Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, , 8:08:27 to 9:30:42
The hearing concludes with an examination of the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program and Airservices Australia's infrastructure financing for firefighting services.
Topics: Infrastructure, Public service staffing, Workplace relations
Speakers: David Pocock, Lisa Rauter, Hon James McGrath, Rob Sharp, Matt O'Sullivan, Dr Jennie Hood, Hon Anthony Chisholm, Hon Matthew Canavan, Interjection, Jacinta McDonald, Jim Betts, Josh Dolega, Michael Gregory, Peter Curran, Senator Matthew Canavan, Speaker 55, Speaker 56, Speaker 57, Speaker 58, Speaker 60, Susan McDonald
>> Thanks. That's it for outcome. >> Yep. All right. Um, thank you, officers. And we'll now go to outcome three. >> I will catch you. I have the greatest faith in my colleague. >> We will be back home. >> Come on. Chop chop. >> Oh, you bother burning rubber getting >> Okay, we all good to go, Mr. Wait for
>> I I would start if I were you.
>> You what? Sorry.
>> I would start if I were you.
All right, Senator Canavan, do you seek the cause? Senator McGrath.
>> Hello. Um, I've got some questions in relation to the regional precincts and partnership program.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, and I want to talk about Harro Park, which for those who don't know where that is, it's in Mai. secretary, do I need to wait for people to come in the room?
>> Regional precincts and partnerships.
>> So, it's project in Mai Harold Park. Could you say
>> Har Park? So, um, the Queensland government committed $23.5 million to the $50 million stage to upgrade of Parrot Park. Uh, and you haven't been there. I've been there many times. It's a there's a lot of a lot of sport goes on on there. And there it's hopeful that um the Olympics can have a role there. The Mai Cricket Association applied for matching federal funding of $23.5 million via the regional precincts partnership program in April 2025 following specific advice from the department. Uh given the assessment was due is due in the in the first quarter of 2026. Uh, are you able to explain where we're up to in relation to approval for the $23.5 million? >> 25? uh submitted in April 2025. Uh and they will be the next batch that has not yet started assessment. >> When when do they go to the minister's >> They go to the minister's office >> cuz you said that they're with the minister's office. That's batch five. >> Batch five, which >> application from the Mai Cricket Association for Harro Park. >> Um, so that's been assessed by the department >> that would not have been assessed yet if it was submitted. So the batch five that is currently with the minister that which has been through an independent
department's assessment was for applications submitted between the 1st of August 2024 and the 31st of December 2024. >> And so anything submitted after that will go into batch six.
this one would be part of batch six to confirm. >> Yes. >> And when was the closing date for that? The closing date was 17th of October 2025. >> Okay. And in what's the time frame in relation to its assessment and and when will it go to the minister's office? but batch five has been sorry batch five has been completed. >> So the minister when would batch five in just generally uh when is the government's plan to to make the decision slannouncement in relation to the projects approved as part of batch >> Imminent. Um, Friday uh this week. Imminent. >> Um, well, I think that the the the projects will be very excited about in in addition, the Pimpar PCYC, the Queensland government allocated $10 million towards the $30 million pimp PCYC project. the city of Gold Coast will provide land and a matching $10 million contribution. And this is common. subject to to federal support. in September 2025, the Australian government suspended applications for the regional precincts and partnerships so is it is in relation to this particular project, it it is unable to to apply for funding through the particular program. >> That that's correct, Senator. So that program was paused for new applications >> Okay. So minister is it the intention of the government to to start the program
my understanding is the program is under assessment um at the moment.
>> Existing applications. >> How many applications had the program received? Well, how many when you paused the program, how many applications had were in the waiting list as such?
>> Uh Dr. Jenny Hood, assistant secretary, national programs branch. So when the um uh program was paused for applications for REP, uh there were uh 162 draft applications active in the portal.
And so waiting for the pause to be lifted is a decision of of government rather than a decision from from your end.
decision of the minister.
Well, I I think it was a very popular program. I would encourage the minister, particularly from a regional perspective in Queensland, for it for it to be unpaused. can I ask some questions and I touched upon it in the last estimates in relation the working group that was set up to coordinate work between the two departments on city and urban policy. So, it's probably a different area to to
is now was transferred under the machine
I I did ask some questions on notice to treasury about the working group but um this won't surprise anyone listening. I'm think I'm yet to get the answers back. Are you able to tell me how many people how many people are members of the working group?
um just from a rough count um well we need to confirm it on notice I think there's about nine
>> about nine so what is the status of the working group is it still continuing
>> uh yes so the working group had its first meeting on the 29th of November 2025 and the second meeting it was going to meet quarterly and the second meeting is scheduled for 25th of February
>> and there are terms of reference for the working group
>> uh yes they are they were agreed at the first meeting.
>> Could they be on notice? Could they be tabled? >> Yes, we can table. >> Um and and also um the the membership of the working group uh if do ministers or their officers have any engagement with the working group?
>> No, the working group is at officials
Now I have some questions in relation to it is to do with urban policy but it involves when it was still within the department. So I understand if you may not be able to to answer it because it has been shifted. do you know when the most recent meeting of the planning ministers was? >> Uh yeah, that would be a question for >> Would Minister King attend it though as a participating minister? >> Minister King did, but I believe she delegated that to the city's minister
when Minister King was responsible. But
Was I suspect these will probably have to go was there a meeting between February 2025 to sorry 2024 uh when there was a planning minister's communicate and the time at the responsibility was moved out of the department of infrastructure after the 2025 election. So, was there a meeting between February 2024 and >> I would have to take that on notice, Senator. I don't have that detail with me. >> Okay. >> I have a series of questions here. So, I I will put them on on notice. I think that that might assist the smooth running of the committee chair. Um, I think that's all I've got. Oh, uh No, I think that's for me for the time being. Chair.
>> No worries. Senator M. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. ask about the Canonara airport runway
>> That would be a question for outcome two.
>> Oh, we do that under three.
>> No, sorry. That's okay, Senator. We've got funding for that under growing
region. the region's funding. Are we talking Senator?
so also important ra >> So the chair is also interested in this. Um I'd like to ask uh can the department advise as to the project's original commencement and completion dates?
Oh, the original one or
>> Yeah,
>> I have an expected completion date. Um, >> Uh, I will have to take that out on notice. I just have the expected completion date.
>> What's the new expected date? Yeah.
I have that it is expected completion in July this year and that it is currently on track to be fully completed on or before July 2026.
