[ventus45]

Well, perhaps I am worse than a naughty boy.


Read this: 

The Plan - the charts say it all.

[thorn bird]

Ventus,
worse than that, it would appear the bashful Development shark, with if you believe the press, a rather unsavory reputation, a billionaire making substantial donations to political parties, ignoring environmental law, employing bikey gangs to sort out his industrial affairs and if rumour is to be believed, has been working hand in glove with a certain Murky Mandarin for a lot longer than anyone thought.

It is rumoured that he has been gifted a hundred acres of greenfield real estate on the Southern side of Bankstown airport for less than $50 million, not airport land if you believe the spin, but "adjacent" to the airport, ignoring the fact that a runway required closing (contrary to the airports act) a radio aid required moving (At public expense and an ASA executive losing his job in rather "Murky" circumstances, all to save $23 million bucks). I say gifted because 100 acres...lets see??.   I'm a mathematics tragic but at around 7 blocks for each acre average seven hundred building blocks, more if you build apartments. What does land sell for 40Km out of town? I have no idea, but smack Dab in the middle of Sydney? I think $50 mil is a gift.

It has been said that the development shark attempted, or should we say "tempted" a certain senator and got shown the door (there are a few honest Politicians out there) but unfortunately Murky Mandarins wield the power.

A meeting has been called!!!

"The Dogs they called a meeting,
They came from near and far,
Some dogs came by aeroplane (them that could afford it)
Others came by car. (Them that made it),
and as they crossed the courtyard to sign the visitors book
Each dog took off its asshole and hung it on a hook!

Now every dog was there sir,
Each Bitch, each Pup, each Sire
When this rotten little Mongrel jumped up and shouted FIRE.
The dogs were so confused Sir, they didn't know where to look!
They just grabbed the nearest asshole, off the nearest hook.

That is why today Sir, where ever you may roam,
You'll see one dog sniff another's Ass,
To see if its his own!!

It would seem the dogs have come home, BAL has called a meeting of all "victims"...
sorry "Stakeholders" ...sorry "Tenants"...Note the word "CUSTOMER" has not been used to discuss, amongst other things, their leases and when they will have to make the move to Badgerys Creek.

The Development shark has been working on this for a long time people, he cannot wait for the GA industries death rattle, times a'waisting, close your doors and bugger off you should have screamed FIRE a long time ago, we tried to tell you!

They cant because of the airport Act? Well Hoxton was an airport, an inconvenience like the airport act is easy peasy to change, a few mil here, a few mil there, the Mandarin will not be denied.

Someone should also warn the Murky Mandarin that having so many people sniffing his ass will ultimately lead to a bad case of Herpes's, incurable you know!!

[P7_TOM]

13th November 2015
The Hon. Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra  2600

Re:  BANKSTOWN AND CAMDEN AERODROMES PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEASE
                                                                AND
        PROPOSED CHANGES TO AIRPORT ACT AND AIRPORT ACT REGULATIONS

Dear Deputy Prime Minister,

                                             Further to my earlier letter to you concerning the proposed retrospective changes that are planned to be made to the Airports Act 1996, the Airport Act Regulations and the Head lease for Bankstown Aerodrome and Camden Aerodrome.

   It has come to my attention that the parties that will benefit from the proposed changes have already made private approaches to members of both sides of Parliament. The reason for these amendments, which my enquiries have revealed are in their advanced stages but unable to be revealed to voting members of the public, leads one to the fact that someone will or has benefited from this “cloak and dagger” approach to have such an important action coducted under this amount of secrecy.

   If there is a proposed change to any Act of Parliament, as a citizen and a voter I should be able to phone or write to the Office of Parliamentry Council or the Minister's office and be informed about any proposed changes. I was able to establish that there was something happening to the Act but it could not be revealealed. Why the secrecy, unless there is a cover up?  If there is a cover up, what is being covered up and to benefit whom?

   It should be noted that the proposed retrospective changes affect runway 18/36 (the only North/South runway in the Sydney Basin) which although partially covered in asbestos contaminated fill, still exists but will be developed upon if this illegal destrucion of the Flood Plain is, made legal, by the retrospective passing of legislation. Why the secrecy? This development will remove many hectares of valuable Airside land for commercial use (it also and importantly, forms part of the Flood Plain for the Georges River), the airport users as well as the public in the flood prone areas, suffer as a result of this loss and the developers and Banks win as a result.

   The Flood Plain has been destroyed without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and without an approval from the custodian of the Flood plain,namely the Bankstown City Council (BCC).  It is noted that there has been an attempt to represent that a “Private Certifier” (who by law is not authorised to approve the destruction of a Flood Plain) used an Australian Government Letterhead to grant “approval” to this illegal action (some would say criminal).

   As the Airport Act and Regulations relate to the whole of Australia, this is a mattter that should be the subject of Australia wide consultation, and should not be considered just to benefit of property developers or banks no matter how much influence he may have with the department heads.

   I understand the reason for the urgency and secrecy for this proposed Leglislative change is because the proposed development has already included the unlawful destruction of the “Flood Plain” ( app. 42Ha up to 3m to 4m high) to the Georges River with Asbestos contaminated fill, without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by law or approval by the EPA.

   The Bankstown City Council, by law, is the “custodian” of the “Flood Plain”, they were not consulted and in fact they have lodged a formal objection to the development and the manner in which it has proceeded without any legal approval, this objection is now in the Ministers hands.

   It is not known at this stage what the proposed changes are and it would be appreciated if you could advise us of those changes and the time frame you believe are necessary, as well as the nature of any retrospectivity, for consideration long before the changes are passed by the Parliament.

   It has been stated in the past that if we had a Minister with the resposibility for Aviation, that was prepared to fight for  the aviation industry in the same way the Minister for Mines fought for mines (successfully), we would not have the aviation industry falling into the parlous state it has been allowed to fall into, with a bit of effort it still can be saved.  Minister  I am reliably advised the problem does not rest with you but with your bureaucracy, for reasons that can only be speculated.

