[Peetwo]

ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode I: Hansard

ASA ARFFS Inquiry - Episode I:  A Harfwit under the Bus? (Thursday 14th)

Recap so far...

Senate Inquiry - The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports

Have just been yet again notified of more submissions to the above RRAT inquiry and on on preusal it would seem that submitters are taking advantage of the loosely worded ToR in order to have a crack at Harfwit and his trough feeding executive mob from all kinds of different perspectives...  

For example the 1st cab off the rank was from Willson Consulting, to which Ironsider refers in today's aviation section of the Oz:

Airport fire foams in spotlight

ROBYN IRONSIDE
Concerns have been raised about environmentally friendly firefighting foams to tackle life-threatening blazes at airports.

---

Then there is this typical self-serving, self-preserving - "not me who farted Your Honour" - weasel worded confection from St Carmody and his Iron Ring cronies at Fort Fumble: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667051

Anyway for those interested fill your boots, it seems it's a free for all Harfwit bashing...  

To begin, it has just been announced, that there is a public hearing with this inquiry on Thursday in Melbourne: see here - https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...c_Hearings  
 

---

Hmm...'any other Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting matters'...well I could name a few? 

But here is a hint from our patron Saint of Australian Aviation Safety...

 

Moving on, I note that the first cab off the rank is the United Firefighters Union of Australia and after reading their totally first rate expert submission, that for once addresses properly and transparently the full ToR of the inquiry, I can see why: ref -  https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=667139

Well done to the DPS?   - This must be the Dunceunda's Federal Parliament quickest publication of an interstate RRAT Senate Inquiry public hearing Hansard, that I can ever recall? Shame there is not much adversarial content that is worthy of repeating, not to mention it was again somewhat hijacked/derailed by Senator O'Sofullofit...  Anyhow for those interested 'fill your boots'...  
 

• Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
  (Senate-Thursday, 14 March 2019)
  

For mine one of the more interesting lines of questioning was to the Department:

Senator GALLACHER: How many category 6 airports do not have the ARFF provision?

Ms Spence : I don't have that in front of me. Can we take that on notice?

Senator GALLACHER: Would it be fair to say that that there are roughly eight million passengers, five per cent of airline passengers, who travel without the ARFF service?

Ms Spence : What I do know is that around 96 per cent of passengers are covered by our services. I just don't know if that four per cent equates to that eight million.

Senator GALLACHER: That is the great stat in Australia—most of us live within 100 kilometres of the coast and most of us live in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. But there are eight million passengers who don't live in those areas who don't have firefighting services. Is that correct?

Ms Spence : I would not say they have got no firefighting services. They don't have aviation rescue and firefighting services. We do have arrangements with the off-airport services. I appreciate the point that is going to be raised about the time it would take to respond, but there are arrangements in place for the other airports.

Senator GALLACHER: What is the situation for places like Yulara, which is 470 kilometres from the nearest firefighting crew?

Ms Spence : I would have to take on notice the specifics.

Senator GALLACHER: What oversight exists with CASA decisions regarding ARFF? How does the department interact with CASA?

Ms Spence : For example, we were the ones who ran the review. We work with CASA when they are doing their regulation updates. We are observers on their advisory panel and we have a general policy oversight for the operations of CASA but they are a statutory independent regulator.

Senator GALLACHER: You very helpfully supplied all the information about the major airports in Australia. How would you characterise those airports, particularly Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide? Are those passenger movements growing?

Ms Spence : I know Melbourne is. As a general rule, I would say the market is increasing rather than decreasing.

Senator GALLACHER: There will always be a debate about or an assessment of the risk. Senator O'Sullivan has highlighted a bit of that, both publicly and privately. But we do have ARFF in place at these airports where it appears to me as if the passenger numbers are growing.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: The traffic through the terminals is growing and there is a valiant attempt by Airservices to provide additional rescue and firefighting services in terminal emergencies, whether they be fires in terminals, people having heart attacks or whatever. How does the department look at how this affects the primary function, which is the aviation rescue and firefighting service in the event of the A380 or 777 or multiple events on the runways, versus spreading a lean resource more widely? Do you look at that or is it none of your business?

Ms Spence : We are not technical experts in that space, so we are reliant on the expertise that rests within the agencies.

Senator GALLACHER: So Airservices is a statutory authority and CASA is a statutory authority. If it goes belly up, they get it wrong and there is, heaven forbid, an inquiry that says you probably should not have spread your resources so thin, who does that come back to at the end of the day? It comes back to the department, doesn't it?

