[thorn bird]

More Murky dealings rumoured regarding Bankstown.

The word on the street is the development shark that controls the airport has had a "Development" consultant running about the airport valuing leaseholders properties to evaluate them for future "development".
I understand there is a clause in everyones leases that BAL reserves the right to throw people out of their properties if they, BAL, needs the property for other development.
First cab off the rank its rumoured will be Scofields, allegedly being offered a take it or leave it deal to piss off somewhere else because BAL wants to build a road to the new Multi gazillion complex housing the Air Ambulance and police choppers.

Of course a road through there would cut off all the businesses upstream from airside access, including Dick Smith.
If that occurs one can only imagine that a new shopping nirvana is in the pipeline along Marion Street.

As the sharks keep chomping away perhaps the suspicion that the end game will be Bankstown becoming a heliport surrounded by shopping centres starts to become reality.

All conforming with the "Intent" of the Airport Act and the head leases of course.

Wonder which political party received the biggest "donation"??

[Peetwo]

More Murky dealings rumoured regarding Bankstown.

The word on the street is the development shark that controls the airport has had a "Development" consultant running about the airport valuing leaseholders properties to evaluate them for future "development".
I understand there is a clause in everyones leases that BAL reserves the right to throw people out of their properties if they, BAL, needs the property for other development.
First cab off the rank its rumoured will be Scofields, allegedly being offered a take it or leave it deal to piss off somewhere else because BAL wants to build a road to the new Multi gazillion complex housing the Air Ambulance and police choppers.

Of course a road through there would cut off all the businesses upstream from airside access, including Dick Smith.
If that occurs one can only imagine that a new shopping nirvana is in the pipeline along Marion Street.

As the sharks keep chomping away perhaps the suspicion that the end game will be Bankstown becoming a heliport surrounded by shopping centres starts to become reality.

All conforming with the "Intent" of the Airport Act and the head leases of course.

Wonder which political party received the biggest "donation"??

Also while on the rights of lessees' & users being stomped all over at secondary and regional airports, noticed this thread off the UP:

Jandakot airport rates increased 4.75-5.5%

---

FY2017 Landing charges go from $7.77 to $8.20 (+5.5%) per 1000KG (min charge $12.41 goes up to $13 (+4.75%)).

Hardstand parking $2,245.32 to $2360 (+5.1%).

Australian CPI: 1.3% (March-March)

Does that apply to BK as well thorny??

Also from the Oz today it seems the powers to be are discovering other ways to negatively impact on GA in regional areas:

Small flyers priced out of Cairns Airport

The Australian|12:00AM June 17, 2016|
John Ross
Higher Education reporter
Sydney

Cairns Airport said general aviation movements had increased 15 per cent over the past five years. Picture: Brendan Radke

Small aviation businesses at Cairns’s privatised airport are being forced out by untenable increases in rents and fees — sometimes more than 2000 per cent — although the airport operator’s lease obliges it to provide access for general aviation aircraft.

And a local businessman who wants to establish an alternative airstrip says he was warned off by Cairns Airport, which acts as a consultant to the local council.

Industry figures say the airport’s once thriving general aviation precinct is now semi-deserted, reflecting the exodus of small operators from privatised airports around the country. But locals say the change has been particularly hard in Cairns, where flying is part of the city’s psyche.

Cairns is a hub for a Poland-sized region including Cape York, the Torres Strait and the Gulf of Carpentaria. The city’s aviation history stretches back to 1928, when a flying jeweller established the airport on a mudflat.

Local aviators say “ridiculous” landing fees and other charges have now pushed them out of the city, or out of business. “If you didn’t have a parking spot for your aeroplane by 4 o’clock five or six years ago, you’d have to park on the grass,” said Murray Ireland of aircraft overhaulers Aero Enterprise. “Now you can get a parking spot anywhere you like.”

Cairns Airport said general aviation movements had increased 15 per cent over the past five years. “Aircraft parking bays in the general aviation area are well utilised,” said Kevin Brown, CEO of parent company North Queensland Airports.

Mr Ireland said this was because aircraft were taking off as quickly as possible after they landed, to avoid crippling parking fees that had risen up to 2900 per cent after the airport started charging locals at visitors’ rates. Other cost rises have included increases to hangar and office rentals, which have more than doubled overnight. Locals say the airport has thwarted attempts to negotiate group or long-term leases, and tried to install a boom gate so that it could charge them $840 a year for car parking.

Private aircraft owners and two flying schools have relocated to Mareeba, an hour’s drive away. Some small companies have moved their businesses off the airport while others have closed or sold out.

Local airman Mark Stanley said he planned to set up a private airstrip south of the city. “Cairns Airport told me categorically that they intended to stop it,” he said. “They said they planned 10 or 20 years into the future, and it may be in the way of their flight path.”

Mr Brown said the airport had held discussions on a proposed private general aviation aerodrome “but not been presented with any plans to comment on”.

He said the rents, landing and parking fees had been set at ­market value so there was a fair price for tenants and a fair return for investors.

“Some operators did enjoy extremely low rents for many years, but as viable businesses they must be prepared to meet commercial reality,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Queensland Treasury Corporation, which oversees the lease, said it did not impose pricing constraints on the commercial business of the airport operator.

“To the government’s knowledge there is no breach of the lease,” she said.

An industry source said airports were community as well as commercial infrastructure, but small operators tended to get squeezed out.

He said governments could ­explicitly enforce community ­obligations on private owners, ­either through legislation or regulation, but there is a tendency not to do so.

  
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of airports, the decimation of small businesses, and greed

The idiot CEO at Cairns airport has spent probably close to 5 years pushing out General Aviation. It has been decimated. Businesses that ran for decades have either folded or been forced to relocate to Mareeba or other areas. Same CEO was behind closing the airports second runway. Same CEO has done the same at Mackay airport and pushed general aviation users out by hiking up fees, plus they are closing it's second runway. The damage has been done.
As for Queensland Treasury, what a load of crappola. They've sat by idly and watched these two particular airports close runways and damage small businesses, and not even blinked an eyelid. Airports are no longer about aeroplanes, rotaries and engineering, they haven't been for some time. It's all about hedge funds and superannuation firms pillaging and raping every infrastructure asset they can find, so as to ensure that the Wall Street bankers get their tens of millions of dollars each per year.

[thorn bird]

"so as to ensure that the Wall Street bankers get their tens of millions of dollars each per year."

There you go gobbles, buy a major airport lease, billions of tax free dollars. The only cost a modest political donation every three years.....What a nice little earner!

[Peetwo]

Drink it up Freddo??- According to latest revelations, courtesy of The Saturday Paper,  apparently Murky & his Defence Mandarin mates are on a mission to lessen the liability of the Government on the more than 30 year PFOS/PFOA contamination at many Defence & civil (Airservices Australia) airports throughout Australia.

First here is a background on where this issue was left prior to end of the 44th Parliament:
 

Defence & ASA attempted O&O of PFOS/PFOA contamination issue?

Back to the inquiry, I note that Keith Campbell (Bankstown fame) has recently made a submission - 126 Mr Keith Campbell    -  (PDF 13220 KB) :

 

Defence ignoring Qld toxic water: Xenophon
AAP on May 29, 2016, 6:59 pm

Senator Nick Xenophon has called on Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has taken his campaign into the southern Queensland seat of Groom, calling for Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

7 News can reveal a cancer causing toxin is leaching into groundwater at Adelaide Airport. http://www.7news.com.au 

http://snpy.tv/1TMQg5t 

7 News | Adelaide airport
7 News - 7 News | 6pm nightly

  

Update 05/06/16 courtesy SMH:

Potentially cancer-causing contaminant PFOS found at Sydney Airport

 
Two men fishing at Botany Bay as planes come into land and prepare to take off at Sydney Airport. Photo: Kate Geraghty
 
Dr Rob Weaver, the general manager of safety at Airservices Australia, told a Senate hearing in April that tests of ground and surface water outside of Sydney Airport did not find "likely significant human health risks".

"What we find is that, where we go and test on-airport, off our sites, the soil is broadly below US residential levels," Dr Weaver said.

"We know PFCs are in the environment [and] we know that we have them in our blood.

"What we find around airports is that the levels are generally below the US EPA levels for residential soil."

However, those levels are based on interim short-term exposure standards that were significantly lowered in a long-awaited decision by the US EPA in May, and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon said they needed to be updated "as a matter of course".

"If a level of uncertainty exists with a contaminant, that's a reason to act," she said.

"It's certainly concerning, we've already seen in the communities that have been affected by this contamination they've really been devastated." 

 And now from the weekend edition of The Saturday Paper:   

Exclusive: Toxic chemical conflict on Defence sites
[/url]
[url=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/contributor/chris-ray]Chris Ray

Consultants paid millions by Defence helped revise chemical safety standards that could shield the department from multiple compensation claims.


LACW Katherine Pearson
Firefighters at the Williamtown RAAF base during a simulated drill.

Australia’s environmental health authorities sparked a public outcry in June when they went against international trends to issue weaker safety standards for carcinogenic firefighting chemicals. These have devastated communities near contaminated military airfields in New South Wales and Queensland.

Now The Saturday Paper can reveal three companies that had won multimillion-dollar Defence Department contracts helped to set the controversially lower standards.

The consultancy firms joined government health officials at an invitation-only workshop to draft new safe limits for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), both widely used on defence bases for almost 50 years. They are increasingly linked to cancer, liver and thyroid disease, immune suppression and reduced fertility.