>> Has it commenced? >> Uh when when was the federal government funding contribution released to the sh of Windham East
Kimbley? Um so the growing regions funding is provided um via an FFA um through to the WA state government. Um it was part of round one. Um I'm not sure if I have the detail of when that funding was transferred to WA. Um but I can take that on notice including when the first milestone was paid if that would be
>> I can tell you Senator that the FFA schedule was signed for round one of growing regions on the 3rd of September 2024. >> So it would have happened sometime after >> it was p
>> was the was the work completed like stage one completed before that payment
>> Um I will need to take that on notice. I know there's been multiple stages of that project, but what was funded under growing regions? I will need to
>> okay
>> take that on notice.
>> Um so this was subject to I think an ANAO report. Is that
>> the growing regions program?
>> Yes. And I think I think this particular project was was singled out. The NAO report on the design of the growing regions program stated that the department informed the minister that the selected application assessment process carries some risk of extending the time frames dependent on availability of the selected panel members in the shire of Windermise Kimbley's case. How long did the assessment panel portion of this process
>> Um goodness sorry Senator. Um so growing regions round one um was done uh with a two-stage process. Uh so there was uh originally an EOI and then applications that was successful under the EOI were invited to submit uh a full application. Um I can get those dates for you. >> Yes. So that was the stage two
applications. So the stage two applications so post the expression of interest process uh occurred uh by the business grants hub between the 16th of January and the 1st of March 2024
and uh EI opened on uh the 5th of July. They were then assessed uh and invited or advised of outcomes on in the 21st of November. Stage two full applications opened on the 27th of November, closed on the 15th of January 2024. They were then assessed and the minister was briefed uh on recommendations in on the 6th of May 2024.
>> Okay. So the ABC reported on August 2024 that the shy president estimated that the costs have gone up uh expected cost increase of 10 to 15% due to increases in inflation just delivery of projects particularly in that part of the world um and that they stated that it was due to the delayed uh the release of government funding for the construction. Can can the department confirm whether the overall cost of the project is increased since the original expression of interest application was submitted by the SH?
>> Um I I do I do believe yes it had increased. I do not have those details with me.
>> Okay. If you could come back to me with the how much it increased by uh and what the delays uh how long those delays were. >> Sure. Um and how how were the original sorry how were the additional costs covered then did the shers have to pick up the tab or was there increased funding from
>> um so as it's outlined in the the guidelines there is no further funding available under growing regions I do understand that um there was an additional contribution through the WA state government um and I not sure about
>> did uh is the delay impacted upon the timeline for the construction?
>> Yes, I believe it did.
>> Uh, how many projects experienced a similar cost increase of time and or timelines extensions under the growing regions fund?
>> Um, I would have to take that on notice.
Thank you. Um, I want to go to uh other sort of local government so I understand, can you correct me if I'm wrong? The applications for thriving suburbs program closed uh for 350 million. The applications for the growing regions program closed uh and the applications for local roads and community infrastructure programs have also closed. So can you confirm then what projects are currently open for new applications from local governments? >> Is there any other program that that local governments can apply for?
>> At the moment, Senator, there is no active programs inviting applications at least in our area of work for local government. We do >> we do have obviously our normal financial assistance grants that are flowing through to local government and funding that is still flowing through from the those existing grant programs but they are none currently open for applications.
>> Okay. So on each of those so let's start with the local roads and community infrastructure program. When did that when did that close?
>> We would need um outcome one people at the table for that question.
>> Okay. >> that's fine. take a notice. Uh then the thriving suburbs program.
>> Thriving suburbs program. Um
>> as in when it closed. >> Yeah. When did that open? >> September 2024.
>> 2024. Uh and the growing regions program
>> uh for the growing regions round two. uh the 10th of October 2024.
>> Has there been any other program apart from the financial assistance grants that in that time frame that uh since 2024 that local governments been able to apply into?
>> Since that time, we would have also had the regional and urban precincts and partnerships program. And back uh when the department was responsible for housing, there was also the housing support program that was open to local governments as well.
>> When did the RP close?
>> The RP closed on the 5th of September. It caused and then application the final applications were due 17th of October for those who already have in the system 2025 sorry. Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> We also had the stronger communities program round nine which was open during
and that the safer local roads and infrastructure program is currently open for applications as well.
>> Okay, that's currently open. Okay. Uh so given that the several of these programs have closed, what alternative sources of Commonwalth support uh has the government provided or is considering in relation to funding that's available to local governments to deliver crit critical key infrastructure projects especially given the demand has not proportionally decreased.
>> Yes, Senator, that would be a matter for government to consider um additional
we talked through Senator McGrath's questions about the regional precincts partnership program where there's still obviously ongoing decisions to be made there. Uh, but future announcements would be a matter for the government in
>> Okay. I just want to go to the urban preex and partnerships program. Just my final questions. Chair, is it correct that approximately 78 million under the urban precincts and partnership program remains currently
>> Uh, there's currently 64 million point or 64.8 million of remaining funds that would be available for a future batch.
>> Okay. Uh, in previous estimates, the department advised that there'll be a third batch of projects under the program, which is probably what the answer you've just given correct just there as well. Can the department advise when a successful projects under batch three are due to be announced?
>> We don't have specific timing for that yet. We would be doing an a batch assessment for that uh probably during the end of sort of quarter 1 2026.
>> So applications are currently paused though, aren't they?
>> Applications the same dates as the regional precincts and partnerships
Uh applications reopened following the announcement of successful projects? >> is it's paused?
>> We've had two batches of assessment already for that program and so it's been continuously available during that time until that date of the pause.
>> Okay. Um if s if successful applications were not reopened will the minister select batch three projects from applications submitted during those first or maybe during the second round?
>> That's right. So batch three will be on applications ranging from the 1st of May 2025 until the clo the final closing date of the 17th of October 2025. So
it's it's possible that if an applicant in that batch two um wasn't announced, it could be it could be reasset or
>> oh no batch two decisions have been made. Um so this would be on those applicants uh applications that were received during that time frame. Rado
>> Okay. What's the total value of applications currently under the minister's consideration for potential funding under batch three? Under batch
three, it would be the remaining funds 64.8. Um, but there are >> the funding sought in that batch through all of the applications that remain in the system is 592.2 million.
>> Okay. And um the thriving suburbs program, I refer to the department's response to questions on notice from the December round of estimates uh number 2632. Committee question 252. The department advised that 350 million of funding under the thriving suburbs program was provided through one round. Yet the department also stated that only 317.7 million has been approved under the program. Can you explain why there's a discrepancy between the total funding allocation of 350 million and 317 million reported as to have been
provided? because that was the total number of funding provided for the approved projects.