Ms Spence : We would then be looking at what needs to be done to change it but we don't have the technical expertise within the organisation to say that the settings are wrong at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: We've had the Fire Protection Association saying that there's a diminution in the standards of the firefighting foams and that we don't test to Australian conditions; we test to 15 degrees, which is European conditions. We believe that the prudent thing to do here is some testing to make sure the replacement foam is the best one. Is that a departmental responsibility, or do you have no technical expertise in that area as well?

Ms Spence : It would be a matter for CASA. But, ultimately, what would be very helpful is if we could get more evidence from the organisation that was presenting about the basis for their statement. We'd be very happy to follow up with them to understand a bit more about what they were talking about at the table.

Senator GALLACHER: Just so I'm very clear on this, is our current Deputy Prime Minister the minister responsible for this area?

Ms Spence : Yes, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: And do Airservices and CASA report to the department?

Ms Spence : They report to their boards.

Senator GALLACHER: Their boards.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: They sit in estimates. We get nothing out of your secretary, but Secretary Mrdak used to say, 'We talk to them but they report through their board structure.'

Ms Spence : That's right.

Senator GALLACHER: If they don't meet a service requirement or if, through some decision they make, they cause something that inconveniences the minister, how does that get resolved?

Ms Spence : As Secretary Mrdak would have said, and as Secretary Kennedy would say now, we engage very closely with them. We can't direct them to do anything. The minister does have direction powers, and if there were a significant concern, that would obviously be something that could be looked at. But, as I said, we don't have any evidence in front of us to suggest that there is a significant issue that we need to respond to.

Senator GALLACHER: In particular, if there's the granting of exemptions to Airservices as an aviation rescue firefighting provider by CASA, that really is their business; it's nothing to do with the department.

Ms Spence : We couldn't require CASA to issue such an exemption or prevent them from issuing such an exemption.

Senator GALLACHER: But, in the event that, down the line, that exemption were proven not to have been the correct procedure, what would the department do?

Ms Spence : In that situation, we would work with CASA. If an amendment to legislation or regulation were needed to require changes to the way in which CASA was undertaking its functions or what Airservices was doing, we would be the lead in terms of any amendments to the legislation or regulation. That's from a formal point of view. If it were less formal, then, again, we would work closely with the agencies to address what issues could be addressed.

Senator GALLACHER: Airservices and CASA have been interacting with this committee for a number of years. How would you characterise the department's confidence level, in particular, in aviation rescue and firefighting services? Are they satisfying your department in the correctness and efficacy of their decision-making?

Ms Spence : I have no evidence to suggest that they're not.

Senator GALLACHER: Are you confident that they have made the appropriate and correct decisions?

Ms Spence : To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Thanks, Chair.

Senator PATRICK: I just want to clarify: is Airservices a GBE?

Ms Spence : No, Senator. It's an independent statutory agency. I think that's the right terminology.

Mr Lyons : It's a Commonwealth corporate entity, I believe.

Ms Spence : Yes.

Senator PATRICK: That's different to a statutory authority. CASA is clearly independent, created by statute.

Ms Spence : Yes, as is Airservices. It was created by statute as well.

Senator PATRICK: I was just looking at their structure. It has the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development sitting on top, engaging with the chair, who, through a board, deals ultimately with Mr Harfield as the CEO.

Ms Spence : That's correct.

Senator PATRICK: In that structure, can you or can't you have the minister issue a direction?

Ms Spence : I think that, under the legislation, there is a power to issue directions. I'd have to take on notice any caveats that sit around that directions power.

Senator PATRICK: I know that for GBEs, for example, there's a direction that can be issued by the government to the entity, and that gets tabled in the parliament.

Ms Spence : I think it's a similar provision. There's also the Statement of Expectations, which is issued at the outset, and I think there is a direction power within the Air Services Act. I assume, like the Statement of Expectations, that would also need to be tabled in the parliament.

Senator PATRICK: And there would be an expectation about return to the Commonwealth, because Airservices is run as an entity that makes money. It charges for its services.

Ms Spence : It fully cost-recovers its services. It's costed from industry. It doesn't get any appropriation from government.

Senator PATRICK: Okay.

Senator GALLACHER: Does it pay a dividend?

Ms Spence : It does pay a dividend to the government.

Senator PATRICK: In that context, it's similar to a GBE in that there is an expectation as to the return that comes in. I assume it has a value to the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth would expect a return of a particular amount, like Australia Post or Australian Submarine Corporation?

Ms Spence : They certainly do return a dividend to the government. I'd have to take on notice any expectations around what the dividend would be. The first and foremost is they don't receive an appropriation from government.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. That leads to the question that was being asked before about expectations about profit and whether or not things are driven by cost or how much they are driven by cost.