The April 5 workshop set “tolerable daily intake” levels for both chemicals at 75 times higher than acceptable limits in the United States. Safe drinking water limits were set at more than 78 times the US level.

At the workshop were Golder Associates, a global environmental consultancy; Newcastle-based CRC Care, part owned by the Defence Department; and the Melbourne company ToxConsult.

Despite having won more than $104 million in defence contracts between them, none of the companies was required to declare a conflict of interest. A fourth company, not known to have worked for defence, also took part.

The relaxed guidelines could help defence reduce potential legal liability for contamination and clean-up costs, lawyers say. This is a serious issue for the Defence Department.
Defence already faces class-action lawsuits from hundreds of residents close to Williamtown RAAF base, near Newcastle, and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in southern Queensland’s Darling Downs, where contamination has crunched property values, threatened the livelihood of fishermen and farmers, and left locals fearing for their health.

Thousands more people may be affected when defence finishes current investigations into water and soil contamination outside a further 16 military bases in all mainland states and territories. Potential federal government liability extends to civil airfields with PFOS/PFOA contamination. This contamination is confirmed or suspected at 36 sites, according to Airservices Australia.

Disease-based water standards

Australia’s new safety limits set at the workshop for the environmental health standing committee, known as enHealth, are based on 2008 European standards that are considered outdated even by one of their co-authors.

Dr Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health, worked on those European standards but is scathing of the Australian committee’s decision.

“In my mind, the new Australian water limits are not health-based. They are disease-based,” he tells The Saturday Paper. “They are certain to harm people who drink the water over a long period.”

Grandjean says countries such as Germany and Sweden now apply tougher limits than the 2008 European Food Safety Authority recommendations, and the EFSA and the European Commission are preparing new guidelines.

“In the US, PFOA contamination caused by drinking water at levels similar to Australia’s so-called safe limit was studied by a team of international scientists, and they concluded that the exposure was linked to a variety of diseases, including some cancer forms,” Grandjean says.

“Long-term exposure to the new Australian drinking water standard for PFOA would cause increases in serum concentrations by at least hundredfold above those commonly seen in people with background exposures.”

Government tender records show Golder Associates won defence contracts worth more than $69.2 million between 2007 and 2015, including work for the RAAF at Williamtown.
CRC Care was awarded defence contracts worth almost $35 million between 2005 and 2015, while ToxConsult was paid an unspecified sum for advice and risk analysis as a registered defence supplier between 2014 and 2016.

The companies were at the workshop “to provide enHealth with expert advice and information to assist enHealth’s deliberations” and were not required to declare a conflict of interest, said a spokeswoman for the federal health department. EnHealth comprises federal, state and territory environmental health officials.

Conflict of interest

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, a senior adviser to the community-based National Toxics Network, says companies in receipt of defence contracts should have declared a conflict of interest.

“I don’t believe that beneficiaries of contracts from the polluter should have taken part,” says Lloyd-Smith, who has represented non-government organisations on several international chemical committees and wrote a conflict of interest code for one of them.

“The Americans spend years updating their standards and Australia holds a one-day workshop attended by a select few and picks an eight-year-old standard off the shelf.”
A senate inquiry in May blasted defence’s response to the contamination as “slow and reactive” and “seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents”.

NSW Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, who initiated the inquiry, agrees that companies doing defence work should not be allowed to help decide acceptable limits on pollution caused by defence operations.

EnHealth’s recommendations were endorsed by the Australian health protection principal committee, made up of chief health officers and a Defence Department representative, on June 15.

This decision reversed Australia’s practice of adopting standards in line with those set by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA drastically toughened its PFOS and PFOA guidelines with stronger health warnings just three weeks before the Australian decision.

Joshua Aylward of Shine Lawyers represents Oakey residents affected by a 24-square-kilometre groundwater contamination plume still spreading out from the local army helicopter base. He says involvement of defence contractors in drawing up safety standards will further erode public confidence in the official response to the contamination.

“These corporations should have been absolutely upfront and disclosed their conflicts of interest,” he says.

“Weaker safety standards could be seen as an attempt to reduce the numbers of properties potentially affected and the numbers of people the government has to compensate. The lower the bar for so-called acceptable levels of these contaminants, the better the outcomes for the government.”

The Saturday Paper is not suggesting any of the consulting companies acted inappropriately.

A written statement from Golder Associates claimed a company representative told workshop organisers about Golder’s work on defence projects “before receiving an invitation” to the workshop. A Golder spokeswoman refused to elaborate.

The managing director of CRC Care, Professor Ravi Naidu, said no conflict of interest existed because “enHealth asked us to provide a briefing on what we were doing rather than seek our support for what they were doing”.

Defence is one of 14 government and industry shareholders in CRC Care. Naidu said CRC Care was under contract to remediate contaminated defence land but had not received defence funding for work on PFOS/PFOA since about 2010.

“We respect what enHealth has come up with but we also recognise the US and Danish EPAs have tougher standards. I don’t believe our representative expressed a view on what the reference value [tolerable daily intake] should be,” he says.

“Defence are not putting any pressure on us to do anything. They provided resources for us to come up with new technologies for remediation of contaminated sites.”

Dr Roger Drew, of ToxConsult, says questions should be directed to the enHealth workshop organisers “as it involves government policy matters”. He was hired to advise defence on a health risk assessment at Williamtown and Oakey that would “inform defence’s response to PFOS/PFOA contamination nationally,” according to defence evidence to the senate inquiry.

In May, a Victorian parliamentary inquiry criticised state regulators for relying on Drew’s advice in their response to perfluorinated chemical pollution at the Country Fire Authority’s Fiskville training centre. The inquiry found that perfluorinated chemicals were likely to have caused cancers among firefighters.

“Dr Drew was an expert toxicologist who was, at all relevant times, advising, and being paid by, the party that caused the pollution in the first place, the CFA,” the committee said.

“The committee accepts that Dr Drew is an eminent toxicologist and does not question the advice he gave to the Chief Health Officer. However, he was being paid by the CFA to provide his expertise, which raises concerns of a perceived conflict of interest that should have been avoided.”

The Saturday Paper does not suggest Dr Drew acted inappropriately.

3. Drinking water guidelines

EnHealth’s new tolerable daily intake levels are 0.15 micrograms per kilogram per day for PFOS and 1.5 mcg/kg/d for PFOA – up to 75 times higher than the 0.02 mcg/kg/d deemed safe by the US EPA.

EnHealth’s drinking water guidelines – 0.5 micrograms per litre for PFOS and 5 mcg/l for PFOA – are way above the 0.07 mcg/l guidelines adopted by the US.

EnHealth says its higher drinking water limits apply only to residents on contaminated land and are not intended as a guide for water utilities. That distinction produced widespread anger in the farming town of Oakey and semi-rural community of Williamtown, where families have relied on bore water for cooking, bathing, watering crops and livestock, and, sometimes, drinking.

Now health authorities warn residents not to use bore water for drinking or cooking and to guard against “incidental swallowing” of groundwater by children while showering and swimming. Some households are forced to depend on defence-supplied bottled water while waiting for town-water connections.

Water utilities follow drinking water guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. These make no reference to PFOS and PFOA and it is unclear how and when these chemicals will be included.

NHMRC protocols state that in the absence of Australian guidelines for a particular chemical, standards from New Zealand, Canada and the US should be followed in that order.

The supplier for Newcastle and the lower Hunter region, Hunter Water, shut three of its pumping stations rather than risk contamination from Williamtown RAAF base entering the supply.

Hunter Water’s chief customer service officer, Jeremy Bath, says it will not draw from bores that exceed US EPA limits, even if they are declared safe under enHealth guidelines.

“We will continue to test for PFOS and PFOA using US EPA guidelines until we are advised by our statutory regulator, NSW Health, of an applicable national guideline,” he says. “I expect every major Australian water utility would use the US guidelines.”

4. Food Standards review

Release of enHealth’s new drinking water standards produced an outcry in the final week of the election campaign, forcing the Turnbull government to promise an independent review. At the beginning of this month, it appointed University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Andrew Bartholomaeus, formerly of Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to review enHealth’s guidelines.

Bartholomaeus also does contract work for federal government agencies including the health department through his private company, BartCrofts Scientific Services. But even if he endorses enHealth new standards on PFOS and PFOA, they are not necessarily the final word: enHealth said its “interim” guidelines would apply until Food Standards Australia New Zealand could review them.

FSANZ’s manager for product safety standards, Dr Leigh Henderson, said it would come up with its own recommended acceptable intake levels for PFOS and PFOA in “four to five months” and send them back to enHealth for “peer review”.

Meanwhile, Mariann Lloyd-Smith says the Williamtown residents she advises are “understandably disgusted” that Australia has raised allowable pollution limits when the rest of the world is lowering theirs. “It’s a shocking and extremely disappointing step backwards for our environmental health standards.”

Like the hurt inflicted on Kaz Casey in the PelAir cover-up and the Pink Batts debacle, this is just another example of a cynical, deceitful, bureaucratic attempt at limiting the government's public liability in this matter - despicable, absolutely despicable!




MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Absolute fucking political crooks. The entire lot of them. They are the first ones to load their own pockets, most of it by lies, deception and dishonesty, and then they are the first ones to screw the innocent people they vow to represent.

And this is all the proof you need;

“The Americans spend years updating their standards and Australia holds a one-day workshop attended by a select few and picks an eight-year-old standard off the shelf.”
A senate inquiry in May blasted defence’s response to the contamination as “slow and reactive” and “seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents”.

