[Peetwo]

Senate Estimates - CASA QON etc. 

From the RRAT Estimates we finally have the QON (with some AQON) from the Budget Estimates 2020-21: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus...mates/rrat

Hint: To find QON you maybe interested in click on 'more options', then for example put in RRAT committee, then either portfolio or agency (eg CASA), then Estimates round ie 2020-21 Budget Estimates, then 'search' and away you go - 

From the CASA QON/AQON, finally (maybe) a real game changer - the Rev is back?? -  

Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Infrastructure,

Transport, Regional Development and Communications Portfolio
Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
Senator STERLE: If you could let us know who they are on notice as well, that would
be helpful. I have a final couple of series of questions. I want to talk about the search
for a new Director of Aviation Safety, the CASA CEO. Could you tell us what
involvement, if any, you have in the process of selecting the new CEO-yourself
personally? Mr Atkinson: Yes, I'm a member of the panel. Senator STERLE: Who is
the panel? Mr Atkinson: It's probably best if we take that during CASA. It's the chair
of CASA- Senator STERLE: You can tell us so that we don't have to come back to it
tomorrow night at 11 o'clock or something. Mr Atkinson: I can get the information.
It's just factual as to who the other two members are. Senator STERLE: That would
be good. To the best of your knowledge, how many times has the secretary been on a
panel searching for an independent CEO? Mr Atkinson: I understand that last time the
secretary was on the panel. Senator STERLE: The last time. Any other time before
that? I've seen about five of them come and go. I'd be interested to know if you know
if the CEO has been on every selection panel for the last five? Mr Atkinson: The
secretary? Senator STERLE: The secretary, sorry. Mr Atkinson: I can find that out.
It's also a matter of fact.

Answer —
The 2020 Director of Aviation Safety (DAS)/CEO Recruitment Panel consists of
Board Chair Mr Tony Matthews, Board member Ms Elizabeth Hallett, Department
Secretary Mr Simon Atkinson; and independent member Mr David Forsyth AM. The
same approach has been in place for the past three CASA CEO recruitment processes,
with Mr Mike Mrdak in 2017 and 2014 and Mr Michael Taylor in 2009.

Also from Senator Sterle:

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
Senator STERLE: Has the department dealt with any ministerial correspondence on
the decision for you to be on the selection panel? Mr Atkinson: Not that I'm aware of.
Senator STERLE: I will get you to take that one on notice too. If there has been any,
you could table that too. Are any officers within the department candidates for the
job? Mr Atkinson: I'd have to take that on notice as to whether I could comment on
that. Senator STERLE: Okay. Mr Atkinson: It's the subject of an ongoing recruitment
process. Senator STERLE: I don't need to know their name, Mr Atkinson. I just want
to know if there are any. You can tell us that. Mr Atkinson: Could I please take that
on notice to check whether there's- Senator STERLE: I'd rather you answered it, but if
you could take that on notice and come back to us by after smoko that would be good.

Answer —

1. The Department has found no record of ministerial correspondence in relation to
the CASA CEO recruitment process.
2. This is a matter for the recruitment panel at CASA.

---

Senator Glenn Sterle: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October 2020
—
What involvement, if any, do you have in the process of selecting the new Director of
Aviation, the CEO of CASA? Is it the normal practice in the portfolio for the
Secretary to sit on selection panels for CEO's of independent agencies? Have you
done it with any other agencies since you were appointed Secretary? At whose
instigation was your participation? Have you had any discussions with the Deputy
Prime Minister, any other Minister or their respective offices regarding this issue and
in particular the suitability of any particular candidate? Have you received any
representations from Dick Smith or industry participants on this matter? Has the
department dealt with any Ministerial correspondence on it? Are any officers within
the Department candidates for the job? If so how many? Do you agree there might be
an appeared conflict of interest in your involvement, especially if the selection
process involves considering applicants that are your direct reports? On how many
and which occasions did Dr Kennedy, Mr Mrdak and Mr Taylor participate in such
processes?