>> So what happened to the rest of that money then?
>> Um that would return to consolidated
>> Um you didn't answer question 2A of the question on notice. Uh so I'll put the question to the department again. What is the department's plan for the remaining um funding budgeted for the program? It's just purely just going straight back to consolidate revenue. So it can't
be repurposed with >> government how they want to reallocate that unspent funding.
Senator.
>> Uh yes, thank you. Um I just had some questions about the measure uh in um in my info. uh that's relevant here, the major and local community infrastructure program. Um now at least I suppose there's two sets of questions here in the in the in the measure that was printed in my EO uh 625.5 million allocated to it. Uh although I think from reading it only 464.5 million of that is going to the major and local community infrastructure program. Is
So the total value of the projects that um the government have made commitments to is 570.5 million.
>> Right.
>> Um so as there's >> I don't know how to explain the
>> So senator just McDonald assistant secretary community infrastructure and major projects branch. >> Um you're right. There was >> 400 what was it? 4
>> 64 I
>> 64. Yeah, that was allocated in the myo process. The remaining uh funding that has been allocated to the major and local community infrastructure program uh was allocated in both uh the PIO and in the 2526 budget
>> that takes you to the 570. >> So the measure and estimate and >> measure at at myo was the 464. >> Okay. And there is I'm reading off page 272 of my info here. Um the there is an amount of 625 that's spoken about. There's other projects uh um that are listed on that page. They're not part of the major and local community infrastructure program. Is that correct?
>> There would be additional projects.
>> Are you administering those amounts too?
>> Uh most of them. Yes.
>> Most of them. Is there any maybe do it by exception? Is there any you're not administering? Have got St. Patrick's Cathedral.
>> So we are responsible for St. Patrick's Cathedral.
>> What's happening there? It's a fair
>> Yeah. So that's uh a commitment of $60 million towards the renewal of the St. Patrick's Cathedral Cathedral precinct.
>> Is it is it the actual cathedral building? It says precinct. So is it the
>> So that's to help deliver the light into the city renewal project which will renew the precinct in East Melbourne. It's intended to turn the cathedral's surround into a community precinct which so it will be a site for art, culture, education and a resource for outreach to vulnerable members of the community.
>> It's not actually doing works on the cathedral proper.
>> No, it's on the on the precinct is my
>> Okay. Um you are you administering the funding for the cometh avenue bridge upgrade?
>> No, we're not. That's the
>> Who's doing that? National Capital Authority >> and Scriber Dan.
>> National Capital Authority.
>> Okay. Uh the CQU campus in Kings
>> we are doing that
>> doing that one. Uh Lake Bley Griffin >> uh the where is Warbertton? No it's a Victoria Warbertton mountain bike destination project
>> that's been uh the the funding that was committed to that is for additional stages of a project that was already funded by the Commonwealth through a previous program. So that's being now delivered through an FFA schedule with the Victorian government. Okay, there's
another 6.9 million for uh to support the delivery of election commitments. So that's just for administrative funding. >> sorry departmental funding? Get confused.
>> So that would be a mix of departmental funding plus um sometimes fees that we pay to the states and territories for administration of federation funding agreements.
>> Okay. All right. Okay. Um the the going back to the 570, is that all for election commitments? >> it is that's all for a commitments. Okay. Um if I just take you to your um additional estimate statement, the departments of portfolios additional estimate statement. I'm at page 48 here and it lists the uh expenses under program 3.1. Uh there doesn't seem to be much funding beyond 2627 for regional development. So I've only I've got in 2627 there is $510 million available but that drops to 193 million in 2728
>> that just reflects the completion of that program senator.
>> Yeah the priority community infrastructure program largely the big >> So why hasn't the government allocated funding for regional development in 2728 28 29 beyond its election commitments?
because that's the profile of the
measures that were put in place um during the first term of government and it will be open to government in future budgets to commit additional funding if it chose to do so.
>> Okay. Are there any plans minister to
we've been implementing the programs that we took to the election and there's been a bit of focus on the uh regional growth and the regional precincts and partnerships uh as well as what we've done to support councils uh local governments when it comes to roads and infrastructure projects as well. Uh but obviously there uh is the opportunity for government to make decisions in the budget context as well.
>> Are there proposals being worked on for >> Well, the minister can I mean do you want to let regional Australia know whether you're working on something or
>> Uh obviously we're always uh looking to support regional uh Australians and communities because we know how important they are to the country.
>> Okay. I'm just confused too. Where's the growing regions funding in this table?
>> You won't see the growing regions funding in that table because it's approved through a previous budget
Uh this is not this is not changes though. This is um program components of That's page 48 that I was looking at in your in your portfolio statement. So it's not the changes table.
>> Yes. So growing regions the round one was funded in the October 2022 budget.
>> So it doesn't have any funding in these
Um we did pay the funding for growing regions uh to the states via an FFA payment and all that payment was made um when those projects were announced. So you won't see funding in the out.
>> Okay. Cuz I thought it was still it's still being the still being out delivered. That's why was that's that's
that's >> to become responsible for those
>> funding's already been handed over to them. Okay. All right. So there's no more there. There's no more plans for more rounds or projects out of growing >> um and thriving suburbs is the same situation as it and payments already made. >> Okay. right. Um just wanted to go to so I'm just trying to find I've got in program 3.4. >> where is the funding to support the office of is the office of Northern Australia still around? Isn't it?
>> The office of Northern Australia is indeed still around and that is part of our departmental
>> right. So it doesn't get split out does it to 3.4. Okay. Um, how much is that
>> The Office of Northern Australia is funded for staff plus their normal office costs.
>> You got those already? >> I do. >> So, I get um, so there's a couple of ways I can give you those figures. Uh so I have the full financial year for 2024 to 25 and this includes employee expenses, travel expenses and corporate overheads. The total came to 3.961 million for the office of Northern
>> Okay. How many staff have you got employed?
>> Yep. Uh so as at 31st of December, we had 24.7 staff in the office of Northern Australia.
>> Where are they located?
>> Yep. So we have three staff in Darwin, uh 7.6 staff in Canes, four staff in Townsville, 0040 Z4 in Alice Springs, the person works part-time. Uh Brisbane 4 4.8 Perth um 0.9 Camber three staff and in Sydney we have one staff member.