   It is believed it would be considered improper for the bureaurocrats to have any contact or be influenced by any Developer or Receiver Manager.

   It is further requested if you can confirm why the NDB at Bankstown Aerodrome was relocated, and whether a Notam was issued and who paid for it. This happened when the former head of Air Services Australia  (ASA) announced it would no be relocated, he resigned and it was relocated.

   I understand that Senator Sam Dastyary has announced an enquiry into ASA  with Senator Bill Heffernan as the Chairman, maybe this retrospective legislation changes and the relocation of the NDB could form part of that Enquiry, this is getting near to Royal Commission material.
 
   Could we please be advised of what these proposed changes are prior to them being put to the Parliament?

   This matter is urgent as any changes will have to be considered by stakeholders through Australia before implementation.

   As for the Lease it will affect all the Sub Lease holders who would require notification prior to any changes or retrospective changes. Your early reply would be appreciated.
   
                                                                                            Yours faithfully,
cc Sen. Heffernan
    Sen. Fawcett                                                           
    Steve Creedy (The Australian)
    Anne Lampe ( The SMH)

I don't know what else to add - except - SHAME.

[thorn bird]

A Sunday Ramble

Not the bloody Airports again!!

"Welcome that’s just plane rude"

Terry McCrann, normally a finance reporter, voiced what perhaps a lot of people feel when they pass through our “Privatised” airports.

In the Daily telegraph on the 10th of November, describing Sydney airport:

“Welcome to Australia and the 20th century”

“Outdated  is the kindest word to describe the approach to facilitating things for visitors”

“ More accurate words would be “Dreadful”,  “Disgraceful” and “Embarrassing”. If Sydney Airport is the gateway to Australia it has blazoned across it. “Don’t bother coming back”.

Terry mate, what you describe is the inevitable result of leasing our Public infrastructure to entities who have no interest in running airports, Their only focus is maximising the profits their monopoly can provide by gouging the users and salting the money away in tax free havens.

He then goes on to describe his experience passing through Tokyo’s airport and compares it to Sydney’s, then asks some very poignant questions and ask’s who’s responsible ?


“The Howard Government for selling the airport with maximum gouge rather than requiring the private sector owners to get it right?”

“ Sydney Airport for putting profits ahead of service?”

“ The airlines, especially QANTAS, for going along with it?”

Terry, I’m as embarrassed as you about our third world airports, but consider this.

If the airport operators are so reticent to spend money to facilitate passenger comfort and convenience, how much do you think they spend on infrastructure for the aircraft that land on it?
I can tell you exactly.

The absolute minimum to meet their regulatory obligations and not a cent more.

That is why you’re a hell of a lot safer flying elsewhere in the world than braving Australia’s antiquated, creaking  third world system.

Perhaps the question to be asked is who set up the arrangements for leasing the airports? What did they imagine their reward would be?
Why was the lease so biased towards the lessor and their tax free profits, rather than the users and ultimately their customers, it was and still is a monopoly after all?

Sydney is one of the most expensive airports in the world to fly into, a billion dollars a year in turnover and not a cent paid in tax. Imagine what our airports would be like if those profits were ploughed back into the airport?

A meeting was held last week at Bankstown airport to discuss the airports future when Badgerys creek opens. Under our current third world traffic management plan IFR operations would be severely restricted at Bankstown, largely because of the alignment of the runway 11-29 complex. Strange how the rest of the world seems to be able to manage airports in close proximity?

London Heathrow for example , with seconday airports located within its control zone.

New York comes to mind, Kennedy, Teteborough, Newark etc

Dallas Fort Worth, the main airport big enough to fit Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and probably Perth into its area, surrounded by no less than 14 satellite airports.

Speaking of Perth, there was a lot of talk last year about Perth needing a second runway, that imperative now eased with the slowdown in the mining Industry. Unfortunately with the usual lack of foresight the government capitulated  to the greed of the airport Airport Operator over the future needs of the aviation industry and allowed them to develop airport land as an industrial estate.
If the imperative for a second runway resurfaces, which it will, people will have to give up their homes as land will have to be resumed to facilitate a second runway, because land that was reserved for that purpose is now an industrial estate.

Bankstown Airport is in the same boat.

It is rumoured a godfather of development sharks, patron of Bikey gang industrial relations experts and model litigant of Local Government councillors who take exception to his “Robust” environmental credentials, intends to develop airside land, not as his spin doctors describe it "as land adjacent to Bankstown Airport" .

Another shopping Mall, just what the country needs, no doubt employing tens of thousands of  shop assistants to flog Chinese made merchandise manufactured from dirt we exported last year from WA.

The users of Bankstown airport now find themselves much as Perth Airport.

We used to have a runway aligned North South,  which could have been developed for IFR departures and arrivals, a runway that would not have impinged on Badgery Creeks airspace.

Contrary to the airport Act, the airport lease, the advice of many in Industry that it was required for safety, the minister of the day allowed that runway to be closed, no doubt under "advice" from his Murky mandarin with a whole different objective.

Were the interests of the airport users or for their future needs ever considered by the minister? or contrary to the Airport Act did he put the interests of billionaire property developers  ahead of his responsibilities to look after the interests of aviation?

It is rumoured that there are moves afoot to change the airport act and the lease terms for the airport. It is being done in secret, no doubt under the watchful eye of a Murky Mandarin.

For what purpose?

To retrospectively legalise the destruction of a flood plain with contaminated landfill without EPA approval?

To enable freehold title to be given to a billionaire developer perhaps?

The NDB at Bankstown was moved. We understand to facilitate access to Milperra road to save a development shark 20 odd million dollars.

We understand that move was initially opposed by the responsible ASA manager.