There should be a royal commission into not only Murky, but those above him who sanction such sly activities. None of these parasites act alone, and that includes 'he with the giant head'. If people are affected by this poisonous shite, and it is already well proven that they are, then compensation is morally justified. Strip some of these politician assholes superannuation benefits and disgusting million dollar salaries and use that money for the compensation payouts. Disgusting and despicable vermin. Maybe Sen X and some of the new senate crew can add this to their 'hit list' of deceptive dealings to look into?

Bring on the uprising.....TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Drink it up Freddo??- According to latest revelations, courtesy of The Saturday Paper,  apparently Murky & his Defence Mandarin mates are on a mission to lessen the liability of the Government on the more than 30 year PFOS/PFOA contamination at many Defence & civil (Airservices Australia) airports throughout Australia.

First here is a background on where this issue was left prior to end of the 44th Parliament:
 

Defence & ASA attempted O&O of PFOS/PFOA contamination issue?

Back to the inquiry, I note that Keith Campbell (Bankstown fame) has recently made a submission - 126 Mr Keith Campbell    -  (PDF 13220 KB) :

 

Defence ignoring Qld toxic water: Xenophon
AAP on May 29, 2016, 6:59 pm

Senator Nick Xenophon has called on Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

Independent senator Nick Xenophon has taken his campaign into the southern Queensland seat of Groom, calling for Defence to stop ignoring Oakey's "toxic water nightmare".

7 News can reveal a cancer causing toxin is leaching into groundwater at Adelaide Airport. http://www.7news.com.au 

http://snpy.tv/1TMQg5t 

7 News | Adelaide airport
7 News - 7 News | 6pm nightly

  

Update 05/06/16 courtesy SMH:

Potentially cancer-causing contaminant PFOS found at Sydney Airport

 
Two men fishing at Botany Bay as planes come into land and prepare to take off at Sydney Airport. Photo: Kate Geraghty
 
Dr Rob Weaver, the general manager of safety at Airservices Australia, told a Senate hearing in April that tests of ground and surface water outside of Sydney Airport did not find "likely significant human health risks".

"What we find is that, where we go and test on-airport, off our sites, the soil is broadly below US residential levels," Dr Weaver said.

"We know PFCs are in the environment [and] we know that we have them in our blood.

"What we find around airports is that the levels are generally below the US EPA levels for residential soil."

However, those levels are based on interim short-term exposure standards that were significantly lowered in a long-awaited decision by the US EPA in May, and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon said they needed to be updated "as a matter of course".

"If a level of uncertainty exists with a contaminant, that's a reason to act," she said.

"It's certainly concerning, we've already seen in the communities that have been affected by this contamination they've really been devastated." 

 And now from the weekend edition of The Saturday Paper:   

Exclusive: Toxic chemical conflict on Defence sites
[/url]
[url=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/contributor/chris-ray]Chris Ray

Consultants paid millions by Defence helped revise chemical safety standards that could shield the department from multiple compensation claims.


LACW Katherine Pearson
Firefighters at the Williamtown RAAF base during a simulated drill.

Australia’s environmental health authorities sparked a public outcry in June when they went against international trends to issue weaker safety standards for carcinogenic firefighting chemicals. These have devastated communities near contaminated military airfields in New South Wales and Queensland.

Now The Saturday Paper can reveal three companies that had won multimillion-dollar Defence Department contracts helped to set the controversially lower standards.

The consultancy firms joined government health officials at an invitation-only workshop to draft new safe limits for perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), both widely used on defence bases for almost 50 years. They are increasingly linked to cancer, liver and thyroid disease, immune suppression and reduced fertility.

The April 5 workshop set “tolerable daily intake” levels for both chemicals at 75 times higher than acceptable limits in the United States. Safe drinking water limits were set at more than 78 times the US level.

At the workshop were Golder Associates, a global environmental consultancy; Newcastle-based CRC Care, part owned by the Defence Department; and the Melbourne company ToxConsult.

Despite having won more than $104 million in defence contracts between them, none of the companies was required to declare a conflict of interest. A fourth company, not known to have worked for defence, also took part.

The relaxed guidelines could help defence reduce potential legal liability for contamination and clean-up costs, lawyers say. This is a serious issue for the Defence Department.
Defence already faces class-action lawsuits from hundreds of residents close to Williamtown RAAF base, near Newcastle, and the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in southern Queensland’s Darling Downs, where contamination has crunched property values, threatened the livelihood of fishermen and farmers, and left locals fearing for their health.

Thousands more people may be affected when defence finishes current investigations into water and soil contamination outside a further 16 military bases in all mainland states and territories. Potential federal government liability extends to civil airfields with PFOS/PFOA contamination. This contamination is confirmed or suspected at 36 sites, according to Airservices Australia.

Disease-based water standards

Australia’s new safety limits set at the workshop for the environmental health standing committee, known as enHealth, are based on 2008 European standards that are considered outdated even by one of their co-authors.

Dr Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health, worked on those European standards but is scathing of the Australian committee’s decision.

“In my mind, the new Australian water limits are not health-based. They are disease-based,” he tells The Saturday Paper. “They are certain to harm people who drink the water over a long period.”

Grandjean says countries such as Germany and Sweden now apply tougher limits than the 2008 European Food Safety Authority recommendations, and the EFSA and the European Commission are preparing new guidelines.

“In the US, PFOA contamination caused by drinking water at levels similar to Australia’s so-called safe limit was studied by a team of international scientists, and they concluded that the exposure was linked to a variety of diseases, including some cancer forms,” Grandjean says.

“Long-term exposure to the new Australian drinking water standard for PFOA would cause increases in serum concentrations by at least hundredfold above those commonly seen in people with background exposures.”

Government tender records show Golder Associates won defence contracts worth more than $69.2 million between 2007 and 2015, including work for the RAAF at Williamtown.
CRC Care was awarded defence contracts worth almost $35 million between 2005 and 2015, while ToxConsult was paid an unspecified sum for advice and risk analysis as a registered defence supplier between 2014 and 2016.

The companies were at the workshop “to provide enHealth with expert advice and information to assist enHealth’s deliberations” and were not required to declare a conflict of interest, said a spokeswoman for the federal health department. EnHealth comprises federal, state and territory environmental health officials.

Conflict of interest

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, a senior adviser to the community-based National Toxics Network, says companies in receipt of defence contracts should have declared a conflict of interest.

“I don’t believe that beneficiaries of contracts from the polluter should have taken part,” says Lloyd-Smith, who has represented non-government organisations on several international chemical committees and wrote a conflict of interest code for one of them.

“The Americans spend years updating their standards and Australia holds a one-day workshop attended by a select few and picks an eight-year-old standard off the shelf.”
A senate inquiry in May blasted defence’s response to the contamination as “slow and reactive” and “seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents”.

NSW Greens senator Lee Rhiannon, who initiated the inquiry, agrees that companies doing defence work should not be allowed to help decide acceptable limits on pollution caused by defence operations.

EnHealth’s recommendations were endorsed by the Australian health protection principal committee, made up of chief health officers and a Defence Department representative, on June 15.

This decision reversed Australia’s practice of adopting standards in line with those set by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA drastically toughened its PFOS and PFOA guidelines with stronger health warnings just three weeks before the Australian decision.

Joshua Aylward of Shine Lawyers represents Oakey residents affected by a 24-square-kilometre groundwater contamination plume still spreading out from the local army helicopter base. He says involvement of defence contractors in drawing up safety standards will further erode public confidence in the official response to the contamination.

“These corporations should have been absolutely upfront and disclosed their conflicts of interest,” he says.

“Weaker safety standards could be seen as an attempt to reduce the numbers of properties potentially affected and the numbers of people the government has to compensate. The lower the bar for so-called acceptable levels of these contaminants, the better the outcomes for the government.”

The Saturday Paper is not suggesting any of the consulting companies acted inappropriately.

A written statement from Golder Associates claimed a company representative told workshop organisers about Golder’s work on defence projects “before receiving an invitation” to the workshop. A Golder spokeswoman refused to elaborate.

The managing director of CRC Care, Professor Ravi Naidu, said no conflict of interest existed because “enHealth asked us to provide a briefing on what we were doing rather than seek our support for what they were doing”.

Defence is one of 14 government and industry shareholders in CRC Care. Naidu said CRC Care was under contract to remediate contaminated defence land but had not received defence funding for work on PFOS/PFOA since about 2010.

“We respect what enHealth has come up with but we also recognise the US and Danish EPAs have tougher standards. I don’t believe our representative expressed a view on what the reference value [tolerable daily intake] should be,” he says.

“Defence are not putting any pressure on us to do anything. They provided resources for us to come up with new technologies for remediation of contaminated sites.”

Dr Roger Drew, of ToxConsult, says questions should be directed to the enHealth workshop organisers “as it involves government policy matters”. He was hired to advise defence on a health risk assessment at Williamtown and Oakey that would “inform defence’s response to PFOS/PFOA contamination nationally,” according to defence evidence to the senate inquiry.

In May, a Victorian parliamentary inquiry criticised state regulators for relying on Drew’s advice in their response to perfluorinated chemical pollution at the Country Fire Authority’s Fiskville training centre. The inquiry found that perfluorinated chemicals were likely to have caused cancers among firefighters.

“Dr Drew was an expert toxicologist who was, at all relevant times, advising, and being paid by, the party that caused the pollution in the first place, the CFA,” the committee said.

“The committee accepts that Dr Drew is an eminent toxicologist and does not question the advice he gave to the Chief Health Officer. However, he was being paid by the CFA to provide his expertise, which raises concerns of a perceived conflict of interest that should have been avoided.”