>> Okay. Uh what's what have you been
working on lately? I'm sure. >> So, um, one of the things that happened in the department, we had a restructure and the NA functions have come over to office in Northern Australia and so currently we're working on, um, the government's announcement to extend the NA investment period. Um, and so looking to introduce that legislation before 30 June of this year. Um and so we have also been supporting taking over the department role in um supporting the management and the operations and supporting the minister in its NAF's role. Um we have also been um supporting the Northern Australian Ministerial Forum um which had its meeting uh in October last year and we're planning for its meetings this year. We've also been supporting the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group. Um, and we also do the reporting of the Northern Australia Action Plan through um, the annual progress reports. So, the one for last year was released in November and we'll have one later this year as well.
>> Okay.
>> Senator, if I could just add to that, the Office of Northern Australia also does a lot of work on policy influence across government. So whenever there's a new policy, new program, the office of northern Australia uh liazes across government to influence northern outcomes through those reforms.
>> The NA legislation, does that need to be passed by the 30th of June?
>> Yes, it does.
>> Okay. When's that is that imminent then now to come to the parliament?
>> Certainly scheduled for to happen.
>> Not this week though in the house.
>> Not this week, but before the 30th of
>> All right. Okay. Yep. We hopefully can support that. Um All right. Um that I think does it for me for outcome three unless there's any other can. I
>> in three. >> Sorry, >> still in three.
>> Uh yes, still in outcome three. Thank you,
>> Senator McGrath.
>> Uh thank you. And it goes to uh urban policy and I know this gets I'm confused. I think other people are because program 3.3 you have urban development is urban policy part of that.
>> So we retain within the department a number of urban programs. So thriving suburbs for example urban precincts and partnerships is another example. But the urban policy um agenda is now the responsibility of
the treasury. So the the national urban policy with its
>> sits within treasury.
>> So we had a few community infrastructure programs in urban areas like thriving suburbs and triple P which was which were in flight at the point the machinery of government change was made. So we kept those programs policy responsibility went to treasury.
>> So in terms of before it was shift as part of the mog you can't speak to to what uh was
suburbs unit which was in our department has moved over the planning responsibility for planning ministers responsibility for national urban policy. What we've retained is the programs that we've just identified which as I say were already well advanced and it made no sense to transfer those over to Treasury um which didn't have in-house capability to
deliver them. Um, what I might do to I might put these on notice to assist to um see what you can answer, but what you're saying to me, anything to do with the implementation plan in the government's national urban policy should be put to Treasury.
>> Yes, they now have the staff that work on that policy.
>> Okay. Thank you. uh officers for outcome three ditch. Uh let's go to outcome four and Senator PCO >> Sorry, >> Oh, I had no I had all the folks in this committee that would be too.
>> I've got some questions about ACT specific infrastructure projects and then some on Norfolk Island. Um start with uh ACT and the Bruce precinct master plan and stadium. Um >> can I ask about the status of the 10 million in the 2425 budget for the development of the Bruce precinct master plan? >> Has this plan been provided to
>> Senator? The plan is underway. Uh so we have contracted with a firm to undertake that master plan. They're going through that process as well as a a consultation process and we expect that that should be delivered around May this year.
>> May this year. Can you say who the firm was or
>> uh Yes, I can say who the firm was. Um it's Stantech.
>> And can you talk me through the process once you have a report like that? Is it the expectation that will then form a government decision on funding or what's
the what's the next step? So the plan is to put that plan together with existing uh planning that's been undertaken by the ACT government around the hospital site as well as the CIT site um and together with the AIS master planning that they are doing themselves. Pull all that together and then provide advice to government both ACT government and the Commonwealth government in terms of what the next steps might be um and what funding options might might come in front of them to consider what the next next stage is. But right now we only have funding for the planning stage.
>> Has the department worked on many hospital stadium precinct plans before? Is this fairly novel?
>> This would be fairly novel for the department. And the reason that we've got responsibility for this rather than the act is just because of the national capital land that exists within that precinct. Um we've also working for example closely with the Tasmanian government over the McCory Point precinct which includes a stadium. But this is a little unique just because of the Commonwealth land that's on that site.
>> Thank you. And as part of this um study, the there's no um sort of looking at other locations. It's just looking at what could be done on this specific site. That's my understanding of
>> that the master plan is looking at this specific site. That's not to say that the consultants might not look at other sites for examples of how you might best utilize that mix of commercial sort of sporting and other um purposes for the land just as examples.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um um moving on to the national capital investment um framework uh having a chance to review the the federation funding agreement for the NCI. Um I had a few questions relating to that. Um according to the performance requirements, the business case for the aquatic center is expected to take a few months and the Commonwealth is expecting to review it before June this year. Um but for the convention, can I just confirm that's that's Yeah, great. Um but for the convention center, the planning and business case expected to take two years and the due date uh for that submission is February uh 2028. and there's actually no dates attached to the the um the development of a fully costed design proposal or the development of an agreement. Understood why why that disparity.
>> Um so the aquatic the difference in the FFA was the aquatic center was funded for construction and design uh whereas the entertainment precinct was just the design process. Um so there is much tighter time frames around the aquatic center. I believe the final design um which should be a shovel ready project for the convention precinct um is due to us by 2029.
>> Uh that is to be confirmed. So we have the project business case submission which is milestone 5 which is due on the 28th of February as you said. Sorry Kyle Donovan, assistant secretary. Um uh the fully costed design proposal um is not yet determined.
>> Okay. And how much is the uh business case for the convention center going to
>> Uh we haven't broken down it into its its individ individual components. Um we just know that we have committed 31.1 million towards the design and development of the new CRA uh convention and entertainment precinct. But how we break that funding down will depend on that initial design that comes through.
>> Is that a lot of That seems like a lot of money for the design of a convention center.
>> Um yes, it is a lot of money. It's comparable to other large It's not just one convention center. It's quite a large precinct. Um there's also sort of repurposing of land. Um there's the removal of the pool and and thinking about how that whole precinct works together. So it's quite a complex program and it is expected to take them to a shovel ready point rather than just a high level design.
>> Okay. But from the department's perspective, it's 2 years to develop this plan and then after that
>> after that they would the ACT government would need to request further funding for any any actual construction that took place.
>> Do you have any idea on when you think
that to happen based on our discussions with the ACT government until around that 2029 2030 type of time frame.
