[Peetwo]

 Executive decision &/or obfuscation required

P666 off the Airports thread:

..ASA know it is an issue and also know that once the chemical is classified internationally as an 'airport environmental problem' the end result is that there will be many payouts, as some airports whose land has been slated for development by grubby investors, sharks, shonks and superannuation funds will be left holding a lemon as it will take a lot of money to clean up the 'dirty land'. ASA have been stashing away a war chest for some time now, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, in preparation for D-day.

Most airports have multiple contamination sites due to the relocation of fire fighting practise areas over the decades. But hey, compared to the shite buried beneath some airports, Bankstown as a prime example, the PFC's are probably relatively harmless in comparison! I would like to see the cancer rates among folks living around Bankstown and the George's River in 20 years time!..

A most profound post from one Gobbledock unit...

Well yesterday in both Houses of Parliament the subject of PFCs & the Williamtown RAAF base case was brought up several times...

First from the member for Paterson: Baldwin, Bob, MP

Next was in Senate Question time:- Defence: Water Supplies

And finally from Senator Rhiannon in the Adjournment: Rhiannon, Sen Lee

All three passages of Hansard mention the last Senate Estimates hearing - Hansard, QON etc can be viewed here:

Hansard Transcripts

21 October 2015 2015 Defence Portfolio (PDF 1072KB)
22 October 2015 Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio (PDF 1010KB)

Defence Portfolio

• Department of Defence
  

 
 

In addition to the above I note that today in the Senate there were two 'Notice of Motion' given in respect of this issue.

First from Senator Rhiannon: NOM





{P2 comment: In regards to Bankstown Airport (i) is interesting } 

And then from Senator Conroy a call for a far more wide ranging inquiry : Add NOM 2 

Update to the NOMs (above):

Today in the Senate the Senator Rhiannon motion for inquiry was withdrawn and the Senator Conroy motion was amended - amended motion - at subpara (d) & (i):



Subpara (i) is remarkably similar  (i.e. exactly the same) to the Senator Rhiannon's (i) in her original NOM (now withdrawn). So what I would say has happened is the Senators have combined forces.

Okay so what happened to the Conroy motion?

From Dynamic Red:

6 – Senator Conroy – Reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee (contamination of Australian Defence facilities)


Commenced 3:47 PM
Postponed to the next day of sitting, by leave

 
From what I understand the postponement was due to the Government taking issue with the wording of some of the ToR - wouldn't have something to do with subpara (i) would it?? 

Oh Dear, oh Deary me "the EPA is a comin' a 'knockin don't stop a rockin..."


MTF..P2