The Saturday Paper does not suggest Dr Drew acted inappropriately.

3. Drinking water guidelines

EnHealth’s new tolerable daily intake levels are 0.15 micrograms per kilogram per day for PFOS and 1.5 mcg/kg/d for PFOA – up to 75 times higher than the 0.02 mcg/kg/d deemed safe by the US EPA.

EnHealth’s drinking water guidelines – 0.5 micrograms per litre for PFOS and 5 mcg/l for PFOA – are way above the 0.07 mcg/l guidelines adopted by the US.

EnHealth says its higher drinking water limits apply only to residents on contaminated land and are not intended as a guide for water utilities. That distinction produced widespread anger in the farming town of Oakey and semi-rural community of Williamtown, where families have relied on bore water for cooking, bathing, watering crops and livestock, and, sometimes, drinking.

Now health authorities warn residents not to use bore water for drinking or cooking and to guard against “incidental swallowing” of groundwater by children while showering and swimming. Some households are forced to depend on defence-supplied bottled water while waiting for town-water connections.

Water utilities follow drinking water guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council. These make no reference to PFOS and PFOA and it is unclear how and when these chemicals will be included.

NHMRC protocols state that in the absence of Australian guidelines for a particular chemical, standards from New Zealand, Canada and the US should be followed in that order.

The supplier for Newcastle and the lower Hunter region, Hunter Water, shut three of its pumping stations rather than risk contamination from Williamtown RAAF base entering the supply.

Hunter Water’s chief customer service officer, Jeremy Bath, says it will not draw from bores that exceed US EPA limits, even if they are declared safe under enHealth guidelines.

“We will continue to test for PFOS and PFOA using US EPA guidelines until we are advised by our statutory regulator, NSW Health, of an applicable national guideline,” he says. “I expect every major Australian water utility would use the US guidelines.”

4. Food Standards review

Release of enHealth’s new drinking water standards produced an outcry in the final week of the election campaign, forcing the Turnbull government to promise an independent review. At the beginning of this month, it appointed University of Queensland Adjunct Professor Andrew Bartholomaeus, formerly of Food Standards Australia New Zealand and the Therapeutic Goods Administration, to review enHealth’s guidelines.

Bartholomaeus also does contract work for federal government agencies including the health department through his private company, BartCrofts Scientific Services. But even if he endorses enHealth new standards on PFOS and PFOA, they are not necessarily the final word: enHealth said its “interim” guidelines would apply until Food Standards Australia New Zealand could review them.

FSANZ’s manager for product safety standards, Dr Leigh Henderson, said it would come up with its own recommended acceptable intake levels for PFOS and PFOA in “four to five months” and send them back to enHealth for “peer review”.

Meanwhile, Mariann Lloyd-Smith says the Williamtown residents she advises are “understandably disgusted” that Australia has raised allowable pollution limits when the rest of the world is lowering theirs. “It’s a shocking and extremely disappointing step backwards for our environmental health standards.”

Like the hurt inflicted on Kaz Casey in the PelAir cover-up and the Pink Batts debacle, this is just another example of a cynical, deceitful, bureaucratic attempt at limiting the government's public liability in this matter - despicable, absolutely despicable!




MTF...P2

Absolute fucking political crooks. The entire lot of them. They are the first ones to load their own pockets, most of it by lies, deception and dishonesty, and then they are the first ones to screw the innocent people they vow to represent.

And this is all the proof you need;

“The Americans spend years updating their standards and Australia holds a one-day workshop attended by a select few and picks an eight-year-old standard off the shelf.”
A senate inquiry in May blasted defence’s response to the contamination as “slow and reactive” and “seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents”.

There should be a royal commission into not only Murky, but those above him who sanction such sly activities. None of these parasites act alone, and that includes 'he with the giant head'. If people are affected by this poisonous shite, and it is already well proven that they are, then compensation is morally justified. Strip some of these politician assholes superannuation benefits and disgusting million dollar salaries and use that money for the compensation payouts. Disgusting and despicable vermin. Maybe Sen X and some of the new senate crew can add this to their 'hit list' of deceptive dealings to look into?

Bring on the uprising.....TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Drink it up Freddo??- According to latest revelations, courtesy of The Saturday Paper,  apparently Murky & his Defence Mandarin mates are on a mission to lessen the liability of the Government on the more than 30 year PFOS/PFOA contamination at many Defence & civil (Airservices Australia) airports throughout Australia. 

Exclusive: Toxic chemical conflict on Defence sites
[/url]
[url=https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/contributor/chris-ray]Chris Ray

Consultants paid millions by Defence helped revise chemical safety standards that could shield the department from multiple compensation claims.


LACW Katherine Pearson
Firefighters at the Williamtown RAAF base during a simulated drill.

Like the hurt inflicted on Kaz Casey in the PelAir cover-up and the Pink Batts debacle, this is just another example of a cynical, deceitful, bureaucratic attempt at limiting the government's public liability in this matter - despicable, absolutely despicable!




MTF...P2

Absolute fucking political crooks. The entire lot of them. They are the first ones to load their own pockets, most of it by lies, deception and dishonesty, and then they are the first ones to screw the innocent people they vow to represent.

And this is all the proof you need;

“The Americans spend years updating their standards and Australia holds a one-day workshop attended by a select few and picks an eight-year-old standard off the shelf.”
A senate inquiry in May blasted defence’s response to the contamination as “slow and reactive” and “seemingly focused on limiting its liability rather than addressing the needs of residents”.

There should be a royal commission into not only Murky, but those above him who sanction such sly activities. None of these parasites act alone, and that includes 'he with the giant head'. If people are affected by this poisonous shite, and it is already well proven that they are, then compensation is morally justified. Strip some of these politician assholes superannuation benefits and disgusting million dollar salaries and use that money for the compensation payouts. Disgusting and despicable vermin. Maybe Sen X and some of the new senate crew can add this to their 'hit list' of deceptive dealings to look into?

Bring on the uprising.....TICK TOCK

Update 02/09/2016: From Senate Hansard yesterday the 1st time this issue was mentioned in the 45th Parliament was in question time by none other than newly elected NSW Senator Brian Burston, from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party -

Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination

Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. As you are aware, toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam have leaked from the Williamtown RAAF Base at Salt Ash, near Newcastle. The toxic chemicals have been found in water and fish and they have leached into the soil. Residents have been told not to drink bore water or eat any fish or eggs produced in the contaminated area, called the 'red zone'. As well as Salt Ash, the Department of Defence is investigating 18 sites throughout Australia for contamination, including the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, in Queensland. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised $55 million for blood testing in epidemiology studies in areas across the country adversely affected by firefighting foam contamination. Given the acute threat to residents—that is, the chemicals found at Salt Ash and Oakey have been linked with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerated colitis, thyroid disease, hypertension and medically diagnosed high cholesterol—when will the blood testing epidemiology studies begin?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:21): I thank Senator Burston very much for his first question in this place. If I am not mistaken, I know that this is a matter of significant interest to him as a local resident, as it is to many people in the broad Williamtown and Salt Ash community. Senator Burston is correct when he says that the government has made a commitment in relation both to voluntary blood testing and the commencement of an epidemiological study. The arrangements for those are underway with the Primary Health Networks, in particular, because there needs to be a proper health based framework through which they can take place, with the support of general practitioners. If individuals have already procured blood tests for their own purposes, then they will be reimbursed. If they wish to do that now, then they will also be reimbursed. The development of the epidemiological study is being done—largely directed by the Department of Health, as is entirely appropriate—and the reference points, the outlines, for that are almost complete. The minister for health is awaiting receipt of those.

If individuals who participate in the blood-testing process, or who seek blood tests, wish to voluntarily be part of such an epidemiological study, then that would of course be a matter for them. Nobody will be forced or compelled to do that. But in terms of the health information and data that is available on the tracking of PFOS and PFOA, or contaminant levels, this will be, if it is participated in by a good number of people in these key areas, one of the leading health studies available in the world. It will assist us in formulating policy in the context of a department such as defence, which finds itself in this position, a department such as health or a department such as environment. We are taking a whole-of-government approach— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Burston—a supplementary question.


Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (14:23): Does the minister agree that because this toxic chemical contamination cannot be neutralised the government should commence a buyback program of affected properties in the red zone so that residents can relocate to a safe environment? If so, when will the buyback begin?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:23): This is a pressing issue for the residents not just in Williamtown, but I would also acknowledge residents in Oakey in Queensland, because there have been some decisions taken by valuers, by financial institutions in relation to land values, in the context of perhaps the current heightened debate. The government has been involved in the process of a very complex series of environmental, ecological and human health assessments. Once the interim health reference values are established by that testing process, once the detailed environmental investigations are concluded and they are underway in both of those areas, then we will be in a much better position to look at the legal implications in relation to land values. This is a very complex issue for those who live in these local areas. I have met with a number of them, and I understand their very, very serious concerns. (Time expired)

It is encouraging to see the good Senator has not been overawed by the occasion and is ready to get stuck into tackling the real issues affecting his constituents. It should be noted that Senator Burston is yet to even give his first speech...


MTF...P2


Ps Hmm...wonder how long before attention is drawn to the reportedly 36 identified ASA run Civil Airports, that will expand the 'victim' compensation count somewhat exponentially...

Tick..tick...tick...Murky & Co, it is all a matter of time now you cretins, this one will make the Pink batts fiasco look like a minor speed bump..

[thorn bird]

Well, well, well...it gets Murkier and Murkier and murkier (as in that murky mandarin)

Opening day of the Bankstown Airport lawyer fest.

