Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

BIVIANO, Mr Giuseppe (Joe), Treasurer, Moorabbin Airport Residents Association

CINCOTTA, Mr John, Member, Dingley Village Community Association

HASTINGS, Miss Karen, President, Moorabbin Airport Residents Association


CHAIR: Welcome. Miss Hastings, are you on point with your team in terms of an opening statement?

Miss Hastings : Yes.

CHAIR: You heard my references before: you choose how much time you want to devote to it.

Miss Hastings : I actually missed that before but I'm happy to go ahead.

CHAIR: What I'm suggesting is—and we have to manage the schedule—the longer you take with your opening statement, the less opportunity senators get to interrogate you on their real interests in trying to advance this bill. You need to find the balance yourself.

Miss Hastings : That's okay. It's a bit nerve-racking but I won't be too long!

CHAIR: No, no! You've got a dirty old truck driver and a retired policeman here; we won't make it nerve-racking for you.

Miss Hastings : I speak on behalf of the Moorabbin Airport Residents Association, known as MARA. We're a community group that represents the suburbs surrounding Moorabbin Airport, namely Parkdale, Mordialloc, Cheltenham and, in particular, Dingley Village.

Moorabbin Airport is now the second busiest airport in the country, only behind Sydney. In 2007 we had over 2,984 movements, including more than 37,000 helicopter movements. Of these, 85 per cent are from circuit training, which occurs over the homes of the residents in Dingley Village. Over the years, the most common complaint received by MARA is the noise put out by aircraft doing the circuits. This currently occurs seven days a week. As a goal of Moorabbin Airport, the management is to reach 500,000 movements in the future, so the noise nightmare for these residents is going to increase substantially.

Residents are now disillusioned and tired by the lack of either empathy or positive action taken by any major political party regarding these issues. A further aggravation is the dismal complaint system being offered to the public by Airservices. I guess you've heard it all. Residents are continually frustrated only because they do not have a say in the amount of aircraft noise inflicted on them but also because Airservices's noise complaint system is woefully inadequate. I guess I'm repeating what you've heard.

Apparently, they have 21 days in which to answer to a noise complaint. Logging it and adding it onto the monthly tally that goes to airport management is not dealing with the issue. The issue remains. The Airservices report at the quarterly CACG meetings regarding noise complaints generally give a low tally, as residents advise they have given up complaining. 'It's like banging your head against a brick wall.' 'There's no point.' My personal experience actually gets that. So they just stop because there is no point.

At various times temporary noise monitors have been placed in the community by Airservices at the community's request; however, despite readings often being at unacceptable levels compared to the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, no outcome or action is reported back to the community. Again, this is another aggravation to our members, and there really has been nowhere to take this aggravation.

It is hoped that the passing of the amendments to the air services bill will result in communities having a say in proposed flight path changes that will impact them in a negative way. Ideally, they will also be advised of any substantial increase in aircraft movements, as this will obviously increase the amount of noise they are exposed to. MARA supports the establishment of an independent community aviation advocate to assist and support residents of communities with these issues should they come to pass. Hopefully, community groups or individuals will have access to an actual government body that has the responsibility for dealing with and managing noise-related issues. By this we mean identifying the root cause of the issue and working with airport management to identify actions and strategies that can help address community concerns.

Airservices will have to consult with our community and take heed of the amount of noise inflicted on those living in close proximity to airports—in particular, noise aggravation caused by circuit training and the negative impact it can have on the lives of those affected. Hopefully, Airservices will be required to take positive action when its noise monitoring reports show inappropriately high noise levels. At the moment, it gets reported and we never hear about it again.

MARA understands the role of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman. I think it's quite important that the purpose of this office be made clearer to the public due to the misconception that the office plays a role in managing actual noise complaints when its true role is actually handling the process of the complaints. I should add that on the train this morning I was handed some reading matter. I couldn't get through it all, because the ride wasn't long enough, but it was the 2010 report on the effectiveness of Airservices Australia's management of aircraft noise.

Senator STERLE: I remember it well.

Miss Hastings : I don't know if much has come to pass in eight years, so good luck with all of this.

On behalf of MARA, I would like to thank you for your time and to thank Senator Rice for proposing these amendments. We really appreciate it.

CHAIR: Thank you, Miss Hastings. Both you and Mr Biviano need to prepare yourself for that inevitable question about what the solution is. We'll come back to you.

Mr Biviano : Oh, we have a solution!

CHAIR: I'm sure you do! I'm talking about solutions that we might be able to use as solutions. Mr Cincotta.

Mr Cincotta : Thank you. I hope I have the same question about solutions as well.

CHAIR: Be assured that you will.

Mr Cincotta : I represent the Dingley Village Community Association. We're a community group representing 14,000 people who live in Dingley Village. Our suburb is in the south-east of Melbourne and in very close proximity to Moorabbin Airport. As Karen said, Moorabbin Airport is now the second-busiest airport in Australia behind Sydney Airport and is larger than Tullamarine in terms of aircraft movements.