>> Gee, that's slow. Okay. just to go back to the the pool. Um there's quite a lot of concern from the CRA community about the lack of diving facilities. um given what we're hearing from the the ACT government and everyone I speak to is wanting a like forlike sort of replacement of of civic civic pool. Um and I'm I'm wondering if the AC government discussed um the option for a dive tower and dive pool at the CRA
Aquatic Center. um that has not been put forward um as one of the things. The like forl like uh requirements that we put in were more around ensuring that there was a 50 m pool rather than a smaller pool um to make sure it was a a competition level uh facility. Um but there's not been discussions around the dives a div maybe it's a space restriction. I know that there's also going to be an outdoor splash park >> as well, but no, we have not discussed with them a dive.
>> My understanding is the ACT government have said they'd look at whether those facilities would be available at a new pullet waiting as well, a dive facility.
>> They said it about Strummlow, they said it about Civic, they'll they'll kick it down the road. Um, so I'm really keen to hear what the the Commonwealth is is um sort of doing it. So when when people heard like for like did you clarify that that was just like for like 50 m or was
>> at the time that we negotiated the FFA um the dive requirements were not on sort of being discussed. It was more the size of the pool um and and the capability of of the aquatic center from a pool point of view. Um I think the dive has come up as a more recent issue and that has not yet as um a senator said it would be a matter for act to consider what they can fit into the budget that's been provided.
>> Has the department had any requests or just sort of off off your own um initiative looked at um whether a dive tail could fit within the rules of the
looked at that and that would be something that perhaps could be raised with the National Capital Authority when they're at the table
>> did the department consider the additional cost for delivering a a deeper pool given if this goes ahead there will be there will be no dive facilities in in the ACT?
>> Um we did not consider the cost of that. that would be a matter for ACT government to fit into their design and their budget.
>> Given how much the Commonwealth is is giving and what I've seen jurisdictions like South Australia do in Adelaide for a pretty similar budget, do you think uh it's feasible to actually build that within the the the envelope of funding?
>> Again, we couldn't really answer that until we see some of the designs back and the and the tenders once that the construction tender happens. Okay. And
so just so um clear, no one at any point discussed diving facilities at a pool in Commonwealth Park through this whole process of relocating Civic Pool, our only sort of diving facility.
>> I have not discussed it whether it's happened at at at officer level or certainly I expect it would have happened within the ACT government.
>> Okay. But they never raised this with
you. I sit on a senior officials group um meeting with the ACT government and it's not being discussed.
>> Okay. And so um what's if the AC government all of a sudden decided okay we do want a dive facility there could they come back to the Commonwealth and say we think it'll cost an additional 5 10 million or whatever it might be.
>> They could come back but the moment our contribution is capped um and we it's on a 50/50 basis.
>> Okay. Um, and the completion date for the pool you said was 2029 2028.
>> The completion date of the pool, I don't know if I have that exact date with me. I'd have to take that on notice unless you have
>> uh uh practical completion will be the 30th of the 3rd, 2029. Uh, and post completion phase will be the 30th of the
>> What does that Sorry, when does it open? Like what's when can the public use it? What does that mean?
>> Uh so practical completion means confirmation that a practical completion certificate has been awarded and that we have been provided the project progress report detailing project planning and
>> process departmental sort of milestone.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Great.
>> Thank you. >> Say our construction work is done and then you've got the operational handover and testing and all that kind of stuff.
>> Great. Fill it up. >> Great. Thank you. Um, I've got some questions on Norfolk Island and um, I want to unpack your responses to me on age care, some questions on on notice. and I'll I'll I'll quote in questions from October. The department said that the Australian government committed to the construction of a new 16 bed residential age care facility. Um, the facility scope has been informed by extensive consultation with the Norfolk Island community and its health professionals, the Australian government's broad age care framework and a 2019 KPMG report commissioned by Um so my team went and read the KPMG report, the consultation reports and consulted with some age care uh experts and absolutely none of these documents or anyone we spoke to said that 16 beds would be suitable. Um, in fact, your own KPMG report uh said that it had to be 20 beds north of 20 beds. Um, which is also what the Norfolk community are, uh, telling me. And as you know, aging on the island is really important to to and so when I asked you to explain where in any report that someone had said 16 beds was sufficient, you came back with the quip. The KPMG report and consultation did not describe prescribe the funding decision. It informed it. And so I just wanted to understand like you undertake all this consultation and everyone's saying 20 plus beds and then you just decide on 16 like how how like what's the point of consultation? How did you how do you arrive at that
>> Senator uh Kim Fox, first assistant Thank you for the question. Sort of you're right. there is quite a lot number of inputs including sort of the KPMG report back in 2019 taking in all have here is for the residential age work is underway to to understand how the new facility will be integrated with the existing facility. I can't tell you exactly what the numbers will be because that's still under design. So it you're
>> So it'll be 16 plus 13 >> could be and that's I just don't want to preempt that because the design and how it's integrated needs to be undertaken.
And Senator, the other issue that is at
play um and the department worked closely with the Norfolk Island Health and Residential Aged Care Service to come up with the 16 bed proposal was also the athome care services that were provided and and their advice was between the two things that demand uh would be met at least in the short term then the existing facility also has beds available which could be brought back online should demand in the future
>> um I was actually really intrigued by your sort of reference to support at home. Um how many providers are there on Norfolk Island?
>> Uh I was going to say like I might refer to sort of um as of my colleague Miss Neuling. Would you be across that one?
>> Uh Joe Nuling, assistant secretary um territory strategy and legislation. Um I know Ken Norfolk works on Ireland and provides um support through the support at home program. Um I'd have to take on notice to confirm that they're the only provider. Um but I know that they do operate and are um working with um the Norfolk Island Health and Residential Age Care Service um around the support for um uh residents who um who are
aging. Mhm. And given you've kind of gone with a smaller number than was recommended and you've said um support at home will sort of fill the gap. Did you do a sort of demand assessment on Norfolk Island?
>> We've been working with the with the um Norfolk Island Health and Residential Age Care Service around what their needs are um which obviously um fluctuate and they are um we're in close contact with them about what the demand is like. Um and so we're working with them as we design the residential age care facility to ensure that um o the services overall are meeting the needs of the community.
>> Okay. And maybe just back to the number of um residential HQ beds when when do we know whether it's 16 or 13 or
>> 16? The new facility will be covering 16. >> Yeah. A and that's where sort of the work is underway at the moment of sort of what the design
>> and so it'll be at a new location not at the existing location.
>> It's all on the same site.
>> Yeah. >> It's quite a constrained site though.
>> It is. It is. And that's where there is a fair bit of work going into the design to >> do the 16 bed facilities to make sure that's fit for purpose and integrate it with the existing building. So there is there's quite a bit of work to to get that design right.