Could it be someones been Judge shopping??

Last minute changes of be-wigged jurists tends to make one extremely Suss.

Seems like the whole tangled mess is about a extremely miffed development shark a tad upset he got sold a pup. Breech of contract they cry, but one has to wonder cry about what?

The airports Act prohibits property developers from owing airports for very good reasons.

This is why BAL formed BAC Devco to subvert that requirement and develop fully a third of the airport land, surplus land of course, but they had to close a runway (contrary to the Act), dump asbestos contaminated fill on a Georges river flood plain, without EPA approval (contrary to the Act) to free up that land for development.

Strange since nearly all the share holders of BAC Devco seem to be the same shareholders of BAL.Somebody got a nudge nudge wink wink to make that kosher.

Nobody seems to know where the 90 odd million that BAC Devco paid to BAL actually went, one can guess?? offshore??? Tax free haven??? No of course not.

Bugger me they got 230 Mil for Hoxten Park, that money is missing in action as well, so nothing would surprise me.

It is alleged BAC Devco which was set up to develop the land, paid BAL $93 million then inconveniently went broke, owing the Commonwealth Bank around $93 million.

Suckers!!!

In steps the next development shark with $$$ in the eyes encouraged, if the written correspondence is to be believed by non other than???? you guessed it, a certain Murky Mandarin.

Pipped at the post!! bugger!! the development shark finds out that the whole deal is a somewhat tainted.

According to form, sue the bastards!!!Breech of contract!!!..."I wos robbed" echo's around the airport, suddenly lawyers appear from under every rock and in the blink of an eye, its the OK corral, lawyers at fifty paces.

What none of them realise is the whole court case is maybe problematic anyway.

No NSW stamp duty, as required by the Airport Act was paid on the original lease or on any of the other transactions subsequently.

This maybe voids any agreements subsequently anyway.

The "land", which IS airport land, regardless of the development sharks description of it as "adjacent to the airport"

(they had to close a runway contrary to the airport act to get it),

The Land concerned is a flood plain, contaminated with PFOS, PFOA and PCA's, same as Newcastle, sprayed about the place by the old airport fire service. Under that live ammunition and large quantities of bunker oil buried there after the second world war and possibly human excrement from dumped night cart material from the 50'ties and 60'ties.

The poor old development shark, hooked like a great white on a drum line!!

No wonder he is miffed, his dreams of $$$ sort of evaporated in the blink of an eye, and nobody will ever know what donations he made to what political party to get what he thought was the box seat. Poor bugger, down to his last billion dollars, how will he ever manage?

Round two, next week!! should be interesting,estimates of months and over sixty million in costs, no wonder there's too many lawyers to fit in the court room.

[Gobbledock]

Sympathy for the land sharks, Murky, or the Devil?

Oh no, poor land development sharks, surely they haven't copped one in the ass from Murky?? Is there no boundary that Murky won't cross in his quest for unlimited power, wealth and influence?

Perhaps Murky was enrolled in and earned his degree from the 'Bob Dylan, Led Zeppelin and Rolling Stones school of success', and sold his soul to the Devil also? If that is the case then old Murky will be around for another 100 years and start taking the form of a reptile!! The large headed one is truly untouchable!

[thorn bird]

A spokesman for Bankstown Airport moved to allay concerns about aviation at the site.

“All federal leased airports are required by their lease with the Commonwealth to operate the airport as an airport,” he said.

Yup very true, but the Airport Act and the head leases mandate that all the aviation infrastructure was to be maintained. That the intent of the Act was to reserve airport land for aviation use. So how come you, Mr BAL, closed taxiways, closed runways and costed aviation off the airport so you could take land for your development shark mates to develop.

“Over the years there have been some tenants that have left the airport, through retirement, industry rationalisation, business failure post-GFC or seeking an environment with less compliance issues.”

Oh really, wouldn't have been because rents went up by thousands of percent,and continue to rise. Very short term leases make it almost impossible for any long term aviation industry to develop. Landing fees and parking charges are now the highest in the world resulting in a mass exodus of aircraft to places like Wedderburn, Wollongong, Bathurst, Cessnock

A spokeswoman for Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester has defended the privatisation.

Well of course he would, his party were the ones who stuffed it up in the first place.
The Murky Mandarin worked out a neat way for the Guvmint to affectively "Borrow Money" without it showing on the books and getting the industry to pay the interest bill.
Wonder if the minister would care to divulge exactly how much tax our privatised airports pay each year. How much of the money the entities who bought the leases borrowed offshore, at what interest rate, and how much of the airports turnover disappears to offshore tax havens every year?

“Non-aeronautical land use and commercial activity is necessary to allow airport lease holders to provide the significant investment necessary to maintain and grow airport and aviation infrastructure, she said.

That statement is inutile. Exactly what have any of the entities who purchased the airport leases put into aviation infrastructure? Aviation Infrastructure has now degenerated to third world standards, our airports voted some of the worst in the world.
err Darren old mate, car parks are not aviation infrastructure. Oh and how was runway 18/36 at Bankstown "Non-Aeronautical" land?

“This investment would not have been possible if these airports remained in Government control or, if Government control was to have been maintained, without changes in the arrangements between the Government and airport users to reflect the market value of airport activity.”

[i][b]Again, an inutile statement. The Commonwealth i.e. the people of Australia owned the airports, DEBT FREE"!!!
They were by and large returning profit to the government.

Maybe Do Nothing Darren could give us some idea of exactly what investments have been made in aviation infrastructure since the airports were privatised?

All the profits from the primaries disappears overseas. How does that benefit the Australian taxpayer?

All the profits from the development sharks biting huge chunks out of airport land at secondary airports disappears overseas,how does that benefit the Australian taxpayer or the Industry?

Bankstown airport used to employ over 8000 people, today less than a few hundred since the industry has been priced off the airport, so the Australian taxpayer doesnt even get the benefit of the taxes they used to pay.

[b]Hell, the NSW government didn't even get the benefit of stamp duty on the leases and a whole heap of subsequent transactions.
For years the airport lessee was charging its tenants for council rates, yet not passing it on to council. How was that benefitting the ratepayers of Bankstown?
[/b]
[b]The whole so called privatisation has been a giant Con, it has neither benefitted the Australian pubic nor the aviation industry.

[i][b]The current Court squabble going on in NSW court regarding Bankstown should wave a flag for do nothing Darren. If the development sharks are prepared to fess up what I'm told could amount to over Sixty Million in legal fees, there's got to be a "Nice little earner" in there. Meanwhile a perfectly good Industry spirals down the gurgler, and industry that could have contributed vastly to Australia for as far as you could see into the future.

A Question for the PM. Mr Turnbull you make statements about supporting Innovation,
yet your Bureaucrats with malice and aforethought are suppressing the most innovative industry in the world. Are your words simply rhetoric? or do you mean what you said?, Sir. we are totally confused[/b][/i][/b][/b][/i]

[Gobbledock]

Of 'making airports great again'.....

There is money to be made from airports. In fact there is more money to be made from keeping/owning airports over a longer period of time rather than flogging them for a quick buck in a fire-sale. The problem is that Governments are useless, incompetent and erratic. Everything they touch turns to complete shit.

When an asset is sold, such as an airport, it's now at the mercy of the hedge funds, superannuation funds, and the parasites such as the JP Morgan types, who gut the asset, slice of pieces and flog the bulk of it to the land development sharks. It's all a sting, and an all too familiar one at that. They never re-invest back into the asset adequately, if at all, and the asset then declines which ultimately affects businesses, the economy, the community.

Why doesn't the Government (individual states or federal) set up a third party company/entity to either buy back or keep and manage existing groups of airports? For pondering purposes let's call it 'Dipshit Pty Ltd'.
The airports could be managed as being seperate from Government, by Dipshit Pty Ltd, and you would have no more stupid bureaucratic policy, no dumbass time wasting procurement bullshit, no doubling and tripling of Board structures and useless executive managers. A group of airports run succinctly by proven industry experts in a way that encourages diversity, business, quality, expansion not contraction, promotes airports as a major link and necessary link in the aviation chain, and ensures they are not molested by the likes of Murky and his corporate capitalist minions.

For example, the Federal government has set up its at-arms-length corporation "Dipshit Pty Ltd" and buys a group of already state or local government owned airports. Let's make the figure 36 for shits and giggles, a mixture of mainline and regional airports. Each airports owner gets paid out (valuations vary depending on the airports location, category and overall value). That leaves a chunk of change for struggling states or local communities to use wisely and invest in infrastructure, pay down debt, that kind of stuff. Then, the group of airports produce a yearly dividend (again depending on the airports overall value) and a percentage of that dividend annually goes back to the state/community that sold their airport to the third party governemnt corporation that now owns it.
It's doable because you don't have bureaucrats poorly managing the airports. You now have proper management oversight. The better the airport is managed then the better the financial return. The grouping also allows for synergies, greater bartering and bargaining power, a return on investment and again greater power when it comes to seeking capital injections. Much better options than one singular poor little airport trying to cut the mustard in a dog eat dog capitalistic Wall Steet 'bankerised' world (I like that new word!). It keeps the airports in governemnt hands and not in the hands of the blood sucking white shoe brigade parasites on Wall Street and scum sucking hedge fund corporation rapists.

Anyway, these are just a few of my Sunday evening musings. It's not the magic bullet, but there simply has to be a better way?

