the ‘military’ origins and mind set of CASA – does history keep repeating?  You bet it does – in Spades, redoubled..

“Safe reality checks for all”.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

 Executive decision &/or obfuscation required

P666 off the Airports thread:

..ASA know it is an issue and also know that once the chemical is classified internationally as an 'airport environmental problem' the end result is that there will be many payouts, as some airports whose land has been slated for development by grubby investors, sharks, shonks and superannuation funds will be left holding a lemon as it will take a lot of money to clean up the 'dirty land'. ASA have been stashing away a war chest for some time now, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for D-day.

Most airports have multiple contamination sites due to the relocation of fire fighting practise areas over the decades. But hey, compared to the shite buried beneath some airports, Bankstown as a prime example, the PFC's are probably relatively harmless in comparison! I would like to see the cancer rates among folks living around Bankstown and the George's River in 20 years time!..

A most profound post from one Gobbledock unit...

Well yesterday in both Houses of Parliament the subject of PFCs & the Williamtown RAAF base case was brought up several times...

First from the member for Paterson: Baldwin, Bob, MP

Next was in Senate Question time:- Defence: Water Supplies

And finally from Senator Rhiannon in the Adjournment: Rhiannon, Sen Lee

All three passages of Hansard mention the last Senate Estimates hearing - Hansard, QON etc can be viewed here:

Hansard Transcripts

21 October 2015 2015 Defence Portfolio (PDF 1072KB)
22 October 2015 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (PDF 1010KB)

Defence Portfolio

• Department of Defence
  

 
 From the QON index I would say that the Genie is well and truly out of the bottle, when it comes to PFC's entering the water table/waterways in and around Defence Airports..

In addition to the above I note that today in the Senate there were two 'Notice of Motion' given in respect of this issue.

First from Senator Rhiannon: NOM





{P2 comment: In regards to Bankstown Airport (i) is interesting } 

And then from Senator Conroy a call for a far more wide ranging inquiry : Add NOM 2 

Poor old Bankstown; thought it would at least have the tourism generated by it’s unique ‘glo-in-the-dark’ two headed ducks and cess pit theme parks; not to be.  Looks like many other airports are to have them as well and if Newcastle now have the fish and beaches to match, Bankstown will be forgotten, frogs and all.

What a mess Mr. Truss; the result of years of gouging and neglect, by all parties – now your responsibility.  Appointing David Fawcett to aviation may be your only way of dodging the large silver bullet of blame; think on, it’s a winner.  DF does the work and aviation crawls out of the cess and slurry it’s dying in, you get the credit for having the brains to bring in a hired gun, to sort it all out for you.  Brilliant, and there is no way it can backfire,; it’s such a ducking mess now that no one from my aging Grandmamma, to the office cat could fail to improve the disastrous situation that exists.

Bring in Fawcett, plead with Forsyth to help him for a twelve month, step back and accept the kudos. Piece of cake.

Monitoring is as you well know – a cop out.  Another hand crafted excuse for doing SFA.  The excuse of choice used by three of the most useless, incompetent, greedy, deceitful aviation agencies on the face of this long suffering planet.

Larry Pickering -  “Defence is a bureaucratic monolith responsible only to itself and poor little Abbott’s mate, Kevin Andrews, was one of many who were in the process of discovering their own Ministerial impotence when Turnbull presented the chortling chiefs with the cuddly Marise."

Reword as appropriate then consider the ‘military’ origins and mind set of CASA – does history keep repeating?  You bet it does – in Spades, redoubled..

“Safe reality checks for all”.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Of slip ups, gaffs and old age

I believe the following reasons (or at least one of them) may have caused the Miniscules 'slip up';

Outsource to the cheapest bidder- Farmboy may be considering outsourcing CAsA's function to NZ's CAA? All it would take is a couple of the CAA's cleaners or grounds staff, perhaps led by Hannah (ex P.A of Nick Xenophon) and you would have a robust crew of three who would run rings around the current mob of dimwits, dipshits, trough dwellers, bullies and geriatrics patrolling CAsA's hallways. CAsA as an entity is redundant. It serves no tangible purpose or benefit to anyone, unless you count bullying, incompetence, aviation destroying and great losses of revenue as a 'worthy cause'?

Safe'less' - Maybe Farmer Truss has finally realised that CAsA actually don't perform any safety function whatsoever? They are an outdated, incompetent, behind-the-eightball mob of industry destroyers still living in the eighties. It is the industry it is meant to oversight that creates a safe working environment, not the other way around. CAsA's function is neither dynamic, value adding, relevant or safety enhancing in any way, shape or form. Unless you count hand holding, talk fests, surveys and poor culture as being 'safety fostering and improvement'?

Old age - Perhaps old crusty head is truly losing his marbles? All that time in the sun may have given him a bad memory, a melanoma, or both? Maybe time spent with his head beneath decades of taxpayer troughs and having hoovered up our hard earned taxes to cover his luxurious salary he has earned since before the Wright Brothers first flew has affected his thinking ability?

Either way, neither Murky, Farmboy or Hands'hard will ever be quick enough to hide a Miniscule slip up like that from the IOS! The IOS are watching...

"Safe gaffs for all"

P2 - Hey Gobbles hope you don't mind but have copied your post to the Shame 4 Truss thread..  

[Peetwo]

 Executive decision &/or obfuscation required

P666 off the Airports thread:

..ASA know it is an issue and also know that once the chemical is classified internationally as an 'airport environmental problem' the end result is that there will be many payouts, as some airports whose land has been slated for development by grubby investors, sharks, shonks and superannuation funds will be left holding a lemon as it will take a lot of money to clean up the 'dirty land'. ASA have been stashing away a war chest for some time now, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for D-day.

Most airports have multiple contamination sites due to the relocation of fire fighting practise areas over the decades. But hey, compared to the shite buried beneath some airports, Bankstown as a prime example, the PFC's are probably relatively harmless in comparison! I would like to see the cancer rates among folks living around Bankstown and the George's River in 20 years time!..

A most profound post from one Gobbledock unit...

Well yesterday in both Houses of Parliament the subject of PFCs & the Williamtown RAAF base case was brought up several times...

First from the member for Paterson: Baldwin, Bob, MP

Next was in Senate Question time:- Defence: Water Supplies

And finally from Senator Rhiannon in the Adjournment: Rhiannon, Sen Lee

All three passages of Hansard mention the last Senate Estimates hearing - Hansard, QON etc can be viewed here:

Hansard Transcripts

21 October 2015 2015 Defence Portfolio (PDF 1072KB)
22 October 2015 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (PDF 1010KB)

Defence Portfolio

• Department of Defence
  

 
 

In addition to the above I note that today in the Senate there were two 'Notice of Motion' given in respect of this issue.

First from Senator Rhiannon: NOM





{P2 comment: In regards to Bankstown Airport (i) is interesting } 

And then from Senator Conroy a call for a far more wide ranging inquiry : Add NOM 2 

Update to the NOMs (above):

Today in the Senate the Senator Rhiannon motion for inquiry was withdrawn and the Senator Conroy motion was amended - amended motion - at subpara (d) & (i):



Subpara (i) is remarkably similar  (i.e. exactly the same) to the Senator Rhiannon's (i) in her original NOM (now withdrawn). So what I would say has happened is the Senators have combined forces.

