[Peetwo]

Senator Rex on the OneSKY warpath...  

From 'that man' Higgins in the Oz :

Auditor blasts OneSKY blowouts

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The public expenditure watchdog has issued a damning review of the ambitious $1.5bn One­SKY project.

---

Audit office lets fly at air-traffic overhaul

The public expenditure watchdog has issued a damning review of the ambitious $1.5 billion One­SKY project designed to integrate the nation’s military and civilian air-traffic-control and navigation systems, warning it is running alarmingly late and risks not delivering value for money.

The Australian National Audit Office has found OneSKY, a joint venture between Defence and government-owned Airservices Australia, is running almost 2½ years behind schedule, meaning more federal government money will be needed to keep ageing military air-traffic-control equipment going longer than planned.

The project was approved in 2014 but a final contract has not yet been signed. This is despite individual consultants having been paid up to $5000 a day — including former RAAF officer Harry Bradford, who was dubbed the “million-dollar man” for receiving that fee to negotiate on behalf of Airservices with French aerospace group Thales,

“The offer and negotiation process has been protracted, in part due to misalignment of customer-approval processes through two separate governance structures, but also due to Thales not yet producing an acceptable offer that represents value for money for Defence and Airservices,” ANAO reports.

South Australian senator Rex Patrick has called for an independent review and warned the government against signing the contract given OneSKY is now listed by the government as a “project of concern”.

“It’s incredible that the government is even contemplating signing a contract to move this project forward when it’s in the state that it is,” said Senator Patrick of the Nick Xenophon Team.

The project’s original initial operational capability, set for late next year, has been pushed back to mid-2022, and full operational capability from late 2022 to early 2025. In a report assessing the progress of large defence projects, ANAO says Defence’s contribution to the project cannot remain capped if it is to achieve its objectives from OneSKY, and the federal government will soon have to decide whether to dish out more money to rescue it.

It says Airservices and Defence have failed to co-operate ­efficiently because of “organisational differences” and that 1000 redundancies ordered by Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield gutted the cohort of top managers running it. - That sounds like a purge to me? 

“Delivery of (OneSKY) may be impacted by dependent Airservices and Defence organisational inefficiencies, driven by divergent goals, or lack of oversight and control,” ANAO says.

Among other identified risks, ANAO warns the project “may not satisfy the requirements for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority accreditation” and may not meet “security requirements”.

A spokeswoman for Airservices said yesterday the final contract with Thales was expected to be signed by the end of March. Mr Harfield declined to comment. Hmm...wonder why?

In the lead up to Senate Estimates and while on the subjects of Harfwit's ASA autocracy plus the ever decreasing OneSKY trough feeders fund ; I thought now might be a good time to start assessing where Harfwit is at with tackling the previous estimates QON...
See pages 27-28 of QON list here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat
A couple of QON waiting for answers are interesting:

---

Overdue Yes
[*]Asked Of Airservices Australia
[*]Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
[*]Portfolio Question Number 480
[*]Question
The current CASR Regulations contain the obligation for the ARFFS to respond to any fire on the aerodrome whether it started in an aircraft or not. It is also a very firmly established practice for the past 20+ years that ARFFS will respond to any medical emergencies on the aerodrome. This has provided aerodrome users/owners with a significantly advanced level of safety.

It reduces the insurance premiums of the airport owners, tenants and users. It has been responsible for saving several very important buildings and installations on the airports.

It overcomes the very strict and likely to get stricter security access into the restricted airside environment.

It has most importantly directly saved many lives over that 20-year period.

It provides immediate response within the chain of survival that the State Ambulance services can due to workloads, security/access restrictions and the requirements for escort into the airside areas.

Questions:

1. Does Airservices Australia support the removal of this safety requirement from the new regulations?
   
2. What has changed to make saving peoples lives and property no longer the ARFFS role when they are obviously the most suitably located and qualified emergency service with full unrestricted access to the airside environments?
   
3. How does removing this vital function of the ARFFS meet the statement of expectations from Minister Chester that he requires a World Class ARFFS?
   

---

[*]Overdue Yes
[*]Asked Of Airservices Australia
[*]Proof Hansard Page/Written Written
[*]Portfolio Question Number 475
[*]Question
At the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates Hearing on the 23 October 2017, Airservices Australia were questioned about the continued use of non-CASA approved foams, and whether there is a national management plan to deal with the exposure to ARFFS firefighters to PFAS. At page 165 of the Proof Hansard Airservices Australia CEO Jason Harfield is recorded as stating Airservices Australia is currently reviewing its work health and safety controls:

Senator McCARTHY: A national management plan around dealing with PFAS? Mr Harfield: Yes. We have a national plan where we're going through preliminary site testing at all our locations, and they are underway. We just released last week the results for the Gold Coast for some off airport testing, and we continue to work with the Prime Minister and Cabinet PFAS task force for the whole-of-government approach, as well as, as mentioned before, continuing to review our work health and safety controls to ensure that they are as effective as possible.

Questions:

1. What controls are currently in place?
   
2. If PPE is your primary control, how and when is decontamination required?
   
3. who will be responsible for reviewing these controls?
   
4. When did this review begin?
   
5. In terms of the legacy of PFAS contamination, have you tested all ARFF fire grounds for PFAS?
   
6. Are firefighters still being exposed to PFAS when they train on the ARFFS fire grounds?
   
7. Is Airservices Australia resisting providing testing information to the firefighters union who have made four FOI Requests and are yet to be provided with the information requested?
   
8. Why is Airservices Australia not blood testing or health monitoring the firefighters for PFAS?
   
9. Why is Airservices Australia still using the non CASA approved foam at Darwin and Townsville? Is this a cost-saving measure that is putting the lives of firefighters, and the health of the community surrounding those fire grounds at risk?
   

---

[*]
TICK...TOCK BJ -

MTF....P2