P_666

[Peetwo]

Update 02/09/2016: From Senate Hansard yesterday the 1st time this issue was mentioned in the 45th Parliament was in question time by none other than newly elected NSW Senator Brian Burston, from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party -

Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination

Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. As you are aware, toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam have leaked from the Williamtown RAAF Base at Salt Ash, near Newcastle. The toxic chemicals have been found in water and fish and they have leached into the soil. Residents have been told not to drink bore water or eat any fish or eggs produced in the contaminated area, called the 'red zone'. As well as Salt Ash, the Department of Defence is investigating 18 sites throughout Australia for contamination, including the Oakey Army Aviation Centre, in Queensland. During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised $55 million for blood testing in epidemiology studies in areas across the country adversely affected by firefighting foam contamination. Given the acute threat to residents—that is, the chemicals found at Salt Ash and Oakey have been linked with kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerated colitis, thyroid disease, hypertension and medically diagnosed high cholesterol—when will the blood testing epidemiology studies begin?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:21): I thank Senator Burston very much for his first question in this place. If I am not mistaken, I know that this is a matter of significant interest to him as a local resident, as it is to many people in the broad Williamtown and Salt Ash community. Senator Burston is correct when he says that the government has made a commitment in relation both to voluntary blood testing and the commencement of an epidemiological study. The arrangements for those are underway with the Primary Health Networks, in particular, because there needs to be a proper health based framework through which they can take place, with the support of general practitioners. If individuals have already procured blood tests for their own purposes, then they will be reimbursed. If they wish to do that now, then they will also be reimbursed. The development of the epidemiological study is being done—largely directed by the Department of Health, as is entirely appropriate—and the reference points, the outlines, for that are almost complete. The minister for health is awaiting receipt of those.

If individuals who participate in the blood-testing process, or who seek blood tests, wish to voluntarily be part of such an epidemiological study, then that would of course be a matter for them. Nobody will be forced or compelled to do that. But in terms of the health information and data that is available on the tracking of PFOS and PFOA, or contaminant levels, this will be, if it is participated in by a good number of people in these key areas, one of the leading health studies available in the world. It will assist us in formulating policy in the context of a department such as defence, which finds itself in this position, a department such as health or a department such as environment. We are taking a whole-of-government approach— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Burston—a supplementary question.


Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (14:23): Does the minister agree that because this toxic chemical contamination cannot be neutralised the government should commence a buyback program of affected properties in the red zone so that residents can relocate to a safe environment? If so, when will the buyback begin?

Senator PAYNE (New South Wales—Minister for Defence) (14:23): This is a pressing issue for the residents not just in Williamtown, but I would also acknowledge residents in Oakey in Queensland, because there have been some decisions taken by valuers, by financial institutions in relation to land values, in the context of perhaps the current heightened debate. The government has been involved in the process of a very complex series of environmental, ecological and human health assessments. Once the interim health reference values are established by that testing process, once the detailed environmental investigations are concluded and they are underway in both of those areas, then we will be in a much better position to look at the legal implications in relation to land values. This is a very complex issue for those who live in these local areas. I have met with a number of them, and I understand their very, very serious concerns. (Time expired)

It is encouraging to see the good Senator has not been overawed by the occasion and is ready to get stuck into tackling the real issues affecting his constituents. It should be noted that Senator Burston is yet to even give his first speech...

Further update: On the other Aunty today...

Residents near Oakey Aviation Base 'likely' ingested toxic chemicals, report finds
By Isobel Roe

Updated about an hour agoMon 5 Sep 2016, 8:11pm

Photo: Oakey resident Scott Vlietstra has a blood test for PFOS levels. (ABC News: Isobel Roe)

The Department of Defence says residents who live near the Oakey Aviation Base in south-west Queensland are likely to have ingested a range of toxic chemicals associated with firefighting foam.

Key points:

• People who drank or used bore water before 2010 likely to have ingested toxic chemicals, report finds
  
• Oakey community advised not to drink or bathe in bore water or groundwater
  
• Defence officials briefed the community at a fiery meeting
  

The department today released its human health assessment regarding the detection of poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination around the base.

The contamination also included perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Firefighting foam used at the base in training and emergency responses since the 1970s caused contaminated groundwater and soil.

The report confirmed that people who drank or used bore water before 2010, when the chemicals were first discovered at the base, were likely to have ingested them.

The report found there was a low and acceptable risk to health associated with typical exposure to the PFAS detected in the environment for the general community.

It also found that consuming meat, fish, locally grown vegetables and incidental ingestion of water while swimming, boating or fishing were considered to be low risk.



Photo: Light blue 'plume' shows extent of groundwater contamination over Oakey. (Supplied: Department of Defence)

"The available blood serum data from the Oakey cohort indicate that these elevated PFAS exposures [which could be associated with potential health risks] are unlikely to have occurred, however this cannot be stated with certainty," the report stated.

But the report found the community's exposure to the chemicals must be minimised.

The community has been advised not to drink or bathe in bore water or groundwater.

The report also recommends the community avoid the consumption of locally produced eggs in the contamination zone, but the report did not detail the actual human health risks.

A toxicology report said the chemicals had caused some cancer in animals but there was no proof it could cause cancer in humans.

Defence officials briefed the community at a fiery meeting that was held about 5:30pm.
However, many community members remain concerned about the report, with some yelling during the meeting and others walking out.

Call for department to 'come clean'

Oakey GP Dr John Hall said the issue had led to a great deal of stress in the community.

"The biggest issue we've seen coming through our door is mental health, depression and anxiety related to this issue," he said.

He said one of the things that had led to the anxiety was a lack of real information from the Defence Department.

"From my understanding the report does not confirm or clearly talk about the health effects of these chemicals," he said.

"We're calling on them [Defence Department] to come out and come clean with that and talk openly about the health effects."

Dr Hall's clinic conducts blood tests on Oakey residents to detect exposure, but he said it was difficult to interpret the results as there was no guidelines on what a safe level was.

"The advice we're getting from Defence and the advice we're getting from the Department of Health is they don't know, so they don't know what a safe level is," he said.

Industry questions Commonwealth's approach

Beef producer Dianne Priddle said she could not understand how the report had found no real risk from meat from her property.

She said the Commonwealth was hiding something because there was no consistency with the approach taken in New South Wales.

"If New South Wales have shut down the fishing industry and the chook industry, eggs, and we've got question marks over the beef industry — what is the difference with that industry and our industry?" she said.

Meanwhile, the State Government said it was identifying areas in Queensland where contaminated firefighting foam was being stored.

Environment Minister Steven Miles said new stocks of firefighting foam that might contain contaminating substances had been banned.

"We are now actively reviewing the locations and scale of firefighting foams throughout Queensland that may contain PFAS and engaging with commerce and industry to ensure they know and understand their obligations," he said.

From other news sites:

• News.com.au: Qld maps out contaminated fire foam sites
  
• The Chronicle: Residents warned don't drink toxic water, eat eggs
  

Powered by
Find out more about these links

[Peetwo]

Another win for Murky & who's who at the zoo -

Haven't heard much on this?? Apparently last week the AAT decision on the contested former Minister Truss's decision to approve the Jandakot Airport Holdings 2014 Master Plan, was handed down in the affirmative for the Minister and Murky's motley crew - Bugger :

Jandakot Airport Chamber of Commerce Inc and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development [2016] AATA 705 (12 September 2016)

(From Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia; 12 September 2016; 345 KB)  

Oh well I guess it was always a long shot and it certainly wasn't due to lack of effort or apathy from the industry when look at some of the well known IOS identities who provided witness testimony/evidence on behalf of the applicant JACC...

Here is a small cross-section example:

Paul Phelan

47.Mr Phelan’s witness statement went into evidence without objection and he was not required for cross-examination.
48.Mr Phelan’s resume to his witness statement included information that he was born in 1935, had an aviation background between 1960 and 1990 that included progression in commercial flying through charter flying, corporate and regional airline flying; then in journalism from 1990 to 1993.
49.Mr Phelan’s witness statement comprised a document that was prepared by or for him in July 2010 and was given to Mr Anthony Albanese, when he was the responsible Minister administering the Act. Mr Phelan’s historical document provided an introduction, dealt with what were called “unregulated monopolies”, gave background to aerodrome ownership and development since 1992 and dealt with “[o]bligations of local governments participating in the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP)”, gave Caloundra and Casino as examples of ALOP aerodromes, referred to what he described as “[i]ssues related to capital city general aviation airports ... (GAAP)”, gave Archerfield as an example of issues related to GAAPs, and detailed the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau’s (“ATSB”) response. He also referred to Bankstown, Camden and Hoxton Park aerodromes, as well as Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield airports.
50.Having suggested various remedies for “abuses” suffered by tenants, Mr Phelan addressed the role of the Commonwealth Government, the role of CASA, the role of the ATSB, and the role of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, all under their relevant legislation, as well as government interventions.
51.He then made a summary of what had preceded. The summary may relevantly be set out, as follows:

Clearly, the airports cannot be trusted to be their own regulators. Dumping the quasigovernment powers that the FAC held straight over to the managements of the privatised airports was a ludicrously incompetent act, and allowing, as ever, worsening situation to continue further demonstrates the ineptitude of successive responsible administrations.

The Commonwealth has clearly failed adequately and effectively to monitor the activities of organisations who control both GAAP and ALOP airports. This failure extends over the present and previous two governments and to the relevant Ministers and their departments throughout that period.

The Roofing Insulation debacle and the educational building program have nothing on this series of failures. The current Minister and his department now have a duty to restore the nation’s airports to a status which meets the requirements set out in the legislation, published policies and lease documents already in place.