Okay so what happened to the Conroy motion?

From Dynamic Red:

6 – Senator Conroy – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (contamination of Australian Defence facilities)


Commenced 3:47 PM
Postponed to the next day of sitting, by leave

 
From what I understand the postponement was due to the Government taking issue with the wording of some of the ToR - wouldn't have something to do with subpara (i) would it?? 

Oh Dear, oh Deary me "the EPA is a comin' a 'knockin don't stop a rockin..."


MTF..P2  
  

  

[Peetwo]

 Executive decision &/or obfuscation required

P666 off the Airports thread:

..ASA know it is an issue and also know that once the chemical is classified internationally as an 'airport environmental problem' the end result is that there will be many payouts, as some airports whose land has been slated for development by grubby investors, sharks, shonks and superannuation funds will be left holding a lemon as it will take a lot of money to clean up the 'dirty land'. ASA have been stashing away a war chest for some time now, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for D-day.

Most airports have multiple contamination sites due to the relocation of fire fighting practise areas over the decades. But hey, compared to the shite buried beneath some airports, Bankstown as a prime example, the PFC's are probably relatively harmless in comparison! I would like to see the cancer rates among folks living around Bankstown and the George's River in 20 years time!..

A most profound post from one Gobbledock unit...

Well yesterday in both Houses of Parliament the subject of PFCs & the Williamtown RAAF base case was brought up several times...

First from the member for Paterson: Baldwin, Bob, MP

Next was in Senate Question time:- Defence: Water Supplies

And finally from Senator Rhiannon in the Adjournment: Rhiannon, Sen Lee

All three passages of Hansard mention the last Senate Estimates hearing - Hansard, QON etc can be viewed here:

Hansard Transcripts

21 October 2015 2015 Defence Portfolio (PDF 1072KB)
22 October 2015 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (PDF 1010KB)

Defence Portfolio

• Department of Defence
  

 
In addition to the above I note that today in the Senate there were two 'Notice of Motion' given in respect of this issue.

First from Senator Rhiannon: NOM





{P2 comment: In regards to Bankstown Airport (i) is interesting } 

And then from Senator Conroy a call for a far more wide ranging inquiry : Add NOM 2 



Today in the Senate the Senator Rhiannon motion for inquiry was withdrawn and the Senator Conroy motion was amended - amended motion - at subpara (d) & (i):


Subpara (i) is remarkably similar  (i.e. exactly the same) to the Senator Rhiannon's (i) in her original NOM (now withdrawn). So what I would say has happened is the Senators have combined forces.

Okay so what happened to the Conroy motion?

From Dynamic Red:

6 – Senator Conroy – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (contamination of Australian Defence facilities)


Commenced 3:47 PM
Postponed to the next day of sitting, by leave

 
From what I understand the postponement was due to the Government taking issue with the wording of some of the ToR - wouldn't have something to do with subpara (i) would it?? 

Oh Dear, oh Deary me "the EPA is a comin' a 'knockin don't stop a rockin..."

Update - 26 November 2015 in the Senate.

The Senator Conroy motion for inquiry ToR must still be causing concern within the Govt ranks as the motion was further postponed till Monday..

 1 – Senator Conroy – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (contamination of Australian Defence facilities)

Postponed to 30 November 2015

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

 Well done (the other) Aunty

Although there was scant MSM coverage on the Williamtown environmental contamination crisis, I was very pleased to see that ABC local have devoted considerable resources to keeping (at least) the affected local community informed and updated.

First:

Williamtown contamination crisis probe expected to receive unanimous support

Updated Thu 26 Nov 2015, 6:17am
 

A motion calling for a senate inquiry into contamination from the Williamtown Air Force base is expected to receive unanimous support when it goes before parliament tomorrow.
A group of Williamtown residents travelled to Canberra today to make the concerns over the contamination crisis known to political leaders.

More than a dozen residents have called for more financial assistance and support.
Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon said both Labor and the Government have indicated they will support the motion.

"Good news - it looks like it will go through unanimously," she said.

"The Government indicated they will support this inquiry.

"I did raise with the minister there was clearly urgency because the situation for the residents at Williamtown is really unacceptable.

"The joint motion for the inquiry will go before Parliament tomorrow."

Senator Rhiannon said she expects to meet with residents again soon.

"I'm hopeful it will come up with good recommendations," she said.

"It won't be finalised until into next year.

"The Greens are very pleased we were able to bring it forward and initiate it.

"It as good the other parties have come on board.

"There has been some fine tuning of it and we'll get that through and get that inquiry going as soon as possible."

   
As we now know the 'fine tuning' is continuing and the next motion for inquiry is listed for Monday, where hopefully the inquiry will be officially listed.
Next:

Hunter River prawn catch facing indefinite ban over RAAF contamination

Updated Fri at 9:20amFri 27 Nov 2015, 9:20am
 

A contamination crisis surrounding Newcastle's Williamtown Air Force base has deepened, with local prawn trawlers agreeing to an indefinite ban on fishing the entire Hunter River.

Earlier in November, local trawlers agreed to delay the start of the prawn season while waiting for results of testing for the toxic chemicals that are leaching from the RAAF base.

The testing found prawns caught at several points along the river have elevated levels of the chemical, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS).

The chemical is one of a the fire-fighting chemicals found in the surface and ground waters surrounding the Williamtown Airbase in September.

As a result, the New South Wales Government announced a multi-agency response to the contamination, and residents were warned to avoid local fish, eggs and milk from goats and dairy cows.

Newcastle Commercial Fishermen's Co-operative spokesman, Robert Gauta, said it was an unprecedented decision to shut down the local catch completely.

"Until further testing shows that it's all clear, they've decided to take that brave step and not go to work at this point in time," he said.

"It's the fishermen we're really concerned about.

"There's a severe drop in income and the RAAF's not coming to the party with any compensation for the contamination that they've made."

Mr Gauta said it means there will be no Hunter River prawns for the foreseeable future, but local trawlers felt they had no option.

"To make sure that they don't damage their brand, they've gone 'well, how do we explain to the public that we're only working in the northern part of the river?'

"So to make things clear, they've decided not to go to work.

"It's a brave step by those guys."

He said it is time for Defence Minister Marise Payne to come to the region and speak to those affected by the contamination.

"We urge her to consider the livelihood of these fishers who work hard to put food on the table for their families," he said.

"They've been doing it since 1946, the co-op has been open and they've been fishing that river.

"Just come and talk to us and make sure she understands what's happening in this area."

Expert panel welcomes prawning ban
Chair of the expert panel investigating the contamination, New South Wales Chief Scientist Mary O'Kane said local prawn trawlers have made the right decision.

She said it is a precautionary approach, but a necessary one given the need to minimise any potential risk to human health.

Professor O'Kane said it was not thought that the elevated PFOS levels in prawns is sufficient to pose a significant health risk as a single source of exposure.

However she said a full and thorough human health risk assessment is needed to calculate the cumulative risk to someone who consumes several types of food on a daily basis.

  
There was also this statement from the Minister:

Minister for Defence – NSW fishing closures in Fullerton Cove and Upper Tilligerry Creek


29 October 2015

Today the Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Marise Payne, convened a meeting of Commonwealth and NSW officials including the NSW Minister for Environment the Hon Mark Speakman SC MP to discuss the NSW Government’s fishing closures in Fullerton Cove and Upper Tilligerry Creek.