Answer —
1. The Secretary is on the recruitment panel.
2. It is normal practice for CASA. No.
3. CASA’s Chair of the Board.
4. The Secretary did not have any discussions with Ministers or their offices about his
participation in the process or candidates during this process.
5. The Department has found no record of correspondence from Dick Smith, other
industry participants or ministers in relation to the CASA CEO recruitment process.
6. This is a matter for the recruitment panel at CASA.
7. No.
8. The same approach has been in place for the past three CASA CEO recruitment
processes, with Mr Mike Mrdak in 2017 and 2014 and Mr Michael Taylor in 2009.

And from Sen McDonald to CASA (yet to be answered):

Senator Susan McDonald: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October

2020—

CHAIR: Can I turn to investigations? I have brought with me the most recent
complaints that I've had with CASA; I couldn't bring all the boxes. I want to ask you
about investigations that you're carrying out. I'd like to understand how many that you
have on foot and I'd like to understand, on average, how long they're going for. I'd
imagine it might need to be a question on notice. Mr Carmody: It might well need to
be a question on notice. We have a coordinated enforcement program within the
organisation. We have what I'll call investigations on inquires on foot all the time. I'd
prefer to take that on notice and give you a number of how many are around at each
given time. CHAIR: I would appreciate that. I've got one fellow here, a private
operator, who says that he's been under investigation for two years. I've got another
one who complained of the process of investigation. I have numerous cases of
investigations being carried out in a manner that I don't think is reflective of what are
private individuals operating private aircraft, so it would be good to get that data. Mr
Carmody: I would be happy to give you the numbers...

Then from Sen Patrick (with answer from Dr Aleck ):

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October 2020
—
Senator PATRICK: In terms of an AAT review, a person effectively has a right to go
to the AAT? Dr Aleck: They do under part 149. They did not before. Senator
PATRICK: Under part 149, you say they have a right to appeal or seek a review by
CASA? Dr Aleck: That's right; either party-either RAAus or the party who launched
the review-can challenge CASA's decision in the AAT. Senator PATRICK: On
notice, can you direct me to where that regulation stems from? I don't expect you to
do it now. Dr Aleck: I can do it on notice. I don't have the regs in front of me. Senator
PATRICK: That would be helpful.

Answer —

Under Part 149 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) Part 149, an
Approved Self-Administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) is required to have
rules and procedures relating to the internal review of decisions made by the ASAO
[CASR 149.290(1)(e)]. In formulating those rules and procedures, the ASAO must
have due regard to the principles of procedural fairness. [CASR 149.290(2)]

A person who is dissatisfied with an ASAO’s decision to refuse to issue an
authorisation or to issue an authorisation in terms different to those applied for; or
vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation (other than at the person’s request); may
apply to the ASAO for an internal review of that decision in accordance with the
procedures specified in the ASAO’s exposition. On review, the ASAO may affirm,
vary or set aside the decision [CASR 149.605].

If a person is dissatisfied with the decision of the ASAO on internal review, the
person may apply to CASA for a review of that internal review decision [CASR
149.610]. On review of the ASAO’s internal review decision, CASA may decide to:

 affirm the internal review decision;
 vary the internal review decision;
 set the internal review decision aside and substitute a new decision; or
 set the internal review decision aside and remit the matter to the ASAO for
reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations of CASA
[CASR 149.630(2)]

CASA’s decision on review of an ASAO’s internal review decision is reviewable in
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [CASR 201.004].