It is passing strange that shortly after his refusal, anomalies in his expense account were discovered forcing his resignation.

A coincidence that shortly after the NDB was moved?

Which begs the question, who paid for it, and was the radio aid recalibrated?

Just as Terry McCrann’s article paints a very sad picture of the state of our primary airports,  so the goings on at our secondary airports paints a very Murky picture of  the management of our public infrastructure, to favour development sharks over airport users.

Has there been a conspiracy all along within the hallowed halls of the Cant’berra bureauracracy to circumvent the original intent of the Airports Act, to decimate a whole industry in favour of billionaire developers?

I guess only a Royal Commission could tell us that.

[Gobbledock]

Thank you Thorny for the Sunday ramble, it's always one of my highlights for the week (well to be honest nude Skeet with Kharon on the Houseboat is also a highlight!).

But your suggestion of a Royal Commission is certainly a vey acceptable notion. There are some very serious corruption concerns relating to the actions and activities of developers and government agencies, of that there is no doubt.

Thorny said;

"It is rumoured that there are moves afoot to change the airport act and the lease terms for the airport. It is being done in secret"

I have heard the same myself from a fairly decent source. If the Act is changed then we have our answer, something corrupt has taken place. They only ever do something like that if someone's arse is about to get uncovered and the Government is about to land in a world of hurt.

I'm still puzzled that no media organisation in the world of TV has picked up on all this shite that has been going on for years. Where is the Aunty or SBS when you need them? Even old Chanel 7 hasn't been too shy to pick up small aviation threads in the past. Tis strange indeed......

[Kharon]

I find it amazing that when a developer wants an Act changed – it’s can do, at top speed.  How long now has the industry been begging and pleading for the Aviation Act to be changed, to save an industry and what happens, SFA.

We - are in the wrong game boys;

[Peetwo]

The 450 airport Elephants -

Slight drift here but still very much relevant to poor old Bankstown Airport's woes...

From the other Aunty a story that should be of concern for not only Minister for Defence Marise Payne but also the dopey, inept, bureaucratic footstool DPM Truss:

NSW Government to extend fishing ban by eight months due to toxic leaks from air force base

ABC Rural
By Lucy Barbour

Updated 27 Oct 2015, 2:56pmTue 27 Oct 2015, 2:56pm

Photo: Fishing has been banned in Fullerton Cove due to a toxic chemical leak. (1233 ABC Newcastle: Robert Virtue)

         
Audio: A ban at two fisheries near Newcastle is crippling local fishing businesses (ABC Rural)

The NSW Government has extended a ban on two fishing areas, currently closed due to a toxic chemical leak from the Williamtown air force base, for a further eight months.
News of the extensions at Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove will rock local fishing families, some of whom haven't had an income for the past two months due to the bans.
Some species of fish have been found to contain concerning levels of Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, or PSOS, the chemical found in firefighting foams formerly used at the Williamtown base.

NSW Chief Scientist Mary O'Kane, who chairs the expert panel that recommended the extension, said there was urgent need for further testing.

"The Panel has discussed at length the urgent need for a comprehensive human health risk assessment, and the extensive sampling and testing of not just fish but also of water, meat, fruit and vegetables, dairy, eggs, honey and other produce that would be required," she said.

"Extensive testing is needed to determine the exposure risk posed by individual food groups, as well as calculate the cumulative risk to someone who consumes several types of food on a daily basis.

"That process will take some time to complete due to the large volume of samples and limited laboratory capacity.

"And, therefore, we've resolved to recommend the ban on commercial and recreational fishing be extended for an additional eight months."

Residents who live inside the affected area have been told to continue to not drink bore water, or eat any produce from animals that have been drinking water from bores.
The panel has also recommended that locals avoid eating fish, prawns and wild oysters caught at Tilligerry Creek or Fullerton Cove.

Disturbing tale for the environmental impact in the waterways around Williamtown Airport, coupled with the woes of the local fishermen..

However there is a much bigger picture here which is encompassed in the next part of the ABC article with a profound statement from the local Federal MP (in bold):

Calls for urgent Government support



The Federal Member for Paterson, Bob Baldwin, wants the Federal Government to provide urgent support.

"What we need to do is put into place emergency funding procedures like in any natural disaster so that people can actually put food on the table," he said.

The Assistant Minister for Defence, Darren Chester, told the ABC the Government was considering a range of possible options.

"Our highest priority is to work with the relevant state government agencies and work within the Department to address any public health concerns," Mr Chester said.

"To look at any environmental issues if and when they arise and to explore possible financial assistance for those residents in the affected area who may be doing it tough as a result of the decision by the (State) Government to ban certain activities like commercial fishing."

The chemicals PFOA and PFOS were contained in firefighting foams once used at Defence Force bases, and have been detected in groundwater at Williamtown in NSW and Oakey, in regional Queensland.

Laboratory studies have shown the chemicals can cause cancer in rats and locals in those regions have been told not to drink bore water and to avoid eating seafood caught in the area, but health experts say the human impact is minimal.

Some locals claim their property prices have fallen, and there's talk of a class action against the Federal Government.

Darren Chester said the issue of who's responsible for providing financial assistance is "very real" but he said it's "premature" to be talking about legal action.

The ABC understands that some tests on areas surrounding more than 10 other air force bases are likely to come back positive. Those tested include Darwin, Amberley, Richmond, East Sale, Pearce, Townsville and Tindal.

Bob Baldwin said it was inevitable that groundwater at rural fire service sites and airports would also be contaminated, meaning the contamination could exist right across the country.

"We've only got to look in Sydney, at Mascot Airport, their fire-fighting facilities where they've used the foam over the years, and every military base where they've used this foam," Mr Baldwin said.