“The discussions were productive and will assist the Commonwealth as it considers its response to support those who have been affected by the NSW Government’s fishing bans in these areas,’’ Minister Payne said.

“Local fishermen have been dealing with a difficult period as a result of the fisheries closure and the Commonwealth acknowledges their concerns.”

Defence continues to work with NSW government agencies, local Councils and other Federal agencies to further investigate the nature and extent of the contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown.

Media contacts:
Henry Budd (Minister Payne’s office) 0429 531 143
Defence Media  (02) 6127 1999

Finally (updated only a few hours ago):

Defence officials outline plans to clean up toxic soil at Williamtown

Updated about 3 hours ago Sat 28 Nov 2015, 8:55am

Defence officials have outlined plans to clean up toxic soil at its Williamtown Air Force base, while addressing concerns about a big infrastructure project.

The Department of Defence has been in damage control in response to the contamination crisis at the Williamtown base, stemming from old firefighting foam.

The issue was raised yesterday at a Federal Government hearing for the base's air traffic control infrastructure project.

Hunter Water officials have already been forced to quarantine supplies at the Tomago Sandbeds but, in a submission, Defence says there will be environmental controls to ensure there's no impact from its project.

The Environment Protection Authority was worried about a proposed 10,000 litre underground tank being located in the contamination zone.

Defence says it is developed a clean-up plan, with soil with low concentrations of contaminants being removed from the site as solid waste.

It said more toxic soils are to be stockpiled on site and contained to prevent leaching.

Defence said a process of dewatering would be required in areas where groundwater contains the old firefighting foam chemicals where levels exceed appropriate standards.
It added that trial chemical filtration methods had been carried out and its intended that such methods would be used on the infrastructure project.

"..The issue was raised yesterday at a Federal Government hearing for the base's air traffic control infrastructure project..."  Hmm...interesting??- Research hat on 
Okay so yesterday there was a hearing applicable to the description above. Here is the presser for that hearing:

New civil-military air traffic system to improve airspace management

A system that will enhance how Australian airspace is managed, enabling a new level of operational and cost efficiency, will be investigated at a public hearing tomorrow.

The Public Works Committee is conducting a hearing into new and upgraded infrastructure, proposed to support the introduction of a new air traffic management system at several Defence bases across Australia.

The works are required to support a new civil-military air traffic management system which has been developed by the Department of Defence and Airservices Australia.

Defence’s submission states that the proposed works will deliver training, support and maintenance facilities associated with the new air traffic management system. Additionally, the works will upgrade air traffic control towers and airfield systems facilities that were constructed in the 1960s and are no longer fit for purpose.

The Department of Defence will provide evidence on the proposed works at the public hearing and the Hunter Water Corporation will provide evidence regarding management of contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The project is expected to cost $409.9 million (excluding GST).

Full details on the project are available on the committee’s website: www.aph.gov.au/pwc

Public Hearing Venue: Committee Room 2R2, Parliament House, Canberra

Date: Friday, 27 November 2015

Time: 11.45 am – 1.15 pm

Members of the public are welcome to attend.

NB the Public Works Committee is neither involved in the tendering process nor the awarding of contracts. Enquiries on those matters should be addressed to the Department of Defence.

 
And here is the link & ToR for that PWC inquiry -

AIR5431 Phases 2 and 3 Air Traffic Management and Control System Facilities and Australian Defence Force Air Traffic Control Complex Infrastructure


On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, The Hon Michael McCormack MP, asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the AIR5431 Phases 2 and 3 Air Traffic Management and Control System Facilities and Australian Defence Force Air Traffic Control Complex Infrastructure Project.

The Committee invites interested persons and organisations to make submissions addressing the terms of reference by Thursday, 22 October 2015. Online submissions can be made on this page.

 There are 2 submissions (other than the Defence submission):

2 Hunter Water Corporation (PDF 1513 KB) 

2.1 Supplementary to submission 2 (PDF 1400 KB) 


3 NSW Environment Protection Authority (PDF 1883 KB)

Reading those submissions one wonders how long it will be before the MSM & public realises that the RAAF Williamtown environmental contamination crisis, could be the tip of a very large iceberg...


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Movement at the station?

Wakey wakey hand off....Has someone woken the Miniscule? Is Murky rushing through a bandaid to remove a giant spotlight?
Thorny me old, Defence have announced a clean up of sorts at Willytown;

"Defence officials have outlined plans to clean up toxic soil at its Williamtown Air Force base, while addressing concerns about a big infrastructure project".

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-28...li/6982970

Passing strange that they are suddenly enthusiastic about possibly doing something at Willytown? But why now? And to what length will the clean up be?
Perhaps the locals are sick of two-headed fish? Maybe a green glow from the soil is interfering with the RWY lights? Maybe a bureaucrat owns a parcel of land close to the airport and is worried the value with plummet? Either way the IOS won't drop the ball on the Bansktown debacle nor the the PFC issue potentially facing hundred of other airports. 

Bonus read (old article) regarding Oakey;

http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland...jyjht.html

Townsville and Amberley also get a mention. 

TICK TOCK Miniscule 

"Safe soils for all"

[Kharon]

“Game on” I’d say.

(i) the adequacy of current legislation to enable the NSW EPA to respond to and regulate lands controlled and/or owned by a federal entity which would otherwise have the full jurisdiction of the NSW EPA if that same pollution event occurred on non-federally owned and controlled land; and

The Feds won’t like that – not one little bit.  State butting in to Federal business, on a ‘commonwealth place’.  No, no, NO, too used, for too long to getting their own way and doing exactly what pleases, when it pleases.  Oh dear, there’ll be a scramble now to ‘manage’ the ToR, watch the big hitters come out of the woodwork.  Can’t wait to watch.

EPA – “We reckon your development is polluted to the extent that it will affect public health, kill off the frogs and make the ducks glow in the dark”.  

Developer – “No it ain’t; anyway - sod off, this a Commonwealth place, we can do what we bloody well like, Murky said so”.  

EPA – “We want this place cleaned up and thanks to some the Senate sanity – when we find pollution the state EPA has full jurisdiction – now, here’s your paper work stop, those dozers, and shut up shop, we’ll tell you when and if you can come back”.  There will be clean up and restoration costs, compensation under State law, criminal charges, civil charges and of course, our own modest bill for this service, performed by public demand under a user pays system”.

Developer – “But, but we were assured, at the highest level that we were protected and could do whatever pleased us on a commonwealth place”.

EPA – … …cheery two finger wave.  “See ya in court – tootle pip”.

[Peetwo]

“Game on” I’d say.

(i) the adequacy of current legislation to enable the NSW EPA to respond to and regulate lands controlled and/or owned by a federal entity which would otherwise have the full jurisdiction of the NSW EPA if that same pollution event occurred on non-federally owned and controlled land; and

The Feds won’t like that – not one little bit.  State butting in to Federal business, on a ‘commonwealth place’.  No, no, NO, too used, for too long to getting their own way and doing exactly what pleases, when it pleases.  Oh dear, there’ll be a scramble now to ‘manage’ the ToR, watch the big hitters come out of the woodwork.  Can’t wait to watch.