---

Senator Rex Patrick: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 20 October 2020
—
Senator PATRICK: In relation to that part 149-delegation, I guess you'd describe itcan
you provide guidance on whether an authorisation holder can have their
authorisation suspended or cancelled on the basis of a suspected breach of RAAus's
exposition? Mr Carmody: I might have to take that on notice, unless I have somebody
who can answer the question. We might take it on notice. It's probably a bit technical.
Senator PATRICK: Sure. There's some general confusion in and amongst industry. I'll
ask this as well: in the case of some incident, under the rules with our air investigation
authorities there's no self-incrimination. Is that the case in respect of RAAus? Mr
Carmody: My understanding is RAAus investigates its own accidents at this stage,
and ATSB investigates them if it wishes to. But I'm not sure of the applicability of the
ATSB Act to RAAus. Senator PATRICK: Can we get some clarify around that,
please- Mr Carmody: Certainly.

Also of interest from Greens Senator Larissa Waters on Sunshine Coast Airport:

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October

2020—

Having regard to CASA's obligation to prioritise air safety, please explain why CASA
was satisfied that the airspace design for the Sunshine Coast Airport (SCA) was not
compromised by future blasting activity at Yandina Creek quarry? Why was a
comprehensive formal risk assessment undertaken of risks to aviation safety from the
new runway arrangements from blasting operations at the Yandina Creek quarry? In
response to a previous QON (SQ20-000234) , CASA said that it had not received an
Airspace Change Proposal relating to the Yandina Creek quarry. However, risks
associated with the quarry were identified by the Queensland Coordinator General.
Why has CASA not assessed these risks outside the ACP mechanism? Does CASA
undertake any proactive assessment, or is consideration of safety issues only triggered
in response to an ACP from a proponent? Correspondence between CASA and the
quarry proponent's lawyer between November 2013 and September 2014 did not refer
to the ACP process. Why was the proponent not advised to lodge an ACP to allow the
safety risks to be assessed? When the Federal government loan of $181M was being
assessed, was any request made for an ACP to be lodged? In response to a previous
QON (SQ20-000237) , CASA advised that its advice had not been sought regarding
aircraft parking or separation distances for Code E aircraft in relation to the SCA.
However, FOI documents show that SCA sought feedback from CASA on 9 July
2018 regarding design drawings, and CASA responded on the same day saying they
would be "happy to informally peruse the designs and hopefully find any/some
glaring oversights to lessen post construction issues." (FOI0176) . Did CASA
"informally peruse" design drawings for the SCA runway proposal? If yes, was any
feedback provided to SCA following that perusal?

---

Senator Larissa Waters: asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority on 19 October

2020—

When determining mitigation measures relating to Yandina Creek quarry, did CASA
consider the Regular Passenger Transport aircraft operations from only the existing
north-south aligned 18/36 runway, or general aviation traffic under Visual Flight
Rules? CASA proposed a condition requiring a plume symbol to be included on the
Visual Terrain Chart, rather than a prohibition on overflights. Why was CASA
satisfied that this condition was sufficient to mitigate safety risks associated with
plumes from the quarry? The assessment documentation refers to the quarry being 5
nautical miles from the aerodrome, which minimises risks of damage to aircraft at the
aerodrome from flyrock. Does the distance from the aerodrome have any significance
when assessing the risk of damage to aircraft flying over the quarry? Given the
potential risk to overhead aircraft of flyrock from hazardous activities like blasting,
was the quarry operator ever advised to apply for a Restricted Area declaration? If
not, why? The Joint Experts in the quarry operators' planning appeal recommended an
exclusion zone for airspace around the quarry with a 2nm radius up to an altitude of
3,000ft. Was this information provided to CASA? If so, what action did CASA take in
response to the recommendation? Has any independent assessment been made of
blasting impacts and suitable vertical dimension limits for the quarry? If so, who
undertook the assessment/s and what was the outcome of the assessment/s? If no
assessment was made, why not? Does CASA (or the Office of Airspace Regulation)
have any relationship with the quarry operator's expert witness, Mr Guselli, that could
give rise to an actual or perceived conflict of interest? If so, how has the conflict been
managed? What consideration has been given to minimising the risks posed by the
quarry by re-designing the flight path? Why has this option not been pursued?

MTF...P2