  
Okay now rewinding back to page 2 reference - post #18:

...For those interested here is a link for the environmental section of the BK MP that our dozy miniscule apparently signed off on - 4. FINAL BANKSTOWN AES Section 4 Environmental Management Issues


Besides the MSM - seemingly with their heads in the sand on this issue - I've got to ask why the hell Senator Milne & the Greens aren't all over this?? 
Maybe this will grab their attention?? Not sure if it is true or not.. ..but I heard a rumour that AirServices Australia are sitting on a ticking time bomb, which has the potential to effect not only the Sydney basin water table but any of a number of areas in Australia with an airport facility that is big enough to justify having an ASA firefighting service. 

The following is a quote from this article - Innovation converts ordinary clay into chemical trap:

Professor Naidu says there is a large global market for his product.

“Australia has 450 civilian and military airports, and nearly all of these have used firefighting foams in training or in real emergencies and are therefore contaminated sites. We are currently working with Airservices Australia to determine the feasibility of treating contaminated wastewater at airports.”

Environmental PFCs have been shown to accumulate in animal and human tissue, and are linked to bladder and liver cancer, endocrine disruption, and developmental and reproductive toxicity.

Stuart Khan, Associate Professor at the UNSW School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, says the dangerous PFCs will linger even after the 'film-forming' foams is phased out. 

“Although application of these products to fight fires is now being phased out, there is still stock around that can be used, and broad prior use has a long impact due to the very slow breakdown rate of PFCs, and accumulation in living tissues,” he said.

Storm in a teacup or monumental environmental disaster, we shall see but already we have a government MP drawing a conclusion that there were many more potential Williamtown time bombs tick..tick..ticking away.

Hmm..that could put a dampener on Murky Mandarin and his dodgy deals with property developers??  


MTF..P2   

[Gobbledock]

The Gobbledock has made reference to the airport PFC issue for almost a year now.

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!

But do not fear, the crooked Government will no doubt change some of the Acts, legal frameworks or even Newtons law to ensure that when the PFC issue all starts to fall into a steaming pile of carcinogens they will come out of it scott-free without blood on its hands. It's what they do best.

Perhaps some media outlets or the Senators may probe deeper? That would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. And as for the Green Party, they are full of shit. Green as my ass, they wouldn't dare take on any real environmental issues, for them it's all about surviving long enough to dine from the trough and feather their own nests. Their lives revolve around saving a handful of plankton eaters and promoting the acceptance of queers and steers in society. Another toothless tiger who are about as productive as the stupid old farmhand who is second in command to running this nation.

TICK TOCK goes the chemically poisoned land clock.

[Peetwo]

Under BRAVO -

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.

And also yesterday we had this from Thorny

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.

For the benefit of those interested here is that segment off the AJ Breakfast show, courtesy of 2GB podcast:

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

It is somewhat disappointing that the original, more general Senators Rhiannon/Conroy sub-paragraph (i) has not been kept:

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

However there is not much dot joining to be made from this particular environmental contaminant issue to those mentioned in the Alan Jones segment. Even if there was never PFOS/PFOA fire retardant foams used at Bankstown Airport there is still much scope within this inquiry to bring to the attention the many other environmental/political issues - such as contaminated backfill on the floodplain & dodgy deals with developers etc..etc. 

I think it is now only a matter of time before this inquiry will expand to include the RRAT committee. After all Airservices Australia falls under the purview of the Senate RRAT Committee and guess who sits on the Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Committee?

Committee Members

Chair
Senator Alex Gallacher

Australian Labor Party , SA

&..

Member
Senator David Fawcett

Liberal Party of Australia , SA

  
IMO there is definitely scope under BRAVO (in blue) for a huge can of potential glowing worms to be uncovered...
 

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Under BRAVO -

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.

And also yesterday we had this from Thorny

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.

For the benefit of those interested here is that segment off the AJ Breakfast show, courtesy of 2GB podcast:

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

It is somewhat disappointing that the original, more general Senators Rhiannon/Conroy sub-paragraph (i) has not been kept:

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

However there is not much dot joining to be made from this particular environmental contaminant issue to those mentioned in the Alan Jones segment. Even if there was never PFOS/PFOA fire retardant foams used at Bankstown Airport there is still much scope within this inquiry to bring to the attention the many other environmental/political issues - such as contaminated backfill on the floodplain & dodgy deals with developers etc..etc. 

I think it is now only a matter of time before this inquiry will expand to include the RRAT committee. After all Airservices Australia falls under the purview of the Senate RRAT Committee and guess who sits on the Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade Committee?

Committee Members

Chair
Senator Alex Gallacher

Australian Labor Party , SA

&..

Member
Senator David Fawcett

Liberal Party of Australia , SA

  
IMO there is definitely scope under BRAVO (in blue) for a huge can of potential glowing worms to be uncovered...
 

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. 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????

...looks like a duck?? ..& glows like a duck?? Sorry Thorny couldn't help myself..


MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Guys and girls,
something occurred this AM which rather disturbed me.
We all know or should know the identity and reputation of the development shark
with Bankstown Airport in his sights.

This morning a certain elderly concerned citizen, who has diligently been pursuing
the incredible corruption perceived to have occurred in relation to our secondary
airports was awakened at 3AM by his next door neighbours dogs going mental in
their back yard. "They never bark he advised me and I wondered what set them off".
Shortly after, his doorbell rang, he wouldn't answer it, but it continued to ring every
few minutes until after 8 am when people began to appear on the street.
Passing strange? or a deliberate attempt to intimidate a concerned citizen?

[thorn bird]

Just another note on the alleged sale of Bankstown and Camden airports, as reported in yesterdays Fin review.
A search today through the relevant records indicates no share transaction has been made with regard to
Bankstown and Camden so the report appears to be erroneous.
Contemporary thought suggests the press release is a ploy, probably instigated by BAL and Com Bank to deflect
Alan Jones attention to the corruption that has occurred in the administration and sale of the airports.