EPA – “We reckon your development is polluted to the extent that it will affect public health, kill off the frogs and make the ducks glow in the dark”.  

Developer – “No it ain’t; anyway - sod off, this a Commonwealth place, we can do what we bloody well like, Murky said so”.  

EPA – “We want this place cleaned up and thanks to some the Senate sanity – when we find pollution the state EPA has full jurisdiction – now, here’s your paper work stop, those dozers, and shut up shop, we’ll tell you when and if you can come back”.  There will be clean up and restoration costs, compensation under State law, criminal charges, civil charges and of course, our own modest bill for this service, performed by public demand under a user pays system”.

Developer – “But, but we were assured, at the highest level that we were protected and could do whatever pleased us on a commonwealth place”.

EPA – … …cheery two finger wave.  “See ya in court – tootle pip”.

Game on?- Most certainly

From the Senate Notice Paper for 30 November 2015 (take note of Para (b) ):

1 Senators Conroy and Rhiannon: To move—That the following matters, in relation to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination, be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:


(a) by 4 February 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, with reference to:

(i) what contamination has occurred to the water, soil and any other natural or human made structures in the RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding environs,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth Government,
including the Department of Defence and RAAF Base Williamtown management, and New South Wales authorities to PFOS/PFOA contamination, including when base employees, local residents and businesses, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Councils, and the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed of the contamination,

(iii) the adequacy of consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Council, the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders,

(iv) whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian military and civilian personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(v) the adequacy of health advice and testing of defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed, or potentially exposed, to PFOS/PFOA in and around RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vii) what progress has been made on remediation works at RAAF Base Williamtown, and the adequacy of measures to control further contamination,

(viii) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts and assistance to affected business and individuals, and

(ix) any other related matters; and

(b) by 30 April 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination on other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia where firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA were used, with reference to:

(i) what Commonwealth, state and territory facilities have been identified as having PFOS/PFOA contamination, and what facilities may potentially still be identified as being contaminated,

MTF?- What do you reckon..P2 

[thorn bird]

Maybe we are getting some traction into the mess our airports have been allowed to descend into.
Alan Jones this AM asking some pointed questions about Bankstown.

[Peetwo]

From Senate Hansard yesterday: Defence Facilities: Contamination

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:40): At the request of Senators Conroy and Rhiannon, I move:

That the following matters, in relation to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination, be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

(a) by 4 February 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, with reference to:

(i) what contamination has occurred to the water, soil and any other natural or human made structures in the RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding environs,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth Government, including the Department of Defence and RAAF Base Williamtown management, and New South Wales authorities to PFOS/PFOA contamination, including when base employees, local residents and businesses, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Councils, and the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed of the contamination,

(iii) the adequacy of consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Council, the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders,

(iv) whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian military and civilian personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(v) the adequacy of health advice and testing of defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed, or potentially exposed, to PFOS/PFOA in and around RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vii) what progress has been made on remediation works at RAAF Base Williamtown, and the adequacy of measures to control further contamination,

(viii) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts and assistance to affected business and individuals, and

(ix) any other related matters; and

(b) by 30 April 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination on other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia where firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA were used, with reference to:

(i) what Commonwealth, state and territory facilities have been identified as having PFOS/PFOA contamination, and what facilities may potentially still be identified as being contaminated,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, local governments, commercial entities and affected local communities,

(iii) what measures have been taken by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of people in close proximity to known affected sites,

(iv) the adequacy of public disclosure of information about PFOS/PFOA contamination,

(v) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination,

(vii) what progress has been made on the remediation and the adequacy of measures to control further PFOS/PFOA contamination at affected Commonwealth, state and territory sites,

(viii) what investigation and assessment of contaminated sites and surrounding areas has occurred, and

(ix) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Maybe we are getting some traction into the mess our airports have been allowed to descend into.
Alan Jones this AM asking some pointed questions about Bankstown.

Alan Jones - Keith Campbell, Bankstown Airport, 30 Nov 2015.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

From Senate Hansard yesterday: Defence Facilities: Contamination

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:40): At the request of Senators Conroy and Rhiannon, I move:

That the following matters, in relation to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) contamination, be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

(a) by 4 February 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown and Australian Defence Force facilities, with reference to:

(i) what contamination has occurred to the water, soil and any other natural or human made structures in the RAAF Base Williamtown and the surrounding environs,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth Government, including the Department of Defence and RAAF Base Williamtown management, and New South Wales authorities to PFOS/PFOA contamination, including when base employees, local residents and businesses, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Councils, and the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were informed of the contamination,

(iii) the adequacy of consultation and coordination between the Commonwealth Government, the New South Wales Government, Port Stephens and Newcastle City Council, the Department of Defence and Australian Defence Force, affected local communities and businesses, and other interested stakeholders,

(iv) whether appropriate measures have been taken to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of Australian military and civilian personnel at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(v) the adequacy of health advice and testing of defence and civilian personnel and members of the public exposed, or potentially exposed, to PFOS/PFOA in and around RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown,

(vii) what progress has been made on remediation works at RAAF Base Williamtown, and the adequacy of measures to control further contamination,

(viii) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts and assistance to affected business and individuals, and

(ix) any other related matters; and

(b) by 30 April 2016 on PFOS and PFOA contamination on other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia where firefighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA were used, with reference to:

(i) what Commonwealth, state and territory facilities have been identified as having PFOS/PFOA contamination, and what facilities may potentially still be identified as being contaminated,

(ii) the response of, and coordination between, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, local governments, commercial entities and affected local communities,

(iii) what measures have been taken by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, to ensure the health, wellbeing and safety of people in close proximity to known affected sites,

(iv) the adequacy of public disclosure of information about PFOS/PFOA contamination,

(v) what consideration has been undertaken of financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals,

(vi) the adequacy of Commonwealth and state and territory government environmental and human health standards and legislation, with specific reference to PFOS/PFOA contamination,

(vii) what progress has been made on the remediation and the adequacy of measures to control further PFOS/PFOA contamination at affected Commonwealth, state and territory sites,

(viii) what investigation and assessment of contaminated sites and surrounding areas has occurred, and

(ix) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

Maybe we are getting some traction into the mess our airports have been allowed to descend into.
Alan Jones this AM asking some pointed questions about Bankstown.

Alan Jones - Keith Campbell, Bankstown Airport, 30 Nov 2015.

Inquiry details now released...

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia


On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

In terms of setting expectations, the committee emphasises that it is not in a position to resolve individual disputes or settle complaints regarding possible PFOS or PFOA contamination. Please note that all documents sent to the inquiry become committee documents on receipt, and are only made public following a decision of the committee. Material which is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on others may not be accepted or published by the committee. If you have any questions about your submission please contact the committee secretariat.
The closing date for submissions is 14 December 2015 for Part A and 5 February 2016 for Part B.

About this inquiry

• Terms of Reference
  
• Public Hearings
  
• Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade
  
• Committee home page
  

MTF..P2

[thorn bird]

Lets just stop here and have a little think.
Once upon a time, way back when, a certain Murky Mandarin and another highly suspect bearded Beaker set up the terms and conditions for the disposal of Australia's airports.
Old Murky has managed to stay under the radar so to speak, Beaker on the other hand has displayed some incredible levels of incompetence recognized around the world, yet he's still in the job?

