Chapter 2


Chapter 2

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio

2.1        This chapter outlines the key issues discussed during the hearing for the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio on 8 February 2016.

2.2         The committee heard from the divisions of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the department) and portfolio agencies in the following order:

  • Corporate Services Division;
  • Western Sydney Unit;
  • Infrastructure Investment Division;
  • Infrastructure Australia;
  • Surface Transport Policy Division;
  • Civil Aviation Safety Authority;
  • Airservices Australia;
  • Aviation and Airports Division;
  • Australian Transport Safety Bureau;
  • Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and
  • Office of Transport Security.

2.3        The following agencies and divisions were called to appear but released during the course of the hearing without providing evidence:

  • Australian Rail Track Corporation;
  • Local Government and Territories Division;
  • National Capital Authority;
  • Policy and Research Division; and
  • National Transport Commission.

Corporate Services Division; Western Sydney Unit

2.4        The committee queried officials on various matters related to planning for the Western Sydney Airport to be constructed at Badgerys Creek, including the proposed flight paths, indicative noise levels, and the draft environmental impact statement.[1]

2.5        Senators also engaged in discussion over a government advertising campaign for infrastructure investment, with particular emphasis given to the contracts and timeline for the campaign, as well as the $18 million funding allocation.[2]

Infrastructure Investment Division

2.6        The committee inquired into the progress of a number of infrastructure projects in states and territories, seeking detailed evidence on the following:

  • Perth Freight Link in Western Australia, in particular the commercial-in-confidence nature of traffic modelling and projected funding arrangement;[3]
  • Western Distributor and Melbourne Metro Rail Project in Victoria;[4]
  • infrastructure spending in Tasmania, including the Hobart airport;[5]
  • National Stronger Regions Fund;[6]
  • funding and strategic reasons for WestConnex in New South Wales;[7]
  • funding profiles for the Northern Connector in South Australia;[8]
  • East West Link in Victoria;[9]
  • Gold Coast Light Rail in Queensland;[10]
  • Northern Australia Road Programs in Queensland;[11]
  • the broader infrastructure agenda in northern Australia, including the Beef Roads program and the Cape York package;[12]
  • infrastructure plan for western Sydney;[13] and
  • Community Development Grants program.[14]

Infrastructure Australia

2.7        Continuing on from discussions in the Infrastructure Investment session, the committee sought more information on the East West Link in Victoria and the WestConnex project in New South Wales. In particular senators posed questions relating to the role Infrastructure Australia had played in the assessment of the business cases.[15]

2.8        Officials provided the committee with information on the updated Infrastructure Australia assessment framework, and outlined the methodology utilised in assessing projects for the Infrastructure Priority List and Australian Infrastructure Plan due to be released in mid-February. [16]

Surface Transport Policy Division

2.9        The committee engaged in a detailed examination of matters surrounding the MV Portland. Senators inquired into the actions the department took when considering the application for a temporary licence for a foreign flagged vessel in late 2015, and sought clarification on how the relevant legislation is applied in such situations. [17]

2.10      In addition, officials provided information on stakeholder consultations on the Motor Vehicles Standards Act, and gave a progress update on the regulatory impact paper statement. [18]

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

2.11      The committee traversed a number of topics during this session, inquiring into limitations implemented by CASA on the operations of Jabiru engine powered aircraft, possible exemptions to ADS-B surveillance coverage regulations, and the capacity of Melbourne airport, including the impact of potential strategies to increase aircraft movement.[19]

2.12      Senators also explored the interplay of fuel management and fatigue management among pilots, and engaged in broader discussions on the complexity of balancing commercial interests and safety concerns in an aviation environment.[20]

Airservices Australia; Aviation and Airports Division

2.13      Continuing with a line of questioning related to the Western Sydney Airport started earlier in the day, the committee inquired into Airservices Australia's input into the draft environmental impact statement, with a particular emphasis on the indicative flight paths over the Blue Mountains and potential noise and emission levels. [21]

2.14      Airservices Australia officials also undertook to provide further information on several loss of separation assurance incidents at Australian airports that occurred between 2013 and January 2016.[22]

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)

2.15      The committee engaged in a brief discussion with ATSB on the current investigation into the 2009 Pel-Air ditching, and inquired whether ATSB had any knowledge of two incidents of go-arounds in 2013 and 2015. Officials undertook to provide more information on notice.[23]   

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

2.16      Discussions during this session turned again to the MV Portland, with the committee querying officials on when AMSA became aware of the intention to replace the Australian crew of the ship with foreign-sourced counterparts. Senators concentrated on ascertaining the subsequent communications AMSA had with officials from the department, and the department undertook to provide further details on notice. The committee also sought information on the process for changing ratings, as well as the actions undertaken by AMSA when issuing foreign seafarers with certificates of recognition to ensure compliance with the requirements of minimum safety manning certificates.[24]

Office of Transport Security

2.17      Further matters in regard to the MV Portland were canvassed with officials from the Office of Transport Security, with senators seeking information on whether the vessel had a ship security plan. Discussion then moved to a broader examination of ship security plans and the auditing role of the department, as well as particulars of the Maritime Security Identification Card scheme.[25]

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page