[Peetwo]

Airports & a parallel universe - Good news story (for a change)

From AOPA US:

FAA rules Santa Monica obligated into 2023

Determination requires airport to remain open

December 4, 2015
By Elizabeth A Tennyson



Santa Monica Municipal Airport is under federal grant obligations until Aug. 27, 2023, the FAA has ruled, contradicting the city of Santa Monica’s assertion that its grant obligations ended in 2014. The determination, issued Dec. 4, means the airport must remain open and operational for nearly eight more years at a minimum.

“Santa Monica Airport is a tremendous asset to the community and a vital part of the transportation network in Southern California and beyond,” said AOPA President Mark Baker. “This determination is good news for the city’s economy, the region’s transportation network, and the long-term future of the airport.”

AOPA was among the organizations and individuals that filed a formal “Part 16” complaint with the FAA saying that the city of Santa Monica was in violation of its federal grant obligations by repeatedly making claims that those obligations expired on June 29, 2014. The complainants, which also included the National Business Aviation Association, actor and pilot Harrison Ford, and several aviation businesses and tenants located on the field, asked the FAA to make a formal determination as to the expiration date of the grant assurances.

The complaint was initially filed in July 2014, and the following month the city asked the FAA to dismiss the case on the grounds that the complainants failed to make a claim, did not engage in good faith efforts to reach an informal resolution, and lacked standing to file the complaint. The city also had argued that the FAA lacked jurisdiction to make a determination.

But the FAA denied that motion to dismiss and noted that the city’s position regarding the airport was both “longstanding and fixed” and “unlikely to be voluntarily reversed,” and therefore the complainants were not obligated to continue attempting to reach an informal agreement.

In its Dec. 4 determination, the FAA noted that Santa Monica Municipal Airport serves as a “vital and critical general aviation reliever” for nearby Los Angeles International Airport.
The city of Santa Monica has long tried to close and redevelop the 227-acre airport, which supports some 175 businesses and 1,500 jobs, and contributes $250 million to the economy. But many city residents support the airport and some have raised concerns that closing the field would lead to additional high-rise developments, bringing more traffic problems to the already congested region. The protection zone around the airport currently prevents high-rise buildings from being constructed within about five miles of the airport.

“Airport opponents on the Santa Monica City Council have made it clear that they’ll do whatever it takes to shutter the airport,” said Jim Coon, AOPA senior vice president of government affairs. “But redeveloping the land would not only deprive residents of the many irreplaceable benefits delivered by the airport, it would also create more traffic and congestion, and that’s the last thing the people of Santa Monica need.”
The city has 30 days to appeal the FAA’s determination.



Elizabeth A Tennyson | Senior Director of Communications, AOPA
AOPA Senior Director of Communications Elizabeth Tennyson is an instrument-rated private pilot who first joined AOPA in 1998.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Well done AOPA well done. And what a beautiful part of the world as well - always loved Santa Monica.

[Peetwo]

Truss signs off on Camden Master Plan.

With very little fanfare the miniscule announces approval of Camden Airport MP:

Camden Airport Master Plan approved

Media Release
WT440/2015
23 December 2015 

Also reported on by Oz Flying:

Camden will get a new taxiway naming protocol and Movement Area Guidance signs under the 2015 Master Plan. (Steve Hitchen)


Truss approves Camden Master Plan
23 Dec 2015

Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Warren Truss has approved the 2015 Camden Airport Master Plan.

Camden Airport submitted the plan to the Deputy Prime Minister for consideration in October.

“The Master Plan sets out Camden Airport's strategic direction for the next 20 years and provides the community with information about the operation and development of the site,” Truss said.

“Camden Airport is an important part of the General Aviation network in NSW, particularly supporting recreational and training flights. 

“Over the next 20 years aircraft movements are predicted to increase from around 94,000 movements in 2014 to around 112,000 in 2034.

“The Plan seeks to support the long term sustainability of the aviation industry within the Sydney Basin. This is consistent with the Australian government's strategic planning for aviation in the Sydney Region, including the recent announcement of Badgerys Creek as the location for an airport in Western Sydney."

The 2015 Master Plan ensures aviation remains the core business at Camden and proposing a new taxiway naming protocol and the placement of Movement Area Guidance (MAG) signs on the airfield.

There are no major airport developments within the life of the 2015 plan, but includes a proposal to relocate the Australian Aviation Museum from Bankstown to Camden within the next five years.

Camden Airport must now publish their final master plan within 50 business days.

MTF..P2

[ventus45]

"Camden Airport must now publish their final master plan within 50 business days."

Why does it take TEN WEEKS ?
The document exists.
It should be released concurrently with the Minister's approval.

[Peetwo]

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.

Update 06/12/15: Hansard transcript from last Thursday's hearing -
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee - 03/12/2015 - Contamination caused by firefighting foams at RAAF Base Williamtown and other sites
Perhaps a prelude to things to come, with 'Under BRAVO' section of the inquiry, from Senator Fawcett:

Senator FAWCETT: I would like to talk to about a whole-of-government picture on this. Clearly Defence have airfields, but there are also capital city and secondary airports around the country that use the same firefighting materials. Going back and having a look, for example, at the Hobart Airport master plan 2010-15—that was obviously issued at the start of that period—right back then, under their environmental strategy for the airport, they highlight that 'elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA concentrates were detected indicating groundwater at the site has been affected by the flushing of equipment'.

Likewise there are comments around Sydney and Kingsford Smith. Going back to around 2010, the New South Wales EPA had agreed—it says here, 'The state and the ACT have supported the proposed project of Airservices Australia and agreed a two-stage approval would be appropriate.' So clearly people were aware of this and looking at it. I am interested to understand what the relationship between Defence and Airservices Australia has been over the last five to 10 years as this problem has emerged. We will start there and then I will ask a few more questions.