One could be forgiven for pondering, just what does he have on whom?

He's still in the job, despite the PELAIR debacle, despite MH 370, it beggars belief!!!
These two Numpies orchestrated and facilitated the sale of our Publically owned primary airports. Think a little bit, "negative gearing" that the lefties rail against. The primary leases are not dissimilar. In effect old Murky and his mate beaker, set up the most brilliant biggest TAX evasion rort in history, gifting a monopoly, tax free cash cow to McBank and its associates. That most ethical of banks always slides down the edge of the razor blade of legality. One side of the sharpest edge is legal, the other side aint. The trick is to stay on the edge. Legal, yup provided their lawyers and accountants keep it right on the edge, ethical??....Hmm?? Moral definitely not.
The secondary's were a whole different proposition,some companies were incorporated with a few government ministers as directors, the secondary airports, owned at that time by the Federal Airports commission were transferred to these companies.

BAL (Bankstown airport Limited) was one such company. BAL, consortium of companies and investors put together by McBank, immediately set about discouraging any form of aviation from developing at Bankstown airport. As it was illegal for a property developer to own an airport, BAL formed another company Mirivac, who's shareholders were mainly the shareholders of BAL, which WAS a development company, and shifted 1/3 of the airport on the Southern side of the airport to them as a sublease. Runway 18/36 was closed, despite the objection of airport users on SAFETY grounds, but of course our mates at CAsA found no safety case, and the minister disappeared under the confetti of political donations acquiesced. Contaminated land fill was then dumped on the southern side of the airport, covering a flood plain, without any form of environmental study, other than that commissioned by the developers.
Corruption??? if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck????
The whole of Bankstown airport is "Contaminated"land. Thousands of gallons (the US kind) of bunker oil, live ammunition (Unexploded ordinance), human feces (Shit), asbestos ( Cancer causing), Pcb's,(Fire fighting foam) all ignored to facilitate billionaire development sharks.

Yup, old Murky and beaker should be in the gun for one hell of a payout! Na course not!! that would be corrupt wouldn't it??

[Gobbledock]

Of crooks, airports, money and politicians

Well said McThornbird well said!! (Even though you are 2 days late with your Sunday airport report. I've been waiting impatiently, and when Gobbledock gets impatient he gets cranky).

Point 1: It is very true that Beaker and Murky, long serving public servants and supposed representatives of the crown, are a pair of complete f#ckups. Both encouraged the sale of airports, both engineered the palpable, disgraceful and bureacratic insanity to allow Sudney airport to sold off to the cheapest crooked whore on the block. How these two inbreads can be allowed to stay in governmen and promoted into prime positions is beyond sane, logical comprehension. They sure must have some good self preservation dirt on somebody. Either that or pictures of all the establishment blowing goats!

Point 2: BAL and RWY 18/36. Hmmmm that little chestnut. One thing I haven't checked Thorny, was the RWY closed prior to or after its most recent Masterplan of the day was released? Runways aren't easy to 'just close'. A lot of permissions from and convincing must be done at the local state Government level, also 'acceptance' by CAsA of a very detailed safety case, the decision should be in line with local community input, be in compliance with the Masterplan (approved by the State), accepted by the local Council, and as a final point the decision should be in line with ICAO methodology, yes even ICAO have so-called processes they expect one to undertake if one wishes to close a community asset such as a runway at an airport such as Bankstown.

Point 3: It is pretty damn obvious, in fact blatantly obvious that the stamp of corruption is all over this. Add into the mix the 'relocation' of ASA infrastructure plus the supposedly EPA approvals to allow toxic shite to be dumped below the surface and now seep into the George's river during floods. Indeed, all the hallmarks of crooked, deceitful shonky behaviour by members of the 1%.

Point 4: Of course the iceberg has yet to really raise it's ugly head on this one. Contaminated land and airports everywhere, NOT just the RAAF airports either, the issue is widespread, and where is the EPA? Neutered with its balls in the Ministers mouth. Some good those assclowns are. Where are the Greens? Where are the other independent senators? Where is the media? What will it take - children glowing fluorescent green with two heads and two sets of genitalia? Or will it take cancer clusters and other such niceties before the greed and corruption is exposed?  

Point 5: It's royal commission time. A commission into everything aviation - dirty airports, abhorrent bureaucratic departments and their bullying, nepotism, malfeasance and mismanagement, all done under the watchful eye of a giant headed spin doctor and turd polisher who has outstayed his welcome by 20 years.

The time for public servants and politicians to become accountable for their actions, just like any other business employee, is half a century overdue. Why do we, the tax paying citizen, have to put up with these mealy mouthed, crooked, lying, deceitful bags of monkey shit?

TICK TOCK

P_666

[Peetwo]

From Senate Hansard yesterday: Defence Facilities: Contamination

Maybe we are getting some traction into the mess our airports have been allowed to descend into.
Alan Jones this AM asking some pointed questions about Bankstown.

Alan Jones - Keith Campbell, Bankstown Airport, 30 Nov 2015.

Inquiry details now released...

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia


On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

In terms of setting expectations, the committee emphasises that it is not in a position to resolve individual disputes or settle complaints regarding possible PFOS or PFOA contamination. Please note that all documents sent to the inquiry become committee documents on receipt, and are only made public following a decision of the committee. Material which is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on others may not be accepted or published by the committee. If you have any questions about your submission please contact the committee secretariat.
The closing date for submissions is 14 December 2015 for Part A and 5 February 2016 for Part B.

About this inquiry

• Terms of Reference
  
• Public Hearings
  
• Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade
  
• Committee home page
  

Yesterday in the HoR question time:

Paterson Electorate: RAAF Base Williamtown


Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs representing the Minister for Defence. Will you update the House on what the coalition government is doing to contain the PFOS firefighting chemical contamination at Williamtown RAAF Base? What actions has this government taken so far, and what plans are in place to restore the livelihood and the lifestyle of my constituents affected by the PFOS contamination?

Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:48): I thank the member for Paterson for his question and I note his concern for his constituents in relation to this matter. I am advised that Defence is taking this issue of contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown very seriously. Surface and groundwater contamination has been detected in and around the base as a result of past use of firefighting chemicals. The products have been used in firefighting for decades in every major military base and civilian airport, not just in Australia but internationally—so this is a worldwide issue, as the member knows.
The land at Williamtown is generally low and flat, and the watertable is very close to the surface—only half a metre down in some places, I am advised—presenting significant challenges to containing these chemicals. Through worldwide and Australian research, it transpires that few effective or viable large-scale remediation techniques—other than incineration of contaminated soil—have been identified. So incineration is an option that Defence is examining, and I am advised that the Minister for Defence met with officials about this in Canberra last week.

I am also advised that Defence is undertaking a range of control measures, including a rigorous testing regime. I know Defence are happy to provide the member with details. For example, to ensure that people have access to safe drinking water, to date Defence have visited 170 properties and tested about 186 private bores, 139 rainwater tanks and 17 swimming pools. I am also advised that the Department of Human Services has processed claims and paid about $155,000 for financial assistance to claimants to date. In addition, the New South Wales government has applied bans on commercial fishing in Fullerton Cove and Upper Tilligerry Creek since September. The federal government has implemented a financial assistance package of up to $25,000 per commercial fisher who derives the majority of their income from those areas. We are working with the New South Wales government in that regard.