Ms Spence : I'll just see if my colleagues have anything to add.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. Can anyone inform the committee as to whether or not there's an expectation in terms of profit?

ACTING CHAIR: How many answers to that question do you think there are from the officers?

Senator PATRICK: Well, Ms Spence was looking to her colleagues, that's all.

Ms Spence : Mr Moore has indicated that he might have something else to add.

Mr Moore : There's an expectation that it is fully cost-recovered. There is a dividend that is paid to the Commonwealth, but that dividend in relative terms to total revenue is usually relatively small.

Senator PATRICK: I seem to recall that the ACCC takes a close look at them as a monopoly supplier.

Ms Spence : The ACCC has to approve their charging framework. I think there's probably a more technical term to describe it, but, essentially, what they charge industry from a cost-recovery point of view is endorsed by the ACCC.

Senator PATRICK: Ms Pyett, you might have heard the discussion before when we were talking about a tasked resource analysis. If Airservices wants to make a change to the structure of its firefighting services, it needs to be CASA approved. I presume there are processes that things go through. Is that something that is driven from a policy perspective or is it something that CASA would drive?

Ms Spence : I think I can answer that. People can correct me if I'm wrong. As per the review, we would work on the policy framework and get approval from the responsible minister for what the key policy settings would be. Then it would go through the normal CASA regulatory reform steps, which involve consultation on a draft, establishment of a technical working group and further consultation. Then, ultimately, CASA would provide advice through the department to the minister on amendments to the regulation.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, but I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line between what is policy and what the agency or CASA might decide. From a policy perspective, can you set the benchmark to say that these sorts of changes must be done by way of a proper risk analysis?

Ms Spence : Essentially, that's what happened through the regulatory review process. The policy parameters that we were looking at were really around where ARFFs should be established and what the criteria, at an overarching level, should be in terms of passenger numbers and where that would trigger the requirement for an ARFFs. When it gets down into the detail of the way in which this would be done, that would be a matter for CASA to progress.

Senator PATRICK: So, from a policy perspective, you couldn't say, 'As a minimum standard, for any changes that might affect safety, we expect that a safety case is carried out.'

Ms Spence : The only other thing that I'd say is that we'd be mindful of ICAO—the International Civil Aviation Organization—requirements as well. But, for example, in the case of the triggers for when an ARFFs is required to disestablish, a risk assessment has to be done before you disestablish one and also before you would establish one. Mr Moore, did you want to add something?

Mr Moore : Yes, just for the record, on the pricing structure. Economic regulatory oversight is done entirely by the ACCC, because the provision of ARFFs is a declared service for the purposes of part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act. Airservices sets its prices with airlines using a five-year long-term planning agreement. The most recent long-term planning agreement expired 30 June 2016, and charges have been frozen at those levels since that point in time.

Senator PATRICK: Just to make sure I'm clear about that: the firefighting services are charged back to the airline operators on some proportional basis, or as part of a landing fee or recovered in some way?

Mr Moore : The charges are paid by the airlines on a per landed time fee, based on the maximum take-off weight of the aircraft.

Senator PATRICK: Okay. So Airservices is then expected to provide that particular service within a cost-neutral environment, but they recover that portion of the landing fee and that's what they end up having to provide the services with?

Mr Moore : Correct.

Senator PATRICK: Okay, thank you.

ACTING CHAIR: And that's approved by the ACCC—the framework for that?

Mr Moore : Yes. The ACCC has oversight of it.

Senator PATRICK: This goes to what Senator Gallacher was asking, and perhaps what Senator O'Sullivan was asking: clearly, then, they have a budget that they have to provide these services within. You said that it's static in the context of generally rising costs overall. Who made it static?

Ms Spence : It's set. I think it's a five-year agreement and then the Airservices board—I think it would be better to ask those questions of Airservices.

Senator PATRICK: Right, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Oh and I thought this (wishful thinking) comment from Senator Gallagher et.al on the non-appearance of Harfwit was quite amusing...  

 

Senator GALLACHER: Where's the former CEO? Has he vacated the position?

Ms Bennetts : Do you mean Jason? Mr Harfield?

Senator GALLACHER: Yes.

Ms Bennetts : He's away at the moment.

CHAIR: He's still the CEO?

Ms Bennetts : Yes, he is. I am the acting CEO. He's overseas for work. Just for weeks—not months or years!

CHAIR: You got us all excited!

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Did he book that after the notification of the date for this hearing?

Ms Bennetts : No. We only knew about this literally two weeks ago!

MTF...P2