Mr Grzeskowiak : We have been fairly closely engaged with Airservices Australia over a number of years, certainly in more recent times around the issues that we are discovering at Air Force bases. We know that Airservices Australia are also looking at issues at a range of civilian airports around the country. We were engaged with Airservices Australia some years ago, probably from the mid-2000s, around options for alternative firefighting foams, so we have had fairly long-term and cooperative engagement.

As you rightly point out, these firefighting foams—never mind the other products and materials that have used this chemical—would have been widely used by both military and civil airfield firefighters, plus the rural fire services, plus metropolitan fire services, plus probably at any industrial site that was processing hydrocarbons at a scale—refineries, large fuel storage depots, those sorts of things. So we know that the chemical has been used extensively worldwide for quite a long time, since certainly the early seventies, for firefighting and a range of other applications.

CHAIR: On that point though, you are the estate owner. Airservices may contract to provide appropriate firefighting services, but ultimately, if they move on, they leave the estate owner with the contaminant, and it is how that contaminant gets off your estate that is the real issue here.

Mr Grzeskowiak : For the Defence estate, that is correct, but there are a whole number of civil airfields that I have no relationship with in terms of ownership.

Senator FAWCETT: That is essentially my point. At the moment, because of the publicity and the impact around users at Williamtown and the decisions to shut down fishing industries, there is a lot of pressure and focus on Defence right now. What I am trying to flesh out is to make sure that we are not driving Defence to trigger a whole range of activities that might be duplicating what has already been underway by Airservices and ending up having a stovepipe departmental response as opposed to a whole-of-government response, because clearly this impacts all airfields around Australia, not just Defence airfields. So can you talk to me about what joint activities you have had in terms of understanding the scope of the problem, understanding the impact on people and on agriculture, aquaculture et cetera, and containment strategies?

Mr Grzeskowiak : There is in fact an interdepartmental committee that has been established for 10 or 11 months—that sort of order—that is looking at the broader problem of this. That committee is chaired by the Department of the Environment. Defence is a member of that committee, as is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development—I think they are represented by Airservices, but I stand to be corrected on that—as well as the Department of Health and a few other departments. The committee is looking at the broader problem.

One of the issues that we faced during our understanding and learning about this problem is that there are no national standards in Australia for tolerance in the environment of levels of these chemicals. There are no health standards in Australia for tolerance of this chemical in drinking water at whatever level and there are no state or territory equivalent standards either. There are not many places in the world where those sorts of standards are in place. There are a few standards emerging in the US and the UK that we are aware of, and we are using them. It is clear that globally this is still an emerging contaminant that is not fully understood. In our work with Airservices, we would certainly be seeking not to duplicate research, and the sharing of information through the interdepartmental committee is ongoing...

Update: 23/12/2015

Yesterday the FAD&T references Committee convened a public hearing in Newcastle, the Hansard, submissions etc can be viewed here:

22 Dec 2015 NSW - Hansard transcript (HTML & PDF) / Program / Submissions 

As part of that hearing Professor Mark Taylor, on behalf of the NSW EPA, released a scathing report on the findings of a EPA inquiry into the Williamtown RAAF base fire fighting foam contamination disaster.
Courtesy the Newcastle Herald:

Department of Defence knew contaminants were leaving Williamtown base from 1999

By JOANNE MCCARTHY
Dec. 23, 2015, 5 p.m.

NSW Government agencies found wanting in report on Williamtown RAAF base contamination scandal.
Critical: NSW Environment Protection Authority head Barry Buffier at a Senate inquiry in Newcastle. The EPA "could have been more proactive" in response to Williamtown contamination scandal, a report has found.

THE Department of Defence knew as early as 1999 that contaminants in groundwater were leaving Williamtown RAAF Base and entering surrounding areas, a report has found.
Elevated levels of methylene blue-active substances (MBAS) – a “surrogate test” for the presence of fire fighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – were found in groundwater samples beyond the base as early as 1999, Professor Mark Taylor has found in a report released by the NSW Environment Protection Authority on Wednesday.

It was clear that Defence was using MBAS “as an indicator to identify potential fire fighting foams”, he found.

Professor Taylor’s report puts Defence knowledge of contamination outside the base at least a decade earlier than previous Defence advice to the public.

Professor Taylor has recommended the NSW Government hold talks with the Federal Government “as a matter of priority” over the state’s powers to act against Defence after the NSW environment watchdog was “stymied” from acting “decisively and in a timely fashion” over the Williamtown contamination.

He has recommended immediate engagement with the Federal Government by the state over enforcement powers on Defence land in a report prompted by community outrage over state and federal handling of water contamination from Williamtown RAAF Base.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority “should seek legal advice at the highest level” to resolve the “seeming ambiguity” of its powers to regulate and manage contaminated Commonwealth land and deal with contamination caused by Defence on surrounding areas, Professor Taylor said.

“It needs to be clear and transparent to whom the Department of Defence is accountable for contamination caused by it on non-Commonwealth land,” he said in an interim report released only hours after the NSW Government announced a package of support for affected residents, including town water for nearly 200 properties surrounding the Williamtown base.

“The seeming lack of clarity about whether the EPA has the authority to regulate Defence under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 or the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in relation to Commonwealth-owned land, or where Defence is the polluter on non-Commonwealth owned land, stymied the ability of EPA officers to act decisively and in a timely fashion,” Professor Taylor found.

“There was significant indecision in the EPA about the application of the Contaminated Land Management Act to Defence and whether notices under the Act, or the Protection of the Environment Operatsions Act could or should be issued (even in the absence of having any possible legal effect).”

Professor Taylor found Defence “has not been clear” about when it ceased using fire fighting foams containing PFOS and PFOA at Williamtown base, with three different dates – 2006, 2008 and 2010 – given.