There will be a Senate inquiry into this contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown. Defence will continue to work with federal, state and local authorities to appreciate the full scope of this issue at Williamtown and future remediation options. The Senate inquiry will also look at other Commonwealth, state and territory sites. The government fully supports this inquiry and we look forward to Defence's full participation and cooperation with the Senate inquiry. I trust that that answers the member's question

Also yesterday from ABC online:

Premier Mike Baird hits out at Defence over toxic leak

Updated Tue at 3:49pmTue 1 Dec 2015, 3:49pm

Photo: NSW Premier Mike Baird has slammed bureaucracy and excuses over the response to the Williamtown contamination scandal. (AAP: Nikki Short)

The New South Wales Premier Mike Baird has launched a stinging attack on Defence officials over bureaucratic bungling in relation to a contamination scandal at the Williamtown Air Force base.

The contamination, from fire fighting foam once used at the RAAF base, has left the local fishing industry in turmoil, while some local drinking water supplies have been quarantined.

During a visit to Newcastle today, Premier Mike Baird said excuses given to residents and business people caught up in the scandal do not wash with him.

"Look I had a meeting with the reference group this morning and I have to say that I am very disappointed in the progress," he said

"It is not good enough.

"What I heard is bureaucracy, I heard excuses in terms of what the residents and businesses have been given.

Mr Baird said he will be taking his concerns further.

"I'll be certainly taking the issue up with the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister," he said.

"We all have a huge amount of respect for Defence but what I will say is that those residents and businesses need action.

Residents urged to take part in contamination Senate probe

Williamtown residents are being urged to make sure their voices are heard through a Senate inquiry into the contamination crisis.

The first public hearing will be held in Canberra on Thursday before another is held in Williamtown on December 22.

Federal Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon said submissions are now open and everyone should take part.

"Please don't be put off by the word submission," she said.

"Really what the parliamentary inquiry is looking for is just in your own words what has been the experience for you as a resident or as an industry or business person."
The inquiry hand down its findings by February 4 next year.

It comes after a long campaign from locals for more action to be taken, with a convoy of residents voicing their concerns in Canberra last month.
Ms Claydon said the inquiry is important.

"It will look at the extent of the contamination and they're going to look at all those response issues between federal, state and local government agencies," she said.
Submissions will close on December 14.

Finally the program for tomorrow's hearing:

03 Dec 2015


Canberra, ACT  None

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The 'Bairded' one said;

"I'll be certainly taking the issue up with the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister," he said.

Oops, getting a little hot in the NSW kitchen Herr Premier? I don't blame you for being pissed off oh honourable member, your incompetent puppet master, Miniscule Truss, and his ever incompetent senior bureaucrat responsible for airports under his infrastructure portfolio, has a hell of a lot to answer for, don't you think?

Anyway, Gobbles is happy to pull up a deck chair on the Houseboat, relax, peg back an ale or two and enjoy the potential show. It's about time, the growing list of airport, aviation, environmental, safety and regulatory issues stemming from Mr Truss and Mr MrDak's portfolio is palpable. These two are accountable and should be made to answer for their mistakes. Not to forget dodgy developer deals around airports and other issues, the time is ripe for this mess to be exposed. Oh well, the IOS has been warning people for several years now about the idiots in government who keep screwing things up. Just sayin..........

TICK TOCK Miniscule

[Peetwo]

Hello Senators??

Slight drift here but it is important because yesterday in the HoR Truss - almost begrudgingly - delivered an update to the ASRR:

In a hole? – Stop digging.

P2 - In fact the "A" word (aviation) did not once pass the lips of our bumbling, stuttering, dopey miniscule

I wonder:– is aviation not mentioned solely because it’s not a thing that reflects any credit back onto the minister and the government?  Truss may not be the brightest candle – but he does have some fairly clever folk around him and access to some of the best available and they would know exactly what a shambles the administration is in.  “Say nothing” would be a smart answer, least said, soonest mended.  It makes sense, why would you draw attention to an abject failure and acknowledge that the Minister has no control whatsoever over 10 or perhaps 20 of the top layer of “safety” watchdogs.  All he knows or wants to know is that the Ministerial back end is covered, plenty of reassurance in that department – so why expose himself to ridicule, scandal and political attack.  

The Act is flawed, the minister weak, powerless and disinterested in drawing hostile fire – the opposition knowing little and caring even less about the industry wouldn’t know where to start. But it’s a shame, Truss has some very informed colleagues and a couple of very savvy, handy people who could and would sort out the mess and make him look good; why Truss does not play the strong cards in his hand is a matter for his conscience.  What an epitaph. Rome burning to fiddle music has a familiar ring to it.

Toot toot.

You could well be right Ferryman but I think it also had something to do with a bigger audience. What do I mean, well yesterday - after the 1st round of Labor trying to pineapple Mal Brough - in a much quieter moment Truss delivered this spin and bulldust update to the Reverend Forsyth's review report (Warning: Bucket maybe required):

Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (11:23): by leave:
Progress with implementing the Australian Government ' s Response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report
December 2015

In December last year I tabled the government's response to the independent review of Australia's aviation safety regulatory system in parliament. The government commissioned the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to examine our aviation safety regulatory system. The review was conducted by an independent panel of international aviation experts led by Mr David Forsyth, formerly a senior manager with Qantas and Chair of Airservices Australia.

The review report acknowledged Australia's excellent aviation safety record but found that there were opportunities for improvements to ensure Australia remains a leading aviation state. The report also made 37 recommendations, many relating to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), while others had implications for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Airservices Australia (Airservices), my department and also the Department of Defence.

Australia has worked hard to develop one of the most respected aviation safety systems globally. However, given the speed with which the international and domestic aviation industry is changing, we need to look for continuous improvement in our aviation safety regulatory system to reflect the growing diversity of our aviation industry. The Australian government agreed to 32 of the report's recommendations and agreed to undertake further examination of four others. The recommendations cover a number of key areas including CASA's regulatory philosophy, processes and relationship with industry, and a future regulatory framework and reform program. Enhancements to governance arrangements, improvements to interactions between key agencies and a stronger policy role for my department were also recommended and agreed to by the government.

Earlier this year I issued Australia's three key aviation agencies—CASA, Airservices and the ATSB—with new statements of expectations. These statements outline in a clear and public way the government's expectations of these agencies, including the timely implementation of the government's response to the review report. I can advise the House that implementation of the government's response is well underway.

CASA and ATSB Governance

The government supported the ASRR report's recommendations regarding board members possessing a range of appropriate skills and backgrounds, to strengthen CASA's vital role as Australia's independent aviation safety regulator. Accordingly, the government has appointed a completely new CASA board. Mr Jeff Boyd has been appointed as the new Chairman, and new members Mr Ian Smith, Ms Anita Taylor, Mr Murray Warfield and Ms Philippa Stone bring a diversity of valuable knowledge, including experience gained in different parts of the Australian aviation industry. These appointments bring pertinent technical, operational and managerial experience to help the board play a more active role in setting and steering CASA's strategic direction. The government also welcomed the appointment of Air Vice Marshal (Retired) Mark Skidmore AM who commenced as director of aviation safety on 1 January 2015.