>> Okay. So it'll be 16 minimum but could be more.
>> Correct. And
>> is there a timeline on the how many
>> I was going to say like I might sort of refer to Mr. Gregory. Uh Steve, have you got an update on the residential age care facility?
>> Michael Gregory, assistant secretary, territories.
>> That's the first one I can hear. Great.
>> Michael Gregory, assistant secretary territories enabling services uh branch. Thank you for the question, Senator. Um you may be aware that the development application put forward by the department which has been on exhibition by the council um has just closed that closed at the end of last week. Uh there are then um within the planning act for which that um DA is put on exhibition. There are time frames for the council to be able to work through the consideration of any community feedback they've received on that exhibition and those processes then follow through in terms of um their reporting back to the department on um you know any commentary and any further considerations that might need to come out of the feedback on the development application. And that development application as you may be aware is working towards informing uh and shaping up the further confirmation around the the detailed design for the project.
>> And so based on that DA, how how many
>> consistent with um Miss Forbes um in terms of what that's working towards at the moment, it's what's uh being communicated to by the department u within our response to your question on notice.
>> But is the DA not like a plan of this is
the development application. That's right.
>> So, so surely as part of the DA, you know how many beds will you'll end up with?
>> 16.
>> No, but for the other 13,
>> the other 13's in the existing facility
>> and they're not going to really
>> Well, we we're doing the design to to see how the new facility will connect to that and if some beds have to go to make sure that, you know,
>> and so that's not part of the DA. That'll be a se separate part of work.
Uh the thing is that the the DA is talking about square meterage and 16 beds for this facility and it's going to connect with existing facility and that's where the design work needs to go through to exactly what that looks like and how that can sort of come together.
Um I was interested to read that the 16 beds also will um cover restbite um and so just concerned is it 16 residential age care beds or how will you divvy up rest
>> into the design of of it is sort of it's sort of maybe it's need for high needs uh sort of patients but then also what does that look like for it's giving a versatility uh for sort of nyra to be able to sort work through the patient needs here if it's high needs or sort of more low needs and again that's coming through in the design and there's quite a lot of work of sort of engaging with NRAs and and and key stakeholders to get this right
>> but I mean are they are they dedicated restbite beds like rest restbite's quite different to residential age care and so as part of the design you got these 16 beds will some of them be dedicated restbite beds or how does it how do and
and that's the the further work that's underway that I I'd love to give you more details. I haven't got got those details.
>> So, it's not actually 16 resi age care beds. It's it's
>> it's a 16 bed facility.
>> Okay. But partly
>> but how those beds are used will be informed by the design. That's right.
>> Okay. That cool. That that's good to clarify cuz I don't think that's that's people's understanding um >> of of what's being built. Um, one of the other things I was concerned about was that you you didn't answer my question or notice about whether you you did or didn't consult with the Department of Health um, aging disability prior to the government making the decision to fund 16 um, beds and not the 24 that recommended. Um, and could I just confirm whether or not you did that? >> Maybe.
>> Um, we might have to take that on notice, Senator. um we have been working with the department of health um through out the last um couple of years but I understand that the decision around funding originally so pre that I would have to take on notice to find out the engagement although um I expect if it's consistent with the engagement we've had with them to date then we would have engaged with them on the design of the
>> okay thanks you taking on notice again um that's that's fine um can Can I ask about what's happening with access to specialists and procedures on the island
>> in respect to uh sort of health specialists?
>> Yeah, I understand that there's been um visiting specialists, but since the closure of the hospital theater, that's there's been a incredibly high number of of um people on the island having to make a trip to to Australia to have
>> And this is a arrangement that we we have um sort of support from uh with health care and services with Queensland government. So sort of uh patients that are in need of specialized services, they go they fly to Brisbane to to have the the the care and the procedures that
on a sort of human impact level, I was talking to someone who said, you know, for something like a planned colonoscopy, you know, usually that's half a day, maybe a day off work. Now it's almost a week flying to Brisbane, getting it done, flying back. Um, and so we're just interested, why is the theater closed and what's the timeline to reopen it?
>> I was going to say the theater has been closed for some time now and and there is a number of different reasons. Um, one is insurance. So sort of your medical practitioners can't uh have the insurance to to cover because it's such a little facility. Uh so there was a sort of you know there's one element is the medical practitioners won't undertake the the task there and it's actually sort of getting better sort of uh services and health services in a you bigger metropolitan in Brisbane that you have more specialized care and services there
>> and so is anything being done about it or they just too hard and so fly to
>> the the care sort of the better specialized care is from from Brisbane.
>> so there's no plan to reopen it
>> for a small population. It would be hard to have all those sort of specialists and those specialist sort of services in a surgery available. Um,
>> but my understanding is what used to happen was you'd have a specialist, you know, come in, work for a few days visiting specialists. A lot of uh regional and and remote places in Australia have this where you have specialists and they wind up a list and they do their thing. How how come that can't work for Norfick? I
>> was gonna say there's still specialists going to Ireland, but we were talking about procedures. Yeah, procedures are occurring on the mainland.
>> Yeah, I understand that. But procedures happen in in regional communities with visiting specialists. How come that isn't an option for North
>> and I'm going by the guy by the medical practitioners and that their preference is to undertake the those procedures in the you know the bigger metropolitan. they've got all the sort of um equipment and other things they need to to make sure that the procedure is undertaken
>> Okay. I mean, I know they're far away, but it just seems like something that
again sort of we've got sort of NRA sort of undertaking quite a lot of uh the work of you and doing the the health uh care there but for specialist requirements uh that's where sort of um we've been working with Queensland government and they're providing services of the the specialist requirements to to ensure that the the health is maintained for sort of Norfolk Islanders.
>> Okay. And so is travel what happens with people's travel costs?
>> There is a sort of a patient transfer sort of a patient assistant transfer sort of um sort of uh service that's uh provided.
>> Okay. And that's on Quantis. >> Okay. So the Commonwealth covers the costs.
>> Correct.
>> Have you weighed that up first?
>> Uh as said like it's each medical practitioner that would have to come up their insurance. So I the commonwealth is would not be doing the insurance for the medical practitioners.
>> Yeah. This
>> it's also sort of the capital required and sort of to ensure that sort of um your operational rooms are up to sort of the standard that your uh specialist require.
>> Okay. So maybe just this is my final um questions chair just to to um clarify. So you can't get a operation on Norfolk. So the Commonwealth pays for people's flights.
>> That's correct.