The EPA had very little contact with Defence about Williamtown base before 2012 when Defence first advised the EPA that elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA had been identified on a number of sites, including a fire fighting pit and Lake Cochran.

The EPA needed to set interim guidelines for contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in soil, sediment and groundwater as a matter of priority, and engage with Federal agencies over establishment of national guidelines, Professor Taylor said.

His report was released within hours of Premier Mike Baird, Water Minister Niall Blair and Environment Minister Mark Speakman announcing a support package for affected Port Stephens residents that includes funding town water for nearly 200 properties in the Salt Ash area.

“If there is room for improvement by NSW then it is the role of a responsible government to learn from the past and we intend to do just that,” Mr Speakman said.

The NSW Government would consider Professor Taylor’s findings and recommendations and respond as appropriate, Mr Speakman said

Hmm..I can feel a perfect storm brewing for Murky Mrdak & his fellow Defence Mandarins..

Incidentally there has already been 105 submissions accepted by the committee in this inquiry and it was only called on the 30th of November. I wonder how many there will be by the time we get to the closing date (5 February 2016) for Part B of the inquiry??

MTF...P2   

[Kharon]

This could, from an entertainment perspective get interesting.  

I wonder what the public reaction will be to the well rehearsed non response and the sod all action taken.  You see the public have never come face to face with this situation.

First we have the righteous outcry – the mess identified, public pressure leading to the Senate becoming involved and ‘an inquiry’.

Evidence taken, clever questions asked, department heads making careful non-answers or; taking a question on notice and providing meaningless answers right on the deadline.

More sessions with the Senators in full flight; knocking down castles, tilting at windmills and generally looking like they are going to get something done; for the betterment of the nation and it’s peoples.

Then the damning recommendations will be published; scathing speeches and ‘master plans’ proposed.

All jolly good stuff – until the general public realise (those who could stay focussed) that not only is nothing going to get done; there is no intention of doing anything – apart from the minimum amount of window dressing to make it appear that something, in time, will be done.

Meanwhile, the highly paid members of the various departments will shelve the plans and bury the proposed plans in committee and reports – until such time as the public have died of tedium; forgotten or moved on.

There may be members of the press smart enough to follow the Senate inquiry into matters aeronautical; that saga provides a proof positive blueprint for where this is all heading.   A few dead fish, a dying industry, a few properties sold off cheaply for the sake of the kids health just don’t signify.  In ten years the land will have been sold off to build another essential shopping mall and future high rise slum tenements.

I shall watch as the familiar pattern emerges from the smoke and dust.  Democracy; ain’t it great…

Toot - toot.

[Peetwo]

13th November 2015
The Hon. Warren Truss
Deputy Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra  2600

Re:  BANKSTOWN AND CAMDEN AERODROMES PROPOSED CHANGES TO LEASE
                                                                AND
        PROPOSED CHANGES TO AIRPORT ACT AND AIRPORT ACT REGULATIONS

Dear Deputy Prime Minister,

                                             Further to my earlier letter to you concerning the proposed retrospective changes that are planned to be made to the Airports Act 1996, the Airport Act Regulations and the Head lease for Bankstown Aerodrome and Camden Aerodrome.

   It has come to my attention that the parties that will benefit from the proposed changes have already made private approaches to members of both sides of Parliament. The reason for these amendments, which my enquiries have revealed are in their advanced stages but unable to be revealed to voting members of the public, leads one to the fact that someone will or has benefited from this “cloak and dagger” approach to have such an important action coducted under this amount of secrecy.

   If there is a proposed change to any Act of Parliament, as a citizen and a voter I should be able to phone or write to the Office of Parliamentry Council or the Minister's office and be informed about any proposed changes. I was able to establish that there was something happening to the Act but it could not be revealealed. Why the secrecy, unless there is a cover up?  If there is a cover up, what is being covered up and to benefit whom?

   It should be noted that the proposed retrospective changes affect runway 18/36 (the only North/South runway in the Sydney Basin) which although partially covered in asbestos contaminated fill, still exists but will be developed upon if this illegal destrucion of the Flood Plain is, made legal, by the retrospective passing of legislation. Why the secrecy? This development will remove many hectares of valuable Airside land for commercial use (it also and importantly, forms part of the Flood Plain for the Georges River), the airport users as well as the public in the flood prone areas, suffer as a result of this loss and the developers and Banks win as a result.

   The Flood Plain has been destroyed without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and without an approval from the custodian of the Flood plain,namely the Bankstown City Council (BCC).  It is noted that there has been an attempt to represent that a “Private Certifier” (who by law is not authorised to approve the destruction of a Flood Plain) used an Australian Government Letterhead to grant “approval” to this illegal action (some would say criminal).

   As the Airport Act and Regulations relate to the whole of Australia, this is a mattter that should be the subject of Australia wide consultation, and should not be considered just to benefit of property developers or banks no matter how much influence he may have with the department heads.

   I understand the reason for the urgency and secrecy for this proposed Leglislative change is because the proposed development has already included the unlawful destruction of the “Flood Plain” ( app. 42Ha up to 3m to 4m high) to the Georges River with Asbestos contaminated fill, without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by law or approval by the EPA.

   The Bankstown City Council, by law, is the “custodian” of the “Flood Plain”, they were not consulted and in fact they have lodged a formal objection to the development and the manner in which it has proceeded without any legal approval, this objection is now in the Ministers hands.

   It is not known at this stage what the proposed changes are and it would be appreciated if you could advise us of those changes and the time frame you believe are necessary, as well as the nature of any retrospectivity, for consideration long before the changes are passed by the Parliament.

   It has been stated in the past that if we had a Minister with the resposibility for Aviation, that was prepared to fight for  the aviation industry in the same way the Minister for Mines fought for mines (successfully), we would not have the aviation industry falling into the parlous state it has been allowed to fall into, with a bit of effort it still can be saved.  Minister  I am reliably advised the problem does not rest with you but with your bureaucracy, for reasons that can only be speculated.