The report also recommended the appointment of an additional ATSB commissioner, with aviation experience. Mr Chris Manning, who commenced as commissioner in March 2015, has extensive aviation operational and safety management experience, particularly in his former positions as Qantas chief pilot and group general manager of flight operations. In its role as the aviation safety regulator, it is essential that CASA has effective and ongoing engagement and communication with the industry both at a strategic and working level.

The Aviation Safety Regulation Review recommended the creation of an 'effective collaborative relationship [between CASA and the industry] based on a foundation of mutual understanding and respect.' To assist with such a relationship, CASA has recently released its statement of regulatory philosophy, which sets out the principles that will guide and direct CASA's approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and exercise of its regulatory powers. It is expected that CASA's review of its capability framework and amendments to its enforcement manual to reflect this new regulatory philosophy and use of discretion procedure will also be finalised before the end of the financial year.

Whilst it is expected that most of the updated CASA documentation required to implement the government's response will be completed this financial year, the real test of the effectiveness of implementation will be the adoption of these approaches by CASA staff over the coming months and years. The CASA board has confirmed the adoption of the three-tier approach to the regulatory framework, and there has been significant progress with the outstanding parts of the regulatory reform program supported by industry.

While the government is keen to see the completion of the drafting of the remaining parts of the program as soon as possible, the government recognises that the finalisation of the regulations is subject to ongoing consultation between CASA and industry. Therefore, the timing of the completion and implementation of specific regulatory changes will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Industry must also play its part by working cooperatively and constructively with government agencies to take forward regulatory reform. I welcome the initiative by CASA's Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore, to encourage industry to identify specific areas where current regulatory practices and procedures could be improved or replaced. In this regard, CASA has recently established a special task force that will work with an industry advisory panel made up of people representing a wide range of sectors across the aviation community to address outstanding issues with the flight crew licensing suite of regulations.

CASA has also reviewed and updated the terms of reference and reporting arrangements for its Industry Complaints Commissioner, including reporting arrangements to improve its independence and effectiveness.

Policy and coordination role of the department

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development chairs the Aviation Policy Group (APG) and is leading work between agencies to ensure coordinated action on a number of key aviation safety policy issues, including the State Safety Program (SSP).My department will be releasing this week a draft revised State Safety Program for industry and public consultation. In addition, my department, in close consultation with other aviation agencies, will be releasing policy papers before the end of the year for public and industry comment. These papers will be on:
aviation rescue and firefighting services regulatory policy; and
Australia's proposed approach to the implementation of Barometric Vertical Navigation (Baro VNAV) procedures to improve aviation safety.

Conclusion

The Australian government is committed to ensuring that Australia continues to have one of the most respected aviation safety systems in the world. Whilst significant progress has been made in developing policies, procedures and systems to support aviation safety regulatory reform, it will take time for these to be implemented and it will take time for a change in the culture within the regulator and in the aviation industry more broadly to take effect.

The success of such reform will also depend on the active engagement and contribution of the aviation industry. I encourage industry to play a constructive role in the change process. The government will continue to work with our aviation agencies and industry to achieve continuous improvement in our aviation safety system. I present a copy of the statement to the House.

   

And from the former Minister for Non-aviation, the man who gave us McComic & Beaker; whose contempt for anything aviation related has by default led to the loss of thousands of jobs, businesses & industry confidence; the man who tried to white-wash the PelAir debacle and supposedly accepted a substantial political donation from a former National's leader - yes you guessed it that man Albo... :

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (11:33): I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure for his update to the House on the government's response to the Aviation safety regulatory review report. The last ministerial statement on aviation safety was, of course, a year ago tomorrow. At that stage, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined the government's response to the regulatory review, led by David Forsythe, and the 37 recommendations that they made. At the time of the initial announcement of the review in November 2013, the release of the review report in June 2014 and the last parliamentary statement in December last year, I acknowledged that aviation safety should be subject to continuous review.

Aviation safety is not an issue of partisan debate in this parliament and nor should it be. I have taken the same constructive relationship to these issues that the now minister took when he was the shadow minister as well. We all have an interest in aviation safety—from an economic point of view because of the importance of aviation to our national economy and, primarily, because we are concerned about the safety of all those who fly, work and travel in aviation. It is a source of great national pride that Australia's aviation safety record is second to none anywhere in the world, and we need to make sure that that continues to be the case in the future.

Last December, Labor welcomed new CASA board appointments and, in particular, the appointment of former Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore as the Director of Aviation Safety. I took the opportunity then to express my view that CASA, as regulator, should be firm but fair, that tension was better than harmony for its own sake. This was in response to a focus in the Forsythe report that sought to foster closer relations between the regulator and the regulated. I said then, and reconfirm now, that we should never sacrifice rigour for harmony. I also referred to my concern that the quest for $12 million in savings to the aviation industry from the removal of so-called red tape should not sacrifice the core mission of our aviation regulators. These issues remain of concern to me.

The opposition welcomes the government's update to the parliament. I note that there is a full new board for CASA, although three of the four appointments were announced in last year's statement. The new chairman, Jeff Boyd, took over from Dr Alan Hawke in May, having served as vice-chairman. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr Hawke for the work that he did, not just in this position; I think his record of public service is quite extraordinary and almost without peer if you look at the decades in which he has served governments and his nation. I pay tribute to him.

I also note the appointment of Chris Manning as an additional ATSB commissioner in March. In September CASA's new leadership outlined the 10 points of its regulatory philosophy. I acknowledge Mark Skidmore's organisational leadership in setting clear expectations around its regulatory approach and how it will interact with the aviation community. I think being so clear about the philosophy moving forward allows people in the industry to have an element of certainty as to how CASA will respond to certain situations, and that can only be a good thing. The aviation sector, particularly the smaller sector of general aviation, is under real pressure. Improving outcomes for them, with the success of what can be, in many cases, very small business operations, is critical, and it is obviously harder for smaller operators to deal with regulation than it is for larger companies such as Qantas and Virgin Australia. Inviting the industry to point out existing issues in regulation that could be addressed should not supplant the fundamental responsibility of CASA to drive continuous improvement in aviation safety.

There is one matter on which the opposition has had to take a view in the past year, although not at our instigation. A disallowance motion in the Senate relating to responsibility for maintenance operations on aircraft was moved. Though the opposition favoured the precautionary approach then, I do want to indicate that I respect the assistance that Mr Skidmore and his team provided to the parliament at that time. It is difficult for non-expert politicians to weigh highly technical aviation regulatory matters—they are the subject of some disagreement from time to time—although we must.

While there are no specific announcements in this statement, the update is indeed welcome. Events overseas in the past year remind us that safety can never be taken for granted and that, in our dynamic world, the quest for aviation safety is never accomplished.

Debate adjourned.

  

BOLLOCKS!



MTF..P2

[size=x-large]From Albo's head in the sand speech..
"..Aviation safety is not an issue of partisan debate in this parliament and nor should it be.."
Absolute BOLLOCKS! That is what the bureaucracy love to hear, it is a sham & needs to be contested - NOW! The industry is at crisis point and while the Government & opposition continue with the charade that all is good - "nothing to see here, move along" - when in actual fact we are one major accident away; or one FAA ICAO audit away; from industry economic disaster & international aviation safety disgrace...