They also have the tools to do so, and ongoing neglect of their obligations would represent a grave breach of the respective obligations of the public officials involved.
52.As the applicant recognised in its closing submissions, Mr Phelan’s evidence was both historical and of a “political” nature. The Tribunal finds the statement provides some useful historical and policy background to the Act, but that otherwise the opinions expressed in it are of limited usefulness in determining the primary and secondary issues.

Benjamin Morgan

53.Mr Morgan was called by the applicant and his witness statement was tendered and went into evidence without objection. He was not required for crossexamination.
54.Mr Morgan is the Chief Executive for the Aviation Advertiser in Tamworth, New South Wales. He said he had been involved in general aviation for the past 20 years and runs a company, that he said is the largest aircraft sales and marketing business in Australia.
55.He is currently a board member of Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (“AOPA”).
56.He said he has been concerned about the privatisation of airports for the past 10 years and aviation safety throughout Australia “as a result of the greed of airport-lessee at the expense of the airport tenants, airport users and the communities surrounding airports”.
57.He said that recently, on 6 May 2016, he organised and conducted a meeting at Tamworth Airport, which was attended by the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and the current Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester.
58.Noting that he was aware of the need to be impartial, Mr Morgan expressed the view that in order to achieve satisfactory growth of the aviation industry in Western Australia, Precincts 6 and 6A contained in the 2014 final master plan should remain free of nonaviation commercial development. He stated that: “Anything short of that will compromise the operations at the airport”.
59.In his opinion, the proposed change in land use within the 2014 final master plan fails to provide for the future of aviation and does not meet the present and future requirements of civil aviation for users of the airport, or for services and facilities relating to airport concerns. He said it fails to provide for the future requirements of civil aviation by locking in the airport to its present configuration, and completely eliminating any space that may be required in the future to meet the ever changing aviation industry and its community.
60.While generally relevant, it must be said that Mr Morgan’s statements are at such a level of generality that the opinions expressed in them are only of passing relevance to the key issues.

Kenneth Cannane

61.Mr Cannane provided a witness statement on behalf of the applicant which was also tendered and went into evidence without objection. Mr Cannane was not required for crossexamination.
62.He is employed as the Executive Director of the Aviation Maintenance Repair and Overhaul Business Association and has been for the past 11 years. He is based in New South Wales.
63.He is also a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer and has been for 57 years.
64.He was employed by CASA for 20 years. His last position with CASA was as Head of Airworthiness and Maintenance, at the time he retired in 2002. He was Regional Manager for New South Wales and Victoria with CASA.
65.Mr Cannane stated that during his time with CASA he was deployed to Jandakot Airport in an official capacity prior to the privatisation of the airport, in his role as General Manager of the regulatory framework program office.
66.Mr Cannane indicated an understanding of the need to provide impartial views. He also stated he is an industry representative on the Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Aviation Industry Consultative Committee. He made it clear he is already on record as having expressed the opinion that the proposed commercial development at general aviation airports compromises the operation of these airports.
67.Mr Cannane stated that he had reviewed the 2014 final master plan and had formed the opinion that the proposed commercial development of the airport on Precincts 6 and 6A would compromise its operations.
68.He said that based on his experience, the type of commercial development contemplated will have an effect on the operations of certain aircraft and that will have an effect on certain maintenance organisations at the airport.
69.In his opinion, implementation of the 2014 final master plan does not provide for the future requirements of civil aviation users of the airport by locking in the airport to its present configuration and completely eliminating any space that may be required in the future to meet the ever changing aviation industry and its community.
70.He expressed the opinion, as the Executive Director of an organisation with members conducting business at Jandakot Airport daily, that an increase of non-aviation commercial uses will adversely affect the airport and prevent the expansion of its use as a major training facility for the Asia Pacific area as a whole.
71.Mr Cannane expressed these opinions as of 16 May 2016.
72.Mr Cannane’s statements are of general relevance to a number of the issues, however the weight to be accorded his opinion is dealt with below.

When you consider the Honourable Justice ML Barker (Deputy President) review and final decision stretched to 743 recorded paragraphs, this case was always going to be a massive undertaking for the JACC to get overturned -  


Yet another stab in the heart for industry and another identified safety issue consummately ignored by the miniscule & Murky's department all in the name of commercial expediency...


Tick..tock miniscule Dazzling Dazza...


MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Disappointing, alas inevitable.

I reckon one of the big problems aviation faces is not being able to ‘compete’ for ‘space’ on an aerodrome; simply through a lack of development. Many of the small aviation businesses companies struggle to stay viable, let alone expand. Many who have the means to invest in an aviation business do not, for many reasons.  Primarily because there are better, more secure investment opportunities.  The competition for ‘investment’ hard cash is fierce and aviation businesses do not have a stellar track record.  That said, there are some very successful aviation businesses which do well; but there is not a sufficient ‘volume’ of business competing for space on an airfield.  

Vacant land, not earning a return for the owner is a tempting target for developers and the local council or whoever, is going to seriously consider an offer to ‘develop’. Its a sound fiscal argument, hard to deny.  The best argument against non aviation development is that it is being preferred over aviation business development; that would be a hard to beat case.  Aldi want to build a warehouse on a cheap lease of unused airport land; Pipedream Aviation want to build a hanger on the same vacant plot, IMO that would be a legally supportable action. But there is no Pipedream Aviation bringing jobs and revenue; just a vacant weed covered lot, sat idle for years on endless years.

The disincentives to investment in aviation are many; the time and cost involved to get a business going and keeping it going, stand alone are enough to send any investor and his cheque book racing to Aldi to buy shares in the warehouse.

It is a competitive world and if aviation want to keep their aerodromes they must compete for them.  There is big money in ‘development’ and easily understood motives; not so for the aviation case.

Even so; it is a sad thing to see Archerfield, Hoxton Park, Bankstown and now Jandakot being whittled away, surrounded by more car parks, more suffer-markets and the associated fast food outlets.  But ask yourself; if you won the lottery would you buy any one those airfields?

Toot toot,

[Peetwo]

The survival of secondary airports - A common conundrum..   : Proactive (there), versus 'don't give a duck' (here). 'Here' will remain the same (i.e. the decimation of secondary airports) while there is no political blow back for the miniscule - UDB!

Disappointing, alas inevitable.

I reckon one of the big problems aviation faces is not being able to ‘compete’ for ‘space’ on an aerodrome; simply through a lack of development. Many of the small aviation businesses companies struggle to stay viable, let alone expand. Many who have the means to invest in an aviation business do not, for many reasons.  Primarily because there are better, more secure investment opportunities.  The competition for ‘investment’ hard cash is fierce and aviation businesses do not have a stellar track record.  That said, there are some very successful aviation businesses which do well; but there is not a sufficient ‘volume’ of business competing for space on an airfield.  

Vacant land, not earning a return for the owner is a tempting target for developers and the local council or whoever, is going to seriously consider an offer to ‘develop’. Its a sound fiscal argument, hard to deny.  The best argument against non aviation development is that it is being preferred over aviation business development; that would be a hard to beat case.  Aldi want to build a warehouse on a cheap lease of unused airport land; Pipedream Aviation want to build a hanger on the same vacant plot, IMO that would be a legally supportable action. But there is no Pipedream Aviation bringing jobs and revenue; just a vacant weed covered lot, sat idle for years on endless years.

The disincentives to investment in aviation are many; the time and cost involved to get a business going and keeping it going, stand alone are enough to send any investor and his cheque book racing to Aldi to buy shares in the warehouse.

It is a competitive world and if aviation want to keep their aerodromes they must compete for them.  There is big money in ‘development’ and easily understood motives; not so for the aviation case.

Even so; it is a sad thing to see Archerfield, Hoxton Park, Bankstown and now Jandakot being whittled away, surrounded by more car parks, more suffer-markets and the associated fast food outlets.  But ask yourself; if you won the lottery would you buy any one those airfields?

Toot toot,

The following article from FAA insight publication JDA journal could not have come at a better time for this discussion. We might be a hemisphere apart but the General and small business aviation industry in the US is grappling with the very same issues when it comes to the survival of important infrastructure assets such as secondary airports... :

[b]All Airports are National[/b]


Posted By: Sandy Murdock September 21, 2016

An airport may be located in a community; its presence is national.

“All politics is local” is a popular political saying, most often associated with House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. (1912-1994).

“All airports is national.” Anonymous (perhaps former Rep. Donald Clausen)

Santa Monica wants to close up its airport altogether and has started evicting its tenants. San Francisco is evicting a GA tenant because it would prefer the little planes would go elsewhere. Members of Congress opine that these are local matters; so why should the FAA care:

1. Congress authorized the FAA to carefully issue AIP grants to airports. The money for those local airport expenditures came from taxes collected across the country. In distributing those dollars to projects, the FAA must assess the grants’ return based on the proposed projects’ benefits in terms of safety, capacity and the environment. That determination may not be based on purely local impacts; the use must result in improvements to the National Airport System Plan. It is a macro, not micro analysis.
   
2. The point is that airports (small, intermediate, large) constitute a system. The mobility of this asset relies on a network of facilities at which to land or depart. This is not just an economic utility statement, but the expression of safety requirements. There are instances in which the plane needs to land at a facility for repairs or fuel.
   
3. The Congress and the FAA recognize that an airport is an important, yet difficult public utility. The grants pay for the requested improvements, but carry with them contractual/statutory obligations. By agreeing to accept the AIP funds, the sponsor AGREES that it must operate this “federal facility” under the terms of the grant.
   