   It is believed it would be considered improper for the bureaurocrats to have any contact or be influenced by any Developer or Receiver Manager.

   It is further requested if you can confirm why the NDB at Bankstown Aerodrome was relocated, and whether a Notam was issued and who paid for it. This happened when the former head of Air Services Australia  (ASA) announced it would no be relocated, he resigned and it was relocated.

   I understand that Senator Sam Dastyary has announced an enquiry into ASA  with Senator Bill Heffernan as the Chairman, maybe this retrospective legislation changes and the relocation of the NDB could form part of that Enquiry, this is getting near to Royal Commission material.
 
   Could we please be advised of what these proposed changes are prior to them being put to the Parliament?

   This matter is urgent as any changes will have to be considered by stakeholders through Australia before implementation.

   As for the Lease it will affect all the Sub Lease holders who would require notification prior to any changes or retrospective changes. Your early reply would be appreciated.
   
                                                                                            Yours faithfully,
cc Sen. Heffernan
    Sen. Fawcett                                                           
    Steve Creedy (The Australian)
    Anne Lampe ( The SMH)

I don't know what else to add - except - SHAME.

The 'Murky Machiavellian' Reply - Dear Keith... "Up yours mate"  Luv Wazza c/o M&M

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The 'Murky Machiavellian' Reply - Dear Keith... "Up yours mate"  Luv Wazza c/o M&M

Almost gone but not forgotten -

The QON index for last Estimates was much belatedly released late last week and there is a number of QON on the record addressed to Murky's Aviation Airport Division.

Of interest are the following from Senator Gallacher & 'the Heff':

{Note: QON 107 needs the Hansard to understand the context of the question}

Senator GALLACHER: We had question on notice No. 114 about airport rates and the answer became, 'The department is aware that the following airports have notified disputed amounts from their local authorities—Sydney, Gold Coast, Jandakot, Hobart and Launceston—and the government is concerned there are unresolved disputes with interested parties to engage in a committed attempt to resolution.' Are you familiar with that question and answer?


Mr Mrdak : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: So, with the number of councils that are currently in dispute with their board corporations over payment of rates, is that still the same number of airports that are currently in dispute?

Mr Wilson : Yes. I believe the number would be the same.

Senator GALLACHER: So, nothing has been resolved?

Mr Wilson : Not to my knowledge. I would add that as late as last week I met with Hobart international airport and Clarence Council to seek a resolution. I believe that we have an agreed way forward between those two parties. In September of this year I met with—

Senator GALLACHER: Perhaps if you let me ask the questions you might not have to answer me.

Mr Wilson : I am sorry.

Senator GALLACHER: I have about six series of questions here. We are still in disputes at airports. Are you aware of MPs making representations to the department or the deputy prime minister in relation to this issue?

Mr Wilson : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: You are aware of that. Who are they? Do you know?

Mr Wilson : There has been a range of MPs make representations to the minister.

Senator GALLACHER: So, what actions, if any, are the department aware of the deputy prime minister taking to address this issue or help resolve it?

Mr Mrdak : As a result of those representations we have offered that the department seek to mediate or find a way forward between the parties. Firstly, we have been providing clarification to parties about the intent and purpose of the clauses in the airport lease.

Senator GALLACHER: I understand the department is trying to resolve it. What is the deputy prime minister doing to address this issue or help resolve it?

Mr Mrdak : The deputy prime minister has specifically asked the department to step into these matters and offer assistance, and that is what we have been doing.

Senator GALLACHER: Is the department aware of the deputy prime minister receiving any requests to meet with council representatives in relation to this issue?

Mr Mrdak : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Has the deputy prime minister personally met with any council representatives in relation to this issue?

Mr Mrdak : The deputy prime minister meets with councils often. I think in relation to this specific matter he has asked that the department handle the matter, given that it comes down to a commercial negotiation between parties. As a first step he has been happy for the department to see if we can find a way forward.

Senator GALLACHER: Whilst I accept that the deputy prime minister will meet with whomever he chooses, including council representatives, has the deputy prime minister personally met with any council representatives in relation to this issue?

Mr Mrdak : I would have to take that on notice and check.

Senator GALLACHER: Can the department confirm there is a legal liability for airport corporations to pay rates equivalent?

Mr Wilson : Yes. There is a legal obligation between the Commonwealth and the airports to pay ex gratia rates.

Senator GALLACHER: What is the government's role in resolving these disputes?
Mr Wilson : As I was outlining before and as Mr Mrdak has indicated, we are currently seeking to negotiate agreements between certain councils and a number of airports.

Senator GALLACHER: Can we get a copy of the letter from the secretary of the department outlining their obligations as per answer to question 114.5? - QON 107

Mr Mrdak : Yes.
Mr Wilson : Yes.


P2 - I get the strong impression that Sir Gallacher hasn't got much time for Bureaucrat Wilson & his weasel words - 

 
&..

QON 108 - CHAIR: The other thing is we have received from Mr Mrdak evidence earlier that in relation to the floodplain clause 30 of the lease regarding state laws does not apply. Only the Airports Act applies. We now have a letter that sort of contradicts that proposition, that the tenants of the lease have to comply with state law. Would you like to see that as well?


Mr Mrdak: I am happy to and we will provide advice on that, yes.

Written QON 111 from NX was also of interest:

A pilot association is concerned about a number of aspects of the National Airports Safeguarding Advisory Group (NASAG) Guideline B, which relates to building-induced turbulence at airports.

Accepting that creating the National Airports Safeguarding Networks (‘NASF’) was a significant achievement, are you planning to build on that process with a post-implementation review (or some other mechanism) to ensure that the Framework and Guidelines remain relevant and up to date?

MTF..P2