>> Once they're in Brisbane, >> what happens to them?
>> Um I was going to say, have you got any more detail on this? >> No. >> No. Okay. So uh yes it's sort of um the sort of patient assistant travel uh to to Brisbane. Um for the details and covering accommodation other things I'll have to take that final detail on um on notice.
>> Okay. >> Senator I can also just add that um travel to and from an accommodation is also in addition to um Miss Ford's response paid for for a support person as well in terms of the the person going to receive those services.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much. Cheers. Thanks,
>> Senator Pox. Senator McDonald. No. Oh, Senator Caniban. Sorry.
>> Thank you. >> Cheers. Um, look, just a couple of questions here. Um, I just, uh, I was going through the, um, uh, I think the new contracts entered into document, uh, that was in an FOI disclosure. Uh, and there seems to be a lot of, uh, uh, contracts for locom services uh, engaged in this department. Is that for the territories? Just trying to wonder
>> Possibly. It's probably sort of for for health services in the IoT. Without citing what you were looking at, it's a little bit hard.
>> Right. Okay. Um yeah, one of them
assists secretary ocean territories. Senator, if they are medical locomoting
islands. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that that's what it seems to be. One of them did, I think, mention uh IoT directly. Um I mean, I added them up across and look, some of them extended beyond uh well started in 24 but went into calendar year 25. So, I wasn't able to get a full uh calendar year uh determination, but I've got $3.5 million I found of local services that at least extend into 2025. Is that about right?
That that would be I'd say that's about right. Senator,
>> what are the medical services that are provided by the department?
>> There's a whole range. So we the department is responsible for the Indian Ocean territories health service which is basically a full health service uh two health centers on Kokus Keeling Islands and a large health service facility uh on Christmas Island. includes everything from uh dentistry, dietitionian services uh through to x-rays, pathology, almost everything you can kind of think of. Um locom services would usually be for staff that have gone for training or on leave and that we're back filling um or the provision of uh specialty services uh to do.
>> So there are people permanently based in >> They're medical uh personnel. >> Yes. permanently based in Christmas Island and >> right? Okay.
>> Personnel
>> and the locoms you pay for when those are on leave or some such or
>> Yes. Or for those specialty services like um dietician services for example, uh psychology services and a range of other specialists.
>> Right. Okay. And where do those loans normally come from?
>> Usually Perth.
>> From Perth. Okay. So it's pretty expensive though too. >> Okay. Do are you do you track those like how much you're spending on locom services?
>> Not specifically on locom services senator but we obviously have a health uh cost health uh service cost center and we have to make sure that we manage within that cost center obviously.
>> Maybe I know could you give us the costs of the health uh services. Yep. >> To the islands uh for the last 5 years say and uh if you can separate out how much a locoms. >> Yep. >> Cool. Um, I think that might be it actually for me. >> Territories. Yeah.
>> All right. If there's no further questions, >> okay, there's no further questions. Thank you very much. And I think that does the department, doesn't it? >> Thank you, Mr. Betts. To all your people, thank you everyone. >> We've still got quarter of an hour and I believe air services is here. So, why don't we uh get hobbies here? >> Yeah. Yeah. Let's start on the air services. >> No, no, that's right. But let's let's >> Yep. Senator Delego. >> We will be inter. Oh, and ladies, my apologies. We will be interrupted by a dinner break, but anyway, let's kick off >> Right, Senator.
>> All right. Um, thanks very much. Um, I'm just going to refer back to some recent reports of Air Services Australia um, looking at financing options of its aviation rescue um, and firefighting uh, firefighting infrastructure. Um can you clarify exactly what is on the table and context about 72% of our assets are at end of life in the next 5 to seven years. Uh our estimate is about 6 to8 billion requirement. Uh the here and now assets that are at end of life are our firefighting uh equipment. So basically your fire trucks about 120 130 firet trucks >> and a lot of the uh fire stations which were some were built post World War II. Uh there's about 1.8 billion of that total that relates to um the firefighting. Uh so what we're looking at is a number of options to present to government in the way we could fund that infrastructure. Uh we're not unusual. Uh if you look through co uh the airline stopped purchasing uh Quantis has now kicked off a new program. They're spending about 4 billion a year on new aircraft and there's about $40 billion of infrastructure on airports. So they also stopped. So this bow wave there's a lot of growth that's occurring. So that infrastructure spend is uh developing aviation capacity about 40% over the next decade. So we also need to make sure that the new infrastructure supports that broader economic benefit that will flow from that. So uh what we are looking at apart from just normal equity and debt through the bond market where we would fund it through effectively debt in the open market uh we're looking at an innovative solution here which is tapping into sovereign uh funds Australianowned uh that would potentially fund that infrastructure. Now the uh concept there is that we would pay a tariff effectively to them over a lengthy period of time. They would incur the actual capital cost uh for that infrastructure. We would specify it. We operate it and uh the uh workforce stays uh largely with us. So the AR firefighters uh the operational team are not going anywhere. Uh they're uh key to our requirements under legislation. We're still responsible for regulation, safety, none of that changes. There's a small group of about 40 technicians that maintain the old trucks. There's a conversation as to do they stay with us, do they move across to the provider. Uh so in a snapshot, uh that's what we're working on. Uh we've started pre-conultation, preddecision consultation with the unions, but we're still in full flight in negotiating that
when you say so largely the workforce um so these are the EBTs that you're talking about that that are falling into the scope.
>> So we got about a thousand firefighters they would stay uh but there is a small cohort uh that do the engineering and uh maintenance activities. Uh that's the one group that we're in discussions
>> Um and so uh Mr. Sharp are you are you proposing to privatize part of Air
Services Australia? Uh no uh we we don't believe this is privatization. This is actually how do we address the capital hill that we're leaning into this $6 to8 billion. Uh is uh obviously a here and now uh part of that equation. Uh so it's actually infrastructure financing is how has is how I would describe it with a managed service component which is that maintenance element that we talked
about. And just confirming is is the scope of your investigations limited to just the firefighting infrastructure including the trucks and the stations or is anything else on the table at the
>> Uh it's purely uh the uh arrangement that we're working with a strategic partner on is purely to do with the firefighting uh stations and the uh
>> So and as part of the and again you you've made no decision is that right at the moment? Correct. And so as part of that, you're you're looking at proposing that all of the workforce aside from perhaps the EVTs um will stay within Air Services Australia.
