[Peetwo]

Airports Amendment Bill 2016 -  

CASA says..."Nothing to do with us, Your Honour!"

AIPA says..."While your there Senators??"

While trawling the Senate RRAT Committee Inquiry webpage I noted that the legislative committee has apparently been reviewing a proposed amendment to the Airports Act and is due to table their report this coming Parliamentary sitting week:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

• Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]
          Status: Submissions Closed
          Date Referred: 09 February 2017
          Reporting Date: 28 March 2017
  

 
It is my understanding that these Senate legislative reviews are normally pretty much a tick-a-box routine but never the less I decided to peruse some of the 22 submissions.

Because the Essendon B200 crash occurred within the timeframe of the Senate review, I was curious on whether some of the possible implications of that tragedy could have filtered through on submissions.

So I first checked the 1 page Comardy word weasel confection/CASA submission:

11 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 149 KB) 

...Thank you for your email of 10 February 2017 inviting the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to make a submission addressing all or some of the issues identified in the Airports Amendment Bill 2016.

CASA has noted the changes proposed in the Bill and has no detailed comments to make that would require a full submission. CASA currently assesses the safety aspects of draft Master Plans and Major Development Plans for federal leased airports on formal referral from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development and provides this assessment in accordance with the mandated timelines. CASA is usually involved with discussions with the proponents of such plans prior to their formal lodgement.

The changes in the proposed Bill (a different submission cycle for a number of federal leased airports, inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast, an increase in the current $20 million monetary trigger for Major Development Plans to $35 million and other timeline changes) should not affect the safety assessment processes in which CASA is already engaged. An outline of the matters CASA considers is attached for the Committee's information.

There is a possibility that the increase in the dollar trigger may permit larger buildings to be constructed under that trigger which may inadvertently have an effect on aviation safety.

This risk would be remediated by continued monitoring by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development as the relevant agency and advice to all federal leased airport managers that any construction (even if below the current or proposed dollar trigger) should be discussed with CASA for possible safety implications prior to proceeding...

Well no surprises there, pretty much matches the spin and bulldust bureaucratese we had heard from Comardy and Tiede some 2 weeks before at Senate estimates - i.e. no care and definitely no responsibility...

Still reviewing them but the only other submission of interest (IMO) was No3. from AIPA:

3 Australian & International Pilots Association (PDF 269 KB) 

   
This submission takes the audacious step of actually suggesting that..."while they're at it" -

...We consider this Bill an opportunity for the Committee to look beyond what are largely uncontroversial machinery amendments with a view to re-examining the operational risk management aspects of developments at airports regulated under the Airports Act 1996.

AIPA proposes that the Committee reject the Bill in its current form unless amendments are made to insert a new paragraph (1)(ma) into section 89 of the Airports Act 1996 to specifically require proper consideration of developments likely to compromise the efficient operation of airports by creating operational risks. We suggest the following form:

(ma) a development of a kind that is likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport; or

---

..Tighter Regulations

While the existing regulations can and should be improved, AIPA believes that DIRD’s role as an economic regulator naturally positions it as a "soft" regulator in matters of safety. Despite our continuing respect for DIRD’s role and the individual officers therein, we have often felt it necessary to questions the effectiveness of DIRD enforcement of subordinate legislation and a range of rather opaque discretionary rules.

AIPA therefore offers the view that any improvement in the structure, drafting and ambit of the subordinate legislation under DIRD’s control should flow from Parliamentary direction via the Airports Act 1996 rather than from internal departmental motivation subject only to Disallowance proceedings. We most certainly do not believe that paragraph 89(1)(o)3 of the Airports Act 1996 is a useful or appropriate pathway to resolve our concerns.

Public Consultation

One of the most important features of developments managed under Division 4 is that the MDP process provides to stakeholders transparency that otherwise would not exist. While AIPA acknowledges that public consultation is a double-edged sword in terms of planning efficiency and project timeline management, the creation of operational risk to aircraft using an airport should not be hidden, particularly as the consequences of poor planning may exist for the life of the development. Unidentified and unmitigated operational risks may well compromise the very objects of the Airports Act 1996 by seeing national infrastructure that may on occasions be unsafe to use.

Accountability

The inclusion of an operational risk paragraph more appropriately sheets home the responsibility and accountability for proper risk analysis to the developer. At the moment, a great deal of work is done in government agencies attempting to verify that proposed developments do not create unidentified and/or unmitigated risks. If a developer wishes to ensure that an otherwise "minor" development is not elevated to MDP status on the basis of operational risk, that developer must conduct an appropriate analysis...

And the AIPA recommendation:

AIPA recommends that the Committee reject the Bill in its current form unless an amendment is to specifically require proper consideration of developments likely to compromise the efficient operation of airports by creating operational risks. We recommend that a new paragraph (1)(ma) be inserted into section 89 of the Airports Act 1996 in the following form:

(ma) a development of a kind that is likely to have significant impact on operational risks to aircraft using the airport; or

AIPA considers such an amendment to be consistent with the objects of the Airports Act 1996 and will serve to enhance flight safety.

Now consider that the AIPA submission was dated 27 February 2017, one week after the tragic Essendon crash and on the day the Senate Additional Estimates public hearing was held - coincidence or pre-emptive strike by one Senator X...

MTF?- Definitely...P2  

Ps Perhaps a few more of the Alphabets should be throwing their support behind the AIPA submission - just a thought...