Those requirements reflect a national interest that every airport must comply with the duties freely taken by the sponsor.

Elected officials assert that their local rights should predominate over the national interests. “It’s our citizens which are impacted”; so our needs should prevail. Accept for the moment this micro argument, what are the consequences of such a myopic view:

• The closure of Airport A requires the tenants and planes hangared there to move to another airport.
  

• At a minimum, the “benevolence” of closing Airport A more than likely translates to the movement of those assets migrate to another airport, assuming that there are hangars or FBO space available nearby.
  

• • Here is a good example of the interconnectedness of a regional set of airports.
    

• • As A rejoices upon the closure of its attractive nuisance, Community B and/or C and/or D, etc. will experience increased activity. B,C and D, which took their AIP obligations seriously and continue to meet them, may not regard the people as beneficent– NIMBY in a different context.
    

• • A plane on the way to another airport in A’s region may have to go further than previously for fuel or repairs. That’s not good.
    

• • By removing an important facility from a region forces the previous A tenants to another airport. By definition, the congestion of the B-D airports increases. That’s not good.
    

The Member of Congress or local elected official, claiming that their unique airport situation is unique is naïve at best. If a bill is enacted exempting Airport A from its AIP obligations or if the Member’s political clout forces the FAA to allow A to escape from its AIP obligations, the A action will set a precedent.



The efforts, to define the uniqueness of A’s case or to create an A only language, are legally deficient. B or C or D or E, if so inclined, will follow the A path. An exception to a rule of law establishes a PRECEDENT. B or C or D may be in another region and states. The A PRECEDENT becomes a rule which will spread. The “local” effort quickly becomes a national trend. It leads to a dangerous domino effect. As the consequences of A’s “local action” spread, the impact is NATIONAL.

Clever counsel may attempt to avoid technical closure by denigrating its existing services.

The airport and runways may be functional, but fuel and repairs will be provided by individuals who have no interest serving the pilots and planes. An interesting ploy, but there will be consequences beyond any liability insurance if a plane crashes with substantial damages. It sets the operator of the FBO for a policy breaking claim of intentional negligence. Aviation plaintiffs’ lawyers are a VERY aggressive group; they are particularly fond of publicized verdicts. Bankrupting a municipality would attract a NATIONAL attention and a ton of new clients.


An airport may be located in a community; its presence is national.

  
Certainly food for thought in that lot...


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Of airports, assholes and abracadabra

One of our issues with airports is that the Guv'mint, including Pumpkin Head's department, are contributing plenty of the nails that are being banged into aviations coffin. The laws, regulations, dirty deals and the acceptance of the mismanagement of airports is a contributing factor in the death spiral. It's all part of their bag of magic tricks.

I have numerous aviation associates operating out of North Queensland. In the past 3 years alone, as an example, NQA (owned by J.P Morgan, Aukland airport and Hastings Group) has jacked up rents and leases enormously at Cairns and Mackay airports in a deliberate and calculated move to either gain massive amounts of additional revenue or to squeeze the small operators out so that the big airports can move forward with their shopping precinct plans. Both Cairns and and Mackay also closed their cross runways to save money on annual maintenance costs as well as push out the little players. Interesting thing is this; you can't just close a runway. The state government needs to be aware of it, there are guides contained within ICAO SARP's and Annexes, and CAsA must also give the final approval. A very strong Guv'mint involvement in the process. So these Asswipes can't wash their hands clean of aviations blood, they are a big part of the problem. They just try to absolve themselves by spinning words, bullshitting and 'acting' concerned. More Magician antics.

This was interesting from the USA;

"The grants pay for the requested improvements, but carry with them contractual/statutory obligations. By agreeing to accept the AIP funds, the sponsor AGREES that it must operate this “federal facility” under the terms of the grant".

At least they get grants. Australian airports (the ones struggling) only get kicked in the teeth and over-regulated! No ducking grants down under. No, it's time for the "Minister for perfect hair' to pop out to a struggling airport and see for himself, the inept fool. Perhaps he can take a selfie behind a gable marker or inside an airfield shitter alongside an ASO?

TICK TOCK

[thorn bird]

Gobbles old mate,
so glad to see you still in the fight, may not agree with you all of the time,
but no one can doubt your passion for our industry.

The so called privatisation of Australia's airports was a gigantic "Con" perpetrated
on the people of Australia. A classic example of why the Murky Mandarins can never
be trusted.

Our poor industry has suffered the stifling affect of the bureaucrats since the end of the second world war.
The war was over and the Guv'mint found itself with a plethora of military "Types" on their hands.
What to do with them?
The competent ones were not a problem, they were absorbed easily into industry, the dregs were left, nobody wanted them so they were absorbed into the regulator of a new growing industry "Civil" aviation. They brought their inflated ego's and military attitudes with a complete lack of understanding of how "commercial" enterprises worked. They stifled innovation and competition and brought us the two airline duopoly license to print money.
They were the self appointed "experts" and you do what they say, or else!
This is why our industry has never progressed and prospered as it has in other countries, it has always worked or tried to, with both hands tied behind it's back.

The so called privatisation of our airports was a convenient way for the Guv'mint to borrow money off the books, then get the Industry and ultimately the Australian taxpayer to pay the interest bill. Remember prior to privatisation the Australian public owned the airports, DEBT FREE. Privatisation created a debt, because those that bought them borrowed money for the purchase, which they have to service, which creates a neat tax deduction. Thats why those that own our airports pay little or no tax. "What a nice little earner".

[Gobbledock]

Thorny's kindness;

"Gobbles old mate,
so glad to see you still in the fight, may not agree with you all of the time,
but no one can doubt your passion for our industry".

I never turn down a compliment. Ironically, I don't always agree with myself either!! It's call old age, confusion, and a life time of enduring authoritarian bullshit, kind sir.

But you raise an interesting point, a side point to many of our arguments - passion. Yes, I am passionate about this industry, as are many many IOS members. Aviation has treated many of us well at times. For most, it is more than just a way to pay the bills, it is a central part of our lives, our experiences, our personalities, our lifelong friendships. There is a sense of mateship and comradeship that is about as strong as the coppers bond. Blood brothers. Some of us come from a line of aviators - uncles, fathers, grandfathers, nephews. From pilots to aircraft engineers, from ATC to airport foam sprayers, families with aviation in their DNA.

Just as a Politician has a 3 year passion for drowning in the taxpayer trough, we too are equally passionate about our industry, and concerned about the sickle that is being thrust into the heart of our industry and killing it.

Tootles

[thorn bird]

Oh dear.  Oh deary me.

Our coiffured captain of complacency, do nothing Darren, should, perhaps reflect that the large pachyderm sitting in his office is not a figment  of his imagination. The odd aroma that permeates his office comes from pachyderm poop piling up.

Check your shoes Darren, your treading it into the carpet.

There are rumours doing the rounds that the Bankstown airport lawyer fest in the NSW courts has been settled, allegedly the Commonwealth has taken over the airport.

Allegedly the "lawyer fight at BK corral" came about because the Development shark was a tad miffed his plans for a shopping centre Nirvana on the asbestos contaminated illegally filled flood plain on the Southwestern third of the airport became a little too dodgey to develop, even for him, so he sued for breach of contract.

This drew a stampede of lawyers from under rocks and bottoms of ponds and before you could blink, a bunch of stakeholders , (the non aviation ones) were gathering at the corral, armed with 45 caliber QC's ready for a 60 million dollar fight. Just those  with money; the now poor old aviation ones have long since been fleeced by the lessor. 

The legal eagles are mortified their new Mercedes slipped away, the crafty shark was pulling a bluff.

Turns out he realized discretion was the better part of valor so he went after "Go Away" money and it worked. Pretty easy way to make a buck and you have to admire his balls.

Reflection after the event poses some questions.

It is alleged there was considerable contact between a certain Murky Mandarin and the receiver and liquidator for the insolvent sub-lease holder of the South Western third of the airport. One wonders, is it Kosher that a senior bureaucrat was in correspondence with involved parties in essentially a business event? Puppet Master perhaps?

The South-western flood pain was filled with contaminated fill over the top of PFOS and PFOA firefighting foam contaminates, live ammunition, human excrement an bunker oil from the second world war; without an EPA approval. Will this now have to be removed?

If it does, will runway 18-36 closed contrary to the head lease for the airport be restored?

Will the poor sod manager from ASA, who knocked back the development sharks demand to move Bankstown NDB, at ASA's expense, saving him 20 million odd for access to Milperra road and lost his job for it be re-instated?

Is it the "Commonwealth" or the "Commonwealth Bank" who now controls the Airport? If its the Bank, when will the Commonwealth invoke its obligation to cancel the head lease and resume control of the airport?

BAL are crowing they now control the whole airport. Well sorry guys, under the terms of the head lease you always did, would have been nice though if you had legitimised it by paying NSW stamp duty like everyone else has to.

Does the new "Master Plan" you allude to involve the Northern Third of the Airport along Marion Street?

If so will the proceeds be used to remove the contaminated fill from the flood plain or disappear offshore?

If you are taking another third of the airport, having stuffed up with the first third, will the actual aviation stakeholders be compensated for the destruction of their businesses?

What is YOUR master plan when your carve up finally makes the airport untenable as an airport?

All these questions Darren. Getting to be royal commission stuff, and that's just Bankstown, all the other capital city secondary airports, same, same.

The whole so called airport privatization was supposed to benefit aviation and the public of Australia, not big banks and development sharks.

The big questions, has corruption occurred? Can the Murky Mandarin keep a lid on it?

Time will tell.