From those two self-serving speeches, it is quite obvious that the only political avenue for true transparency on the implementation of the Forsyth review report, will have to come from the Senate and the now informed expertise of the Senate RRAT committee.

However yesterday in the Senate the Government update was tabled without one whimper, or contest, or even reserved debate??

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Employment and Minister for Women) (18:26): I table three ministerial statements relating to progress with implementing the Australian government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, Operation Sovereign Borders and the Australian government’s response to the Harper review’s recommendation on road pricing.

[/size]
This does not bode well for the contesting of the Minister & Government's questionable update to the progress of the Forsyth review..

So for the sake of a previously more productive GA industry, that contributes considerably to the GDP & provides employment to many thousands of Australians, please pay attention Senators, we need you on your game..

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Truss and Albanese are two of the worst Ministers  that aviation has ever had responsible for its oversight. The only other Minster in recent centuries to at least do a little good, albeit minimal, was Anderson.

                          Albo plus Truss

                            =

     

                           BOLLOCKS

[Peetwo]

From Senate Hansard yesterday: Defence Facilities: Contamination

Inquiry details now released...

Contamination of Australia's Defence Force facilities and other Commonwealth, state and territory sites in Australia


On 30 November 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:

Contamination of Australian Defence Force facilities (Part A) reporting by 4 February 2016, and contamination of other sites using firefighting foams (Part B) reporting by 30 April 2016.

In terms of setting expectations, the committee emphasises that it is not in a position to resolve individual disputes or settle complaints regarding possible PFOS or PFOA contamination. Please note that all documents sent to the inquiry become committee documents on receipt, and are only made public following a decision of the committee. Material which is not relevant to the inquiry’s terms of reference or which reflects adversely on others may not be accepted or published by the committee. If you have any questions about your submission please contact the committee secretariat.
The closing date for submissions is 14 December 2015 for Part A and 5 February 2016 for Part B.

About this inquiry

• Terms of Reference
  
• Public Hearings
  
• Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade
  
• Committee home page
  

Premier Mike Baird hits out at Defence over toxic leak

Updated Tue at 3:49pmTue 1 Dec 2015, 3:49pm

Photo: NSW Premier Mike Baird has slammed bureaucracy and excuses over the response to the Williamtown contamination scandal. (AAP: Nikki Short)

The New South Wales Premier Mike Baird has launched a stinging attack on Defence officials over bureaucratic bungling in relation to a contamination scandal at the Williamtown Air Force base.

The contamination, from fire fighting foam once used at the RAAF base, has left the local fishing industry in turmoil, while some local drinking water supplies have been quarantined.

During a visit to Newcastle today, Premier Mike Baird said excuses given to residents and business people caught up in the scandal do not wash with him.

"Look I had a meeting with the reference group this morning and I have to say that I am very disappointed in the progress," he said

"It is not good enough.

"What I heard is bureaucracy, I heard excuses in terms of what the residents and businesses have been given.

Mr Baird said he will be taking his concerns further.

"I'll be certainly taking the issue up with the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister," he said.

"We all have a huge amount of respect for Defence but what I will say is that those residents and businesses need action.

Residents urged to take part in contamination Senate probe

Williamtown residents are being urged to make sure their voices are heard through a Senate inquiry into the contamination crisis.

The first public hearing will be held in Canberra on Thursday before another is held in Williamtown on December 22.

Federal Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon said submissions are now open and everyone should take part.

"Please don't be put off by the word submission," she said.

"Really what the parliamentary inquiry is looking for is just in your own words what has been the experience for you as a resident or as an industry or business person."
The inquiry hand down its findings by February 4 next year.

It comes after a long campaign from locals for more action to be taken, with a convoy of residents voicing their concerns in Canberra last month.
Ms Claydon said the inquiry is important.

"It will look at the extent of the contamination and they're going to look at all those response issues between federal, state and local government agencies," she said.
Submissions will close on December 14.

Update: Hansard from yesterday's 1st hearing is yet to be released, however for those interested here is the documents tabled from that hearing:

Tabled Documents


Download All
1

Department of Defence - opening statement by Mr Steve Grzeskowaik - tabled 3 December 2015
2

Professor Mary O'Kane - 'Williamtown Contamination Expert Panel - Terms of Reference' - tabled 3 December 2015
3

Professor Mary O'Kane - 'Williamtown Contamination Expert Panel - Meeting Minutes 1-11' - tabled 3 December 2015

Also the Hansard from last week's Public Works Committee hearing can be accessed - here.

From that Hansard I thought the following extract was enlightening for the future 'Under Bravo' Senate Inquiry:

Ms Clifton : There are a couple of things that I think are important to have on the record. One of them is that we are dealing with a legacy issue. We know that this is already in the groundwater, and this is the result of 50 years of use of this particular product not only at Air Force bases but at private airports, refineries and anywhere where there were liquid fuel fires. It is a ubiquitous product. In 2003, when we became aware that it was an emerging contaminant, we put in place both new practices and new policies to reduce our use of it. We transitioned to a new product between 2004 and 2011. We now only use firefighting foam to test equipment, as required, or in an emergency. We do not train with firefighting foam anymore. So we are dealing with a legacy contaminant. The contaminant itself is very long lasting, so if it gets into soil it stays there for a long time. If it is in water, it can break down with UV exposure, but if it is in groundwater obviously it is not getting UV exposure. There are limited remediation strategies available for large scale remediation, as far as we know, but what we are doing with the existing NACC project is trialling how we could do that, particularly with regard to the aquifer, and getting cleaner water back into the aquifer, and it is that that we propose to do for this coming project. With regard to run-off, the project people can speak more specifically, but we have been very conscious of reducing any additional run-off from the base...

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

The Bairded one;

"During a visit to Newcastle today, Premier Mike Baird said excuses given to residents and business people caught up in the scandal do not wash with him".

Mr Baird, while you are on the subject of taking your issues to the PM (a good idea as he has numerous layers of protective walls in front of him), perhaps sir you can raise the issue of Bankstown airport as well? You know, the airport that has been operationally and financially pack raped by a large development consortium, and has had sections of it's land fill contaminated with explosive material, carcinogens and other assorted toxic shite, shite that will eek into the George's River when the airport area is flooded. Oops, that's already happened!! While you are at it ask the PM to explain why the EPA wrote a glowing report, ask him why ASA moved sensitive airport infrastructure on the sly, ask him why there are continued rumours of possible corruption by public servants and the investor sharks over the planned development of this once grand airport, and ask Malcolm why he has chosen not to take action against Farmer Truss and Pumpkin Head.

And also good sir, please ask Malcolm exactly what does he intend to do with these serious and critical safety , environment and possible corruption issues that have been raised formally? You see the risk has been outed, it now sits in the public domain for all the world to see (particularly the residents of Newcastle and Bankstown) and you cannot leave those risks unmitigated Malcolm, that would be irresponsible and naughty.

Tick tock Malcolm, not long now until all the fisheries are polluted and the children of Bankstown start glowing green.......just sayin.

P_666