Department Slammed in Parliamentary Report

In summing up in Federal Parliament on the 27th November, Committee member Mr D P Hawker stated, “I would like to comment on the tenacity of Mr Dick Smith. Without a doubt, Mr Smith has been the catalyst for this inquiry. I would like also to go through a few points on the Darling Harbour saga. Although this report confines itself to an episode which the DofA no doubt would like to forget, the fact is that it probably is illustrative of some of the more deep-seated problems the Department has had and may still have. ”

“In his book Dick Smith has catalogued what must be some of the most serious allegations ever made about the overall administration of a· Government department. He Jias supported these allegations with numerous examples of a bureaucracy that appears to be unable to respond to the needs of the industry it is supposed to serve. Worse still, he has accused the Department of assuming its role in some areas of aviation administration to be more akin to Big Brother than a Public Service department supporting democratically elected governments. ”

“These allegations are indeed serious. Equally serious is the theme running through his book that many pilots and others working in the aviation industry appear reluctant to express any criticism in public of the Department. Nonetheless, the enormous number of submissions – over 800-indicates how seriously the allegations made by Dick Smith should be taken. ”

Mr Hawker went on to state, “The saga of Darling Harbour (refer p17 Nov AA) also places the Department in a very poor light as far as its public image is concerned. Here we had a situation where the Regional office, acting within what it believed was its authority, approved a helicopter landing site at Darling Harbour late in 1978. The NSW Premier, Mr Wran, announced the new development while probably at least $100,000 was spent on developing the site by the licensee. Then Central office came tootling along, months later and said no. In fact, the Central office Examiner of Airmen-Airways Surveyor looked at the pad and produced a report in which he said, “The area is not just unsafe, it is highly dangerous for single-engined helicopters and, in conclusion, I would say without hesitation that the site is unsuitable for consideration as a city heliport. ”

Mr Hawker went on to ask, “Has anyone evaluated how much damage this saga has done to the helicopter industry? It is probable that, if it was not for Darling Harbour, the industry, at least in Sydney, would be much healthier today. This begs the question: Will the Department now change its attitude to the industry and encourage it to grow by offering a positive approach – an approach that is consistent and logical and that recognises that the role of the Department is to service the industry rather than frustrate it?” (Under cross-examination by the Committee, it was revealed by representatives of United Telecasters, who were the licensee of the heliport, that total losses on the project had exceeded$600,000 and that legal action had not been taken earlier due to the imminent renewal of the Channel 1 O television licence and the fact that UTC had not wanted the seemingly bad publicity that a public fight with a government department would have on their ability to win licence renewal).

To counter the problems unearthed as a result of phase one of the Expenditure Review Committee, the Committee makes five recommendations that it wishes the Department to embrace to prevent further instances of this nature.

Recommendation 1 is that administrative arrangements be reviewed by the DofA within the framework of its existing administrative structure. Particular attention should be paid to an enhanced level of direct communication between Central Office and the Regions. Enhanced distribution of information within Central Office and communications between divisions within Central Office and the various units of Flight Standards be improved.

Recommendation 2 is that the DofA publish a document that clearly explains the operational design criteria and the licensing procedures pertaining to all types of helicopter landing sites.

Recommendation 3 suggests that a forum be established for the discussion of important matters affecting the helicopter industry.

Recommendation 4 is that the DofA, when issuing and renewing authorisation for helicopter landing sites should specify the types of use permitted from each site and, if necessary. Minimum performance characteristics which must be met by helicopters at each site.

Recommendation 5 of the Committee recommends that Flight Standards Division, as part of the instrumentation of its Flying Operations and Standards Development Programme, accord a high priority to its stated objective of dispensing with or refining all operational requirements where the net safety benefit is not commensurate with the costs imposed on either the aviation community or the Department.

This last recommendation is clearly the way ahead for the Department to at last enter the ‘real world’ of commercial reality in terms of administering laws that have little practical safety value but which at the same time overly restrict the ability of a service or operator to attain economic viability. Again, the Committee stressed the apparently forgotten fact that the Department was there to serve the industry rather than the other way around.

The Committee was also critical of the way the Department used safety issues to cloud other considerations. To again quote Mr Hawker, “A recurring theme to emerge through the enquiry was the Department’s ability to use the word ‘safety’ to override all other considerations. As has been seen from the Darling Harbour saga, ‘safety’ can mean different things to different people within the Department, let alone what it can mean to people out in the industry. ”

In summary by the Committee Chairperson, Mrs Ros Kelly, the Committee alluded to the four primary reasons for the Darling Harbour fiasco. “Firstly, there was evidence of serious communication failures within the DofA. Secondly, there was a genuine and legitimate concern in the Central Office about the safety of operations at the site. Thirdly, departmental officers were concerned to protect the credibility of their Department and to avoid possible litigation against the Commonwealth as a result of conflicting advice to both the site lessee and the NSW Government. Fourthly, personality conflicts within the Department and between the Department and the industry contributed, along with the other factors I have mentioned, to a most unhappy state of affairs for all concerned. ”

Overall the Committee did not feel that the personality differences stated in Dick Smith’s book were the primary reasons for the Darling Harbour fiasco but that the situation went much deeper, revealing a web of administrative weaknesses and deficiencies in administration that need to be urgently reviewed by the Department.

And so ends phase one of the Committee’s investigations into the DofA. The Minister, Mr Peter Morris, must now address Parliament in the coming months as to what his Department’s response will be to the Committee’s recommendations of action.

Meanwhile, the Committee itself embarks on phase two of the investigation commencing with Australia-wide hearings in February. Phase two will examine a large number of matters and we believe will spend quite a lot of time on the matter of licence restrictions, a matter which some Committee representatives believe breaches the very essence of our Constitution.