>> Correct. >> I view uh the critical asset that uh Air Services has is the people. Uh highly skilled, very professional. Uh I don't see them going anywhere. Uh in fact, uh we're looking at how does the growth of the industry get uh supported. So this is about uh pulling forward investment in jobs. >> Infrastructure funding is something that uh the sovereign funds are very interested in. So it's really coming up with a proposal that pulls forward investment, pulls forward productivity and delivers a benefit. Uh so that's the primary driver here.
>> Why why why not just make a why why are the EVTs under consideration to to move the workforce? Like if the workers are are part of the you know all part of the you doing a great job great a great great assets why why would we consider losing those that workforce
>> the uh the new fire trucks are are a very different firetruck new technology a lot of the trucks we have are 20 plus years old very very old uh so there is a a big change here uh as part of this we we need to be efficient I've I've got to uh look the airlines in the eye who actually pay for all of this eventually
as as a public service uh union, a former public service union official, I'm really uh I have the hairs on the back of my neck raised when um when executives um say to talk about efficiency um and especially when it comes to workers. Can you
>> Yeah, no job losses. U this is not about uh wage decreases or outsourcing. This is about pulling benefits forward that actually drive value for us. Uh so the the maintenance uh is part of what I'd call managed services. So, uh, the trucks get provided. Uh, who who maintains them is a question and there are options. There's about three options. We've tabled those with the unions and we're we're wanting their input into it. There's there's no decision. Our preference probably would be to for that to move across, but that's uh that's based on just our initial thinking. Uh, so there's a lot more water to go under the bridge in terms of uh agreeing a position with our workforce and their representatives. and
and what's been the what have what has the union's feedback been about the uh about the your investigations and the from the CPSU in relation to the EBTS?
>> Uh more generally uh there's a strong alignment around the need for the infrastructure. Uh it it's uh it really is at end of life if not past end of life and I think there's a strong agreement in it. I would say there's concern about whether we are leading into uh outsourcing. Uh I'm emphatic that that's not what this is about and happy to give commitments to our staff around that. Uh in terms of the in terms of the EV ves um I think the key concerns been having visibility of what the options are and we've only just tabled those uh for consideration
>> and um and so when it comes to the you getting towards the final recommendations that you're going to put towards the minister how how are you going to consider or what's what's going to be the scope of all the feedback because I know that um the UFU the CPSU have provided quite a bit of feedback. How are you going to take that feedback into consideration when you're making your proposal back to the minister?
>> Uh look, we'll certainly be taking uh that into account. I'd prefer to have the workforce on side rather than a fight over it. So uh that is something we're uh providing a huge amount of detail on. Probably falls into three buckets. There's uh the philosophical uh process that the uh our union representatives would be going through. is this the thin ed edge of the wedge for outsourcing. Uh so there will be uh no doubt some conversations around that and protections if we do go down this path and I'm quite happy to explore those. The second one is the uh broader infrastructure need and uh whether we can deliver that quickly and efficiently. We're very keen to work with uh our workforce on that as well. And the third bucket is the uh small team of uh maintenance. What what's best for our workforce? what's best for uh the value proposition and we would be fully reflecting that uh to the minister in any decision uh uh documentation.
>> Right. I think we're going to have to look at this one and watch this one quite carefully, but I do encourage you to keep on talking to the unions and talking to the workers. Um and I'm sure we'll probably have questions later on. Thanks J.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks. Um for the remaining five minutes, is anyone >> Yes. Senator McDonald.
>> Thank you. Good evening. Nice to see you. Um, I have some questions about the Townsville ILS. >> Can you tell me how that's going? How's the decommissioning uh the ILS going?
>> Yes. Uh, happy to continue the conversation. And just before I pass to Mr. Curran, uh, we did confirm that this sits with defense. Uh, basically defense are extending the runway. We are funding and replacing the ILS and our board has approved that expenditure. Uh but I'll pass to Mr. Curran for the specific status and details.
>> Thank you, Senator Peter Curran and the deputy CEO for services. Um the IL is uh Townsville was uh was turned off on the 22nd of January um this year um to enable the civil works that the defense contractors are undertaking. um uh that that will now be um out of commission um for the uh for the remainder of the civil works that will be done to extend the runway to allow the larger military aircraft operations to take place. At the completion of those civil works, air services estimates that we will require approximately 9 months to recommission and operationalize the ILS.
>> So what date are you estimating? We we
work that forward to around about March 2028, Senator. Depending on um when the civil works for defense uh runway extensions are completed, but essentially that completion date plus 9 months, we can't start the work until the civil works are completed. We can't actually practically put in an ILS when the runway's being worked on.
>> So I understand that when Darwin went through this process of extending their air strip that there was a temporary ILS
Senator, I'm not aware of that.
>> Would you mind going away and finding that out, please? Because take that on
notice.
>> That was raised with me. Yes, on notice. That was raised with me as that happened in Darwin. And why that why hadn't that happened in Townsville? Um, have you had any feedback from the Royal Flying Doctor Service or other aviation operators about the current arrangements particularly with the wet season in full force in the north?
>> Senator, as I think we've canvased before, the um Townsville Airport operator is undertaking that engagement with industry um and so so we've been supporting that where relevant for us to do so. Um we did um receive a query from your office last last week regarding um I think the Australia weekend um and some questions around um any diversions there. Um of course we don't provide the air traffic control services uh there the approach and tower is provided by defense. So they are best placed to answer the the questions for you definitively but we did identify that there were a number of cancellations in the system. Um there were three um arrival uh flights canled over the course of the 24th to the 27th of January, but we don't have insight as to why that's the case. It could have been cancelled for a range of reasons. Could have been technical issues, could have been All we know is there were three arrival cancellations. Um and I can't
as you know it's very hard to get information out of defense and given that it is whilst it is a defense facility it is also the capital of North Queensland and that weekend the Australia Day weekend the rain was absolutely torrential. Um I I don't know if it was to do with the ILS not being in place, which is of course my concern that um should have it been a more serious event or a evacuation required. So how are we going to solve this deadlock of >> defense doesn't tell us stuff and you
>> Senator I I I can't speak for defense. I think you appreciate that. What I can tell you is that um the data we have showed that for that weekend there were 92 arrivals. There were 92 arrivals that successfully did did make it into Townsville over the course of that weekend and three cancellations. Um so the vast majority of flights um were were not cancelled uh into Townsville. Um and as I say, I can't comment on why those three cancellations took place.
>> Um the chair's winding me up and I'll see you after the break.
>> Thanks, Senator. Yeah, 6:30. Let's um take a break till 7:30 and Senator McDonald, you'll have the call. Thank