The difference with the issues that we have, as a community group, is that 85 per cent of the movements at Moorabbin Airport relate to circuit training, which is different to the movements that are in and out of the airport. Circuit training is a continuous movement by aircraft where you've got trainee pilots rotating in loops. When Moorabbin Airport was first established, there was absolutely no residential housing; it was paddocks and farmland and market gardens. It's now a heavily built-up residential area. These circuit-training activities continue to operate at the rate of 700 to 1,000 movements a day, seven days a week, from 8 am to 10 pm in daylight savings time and to 9 pm at this time of year without daylight savings. It is continuous movement of aircraft training. When the circuit is full, which is the majority of the time, seven to eight planes in a circuit, there'll be a flight movement going over people's heads every 10 to 15 seconds. So that's the noise amenity issue.

The other issue is obviously a safety concern. There was a fatality that happened two weeks ago at Moorabbin Airport as a result of a plane crash. Our local papers just got the headline this week, with that terrible incident. Residents are really concerned that where you've got these trainee pilots flying continuously overhead in close proximity—that accident occurred 200 metres from the local school. In the Dingley Village and Kingswood area, there are five primary and secondary schools under the flight path of these circuit-training activities.

I'll be quick, because I know we want time for questions. They're the main issues that we're faced with—specifically how Airservices have failed to deal with the community and issues in the past—and how this bill will help us. I'll give two examples, and Karen touched on these in her presentation. The first point is about why Airservices at the moment is absolutely ineffective. The first example relates to the complaints system. People complain; Airservices have 21 days to respond. If somebody puts in a complaint about a low-flying plane, let alone the root cause issue, and they don't hear back for 21 days, how effective is that in processing and dealing with an issue that happened that day? Do you think that person's going to put in another complaint? So that's just dealing with issues that perhaps could be remedied if somebody called for action straight away. So for low-flying planes, they could call or they could get in touch with the tower. The tower puts a response into that plane, and that plane then gets a black ban or a warning not to do it again. More immediate response times could help with some of the underlying issues that happen, let alone actually dealing with the root cause of the issue to then try to come up with some strategies mitigating actions to alleviate the issues, and we'll touch on those.

I'm sure you'll ask questions about what can be done. We'll go through some of the—

CHAIR: Don't come up with too much common sense! We're politicians after all.

Mr Cincotta : Our issues are a bit different in that it's not the ins and outs in terms of the flight path that are very difficult to deal with in terms of circuit-training flight paths; there are more practical measures that could be introduced to deal with the issue.

Another example of Airservices's ineffectiveness is to do with—they have prepared noise monitors for us, and the results of those readings from monitors, which have been placed in strategic locations directly under the flight paths, are well in excess of the National Airports Safeguarding Framework, which measure what is considered inappropriate levels of noise in decibels.

CHAIR: So what sorts of numbers are you talking about there?

Mr Cincotta : We get 700 to 1,000 movements per day.

CHAIR: No, sorry; the range in decibels.

Mr Cincotta : Yes; the framework says any movement that records a decibel reading above 60 dB is considered annoying.

CHAIR: That's understood, but what is the range? You've just said that this monitoring has happened.

Mr Cincotta : Yes, so the monitoring has happened and the readings have come back that over the course of a day of 700 to 1,000 movements there are more than 250 movements that would be recorded above the 60 dB level.

CHAIR: Sorry, Mr Cincotta, but how far above: 60, 70, 80, 90, 100?

Mr Biviano : It said 70.

Mr Cincotta : It said 70 to 75 average, but there are a high number of readings for movements that are 90 and in excess of that. There will be contributing factors: lower aircraft and helicopters, and also the type of aircraft. Older training aircraft obviously are louder as well. We've got those reports, and I'll put them in with the Dingley Village submission.

So Airservices will report back and they'll say: 'Okay, we've provided the data. If it's brought up at the CAG meetings, we can't do anything with the data because we haven't got responsibility to be able to deal with it. All we can do is provide the data. It's up to you then to deal with it with airport management.' Again, with complaints and with data showing adverse effects, they don't take any responsibility for that.

So how will the air services bill, the changes that are being proposed, improve things? It actually gives Airservices responsibility to deal with the community, to actually consult with the community. At the moment they will say, 'We already do that through the CACG process, through the community consultation group.' I've been a member of our CACG for the past seven years, and it is totally ineffective as a community forum. It is basically an information-sharing process. Airservices do not consult or use the forum to help with community issues and airport management is very reluctant to make changes outside of its own interests, so there's no-one independent working with the community to enact changes. In fact, when Airservices are consulted as to proposed changes, they'll always take the view that it's not our responsibility and will not support it because it means a change that might impact their operations. So under the current regulations and their responsibilities, they don't act over and above.

CHAIR: Without limiting you, we might let Senator Rice draw out some of the information that she'll want into the record so that this bill can have a chance of passage.

Mr Cincotta : Sure, but just two quick further points, just to conclude. We support the air services bill amendments. We also broadly support the CBD restrictions at part 10B of the bill, but we believe that those changes should also be looked at for all airfields and not just Tullamarine—and specifically to do with circuit training, which isn't reflected in the bill. So I want to make that point.

I have a final point about the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's responsibilities. Obviously if Airservices are going to have further responsibility, there needs to be a monitor over them, so the proposed changes in bringing them into the act are also supported.

Senator RICE: Thank you very much, Miss Hastings and Mr Cincotta, for your evidence today. I want to start with fleshing out your experience of the current situation, how it's not working for you. You've talked about the failings with the CACG, which has been your experience, and essentially the processes that Airservices currently have, so being information rather than consultation. Have you had dealings with the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman? What's been your experience with dealing with the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman?

Mr Cincotta : Both the prior Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and the current one have presented at our CACG meetings. They actually shouldn't be called 'noise ombudsman', because that's not their role. When they get complaints about noise, they will defer that and say: 'That's not our responsibility. You need to speak to the airport.' Their role, as they see it, is to deal with the complaint-handling process. So if the complaint-handling process is not done effectively, they will look at that; they do not actually deal with noise issues or try to address the root cause of what a noise issue may be.

Senator RICE: So, basically, if the fifth process at the moment is inadequate to actually deal with the complaints, all the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman will do is say that they followed the process.

Mr Cincotta : Yes, they followed the process, and that's it.

Senator RICE: The other aspect of which we're told is that the way community concerns are dealt with is with fly neighbourly agreements. Is there a fly neighbourly agreement that operates at Moorabbin?

Mr Cincotta : There is, and again—

Senator RICE: Can you talk us through what that is, what it says it's meant to do and what your experience of it has been?

Mr Cincotta : The fly neighbourly agreement in place at Moorabbin basically says that the plane needs to turn at a certain point and fly to above 1,000 metres. Those are the requirements, but that's all it is. What it doesn't address is that there are 700 to 1,000 movements a day, 8 am to 10 pm, at 10 to 15 second intervals. So the root cause of the issue is the number of movements from older-type planes. They fly at lower heights compared to a Tullamarine or a Sydney airplane. The planes flying at 1,000 feet doesn't address the issue, so it's ineffective.

Senator RICE: So it actually isn't creating any improvement in the situation for you at all.

Mr Cincotta : No. Miss Hastings can comment also. If it didn't exist, it wouldn't make any difference.

Senator RICE: What I want to move on to then is: for you, what would real community engagement and consultation look like? You've said that you support the provisions that are being proposed here, in particular for a community advocate. What would you like to see, in terms of consultation, so that some of the solutions that you do have actually get listened to?

Mr Cincotta : We're fortunate, in that Moorabbin Airport currently, with the new leadership team, do engage. They actually have resistance when they go to Airservices to make changes. Airservices don't want to change their current operations and are resistant because they haven't got responsibility. We want them to have a requirement to actually liaise with the community and ascertain what the root cause of an issue is and then sit down and come up with some practical solutions to alleviate and address those root causes. As I said, we've been on the community consultation group for seven years. There has not been one initiative that's been passed during that time that has addressed the issues that we've raised, and we've raised quite a number of recommendations over that time. At the moment, the culture of Airservices isn't there in terms of working with communities. If there is somebody appointed with those responsibilities, it needs to come from a framework and a culture where there's a willingness to work with the community, where, at the moment, there isn't. It really is just a bureaucratic government department. As was mentioned by the previous speakers, from a safety point of view they're fantastic; they cross the t's and dot the i's and do everything that needs to be done. The safety aspects are obviously absolutely critical, but the amenity noise aspects of it are also important. A lot can be done if there is an appetite to actually look at change, and there is no appetite at the moment.

Senator RICE: Not only that, but legislatively they don't need to engage with you. I think this is what your experience is actually showing.

Mr Cincotta : Yes, and they use those legislative rulings in terms of those responses: 'We can't do anything. It's not our responsibility. We're not interested in looking at this.'

Senator RICE: Finally, you touched on the fact that people feel that they hit a brick wall with complaints. What would you see as being a good complaint-handling process? What would actually work for you?

Miss Hastings : At the moment, the frustration is that you can put a complaint in but it doesn't really go anywhere, because there's nobody to deal with it. So it gets logged, it gets reported, and that's it.

Senator RICE: And nothing happens.

Miss Hastings : So people do think—

CHAIR: There's a difference between nothing happening and no response. Senator Rice's indication is that nothing happened. So you log a complaint. You sit at home patiently. Do you get an acknowledgement of the complaint?

Miss Hastings : They do ask you. My experience has been that they've asked you, 'Do you want us to get back to you on this?' But if you log in a noise complaint, my personal experience has been: 'What can you do about it?' and, well, nothing.

CHAIR: Sorry, they respond to you, but they say, 'There's nothing we can do about it'?

Miss Hastings : Yes.

CHAIR: So that's different to them doing nothing. They've responded and said—

Miss Hastings : Yes, they have replied, because that has been on the phone. So when I've asked them—

CHAIR: So the process works on engagement, but fails to deliver a solution that would, in your view, reasonably respond to your complaint in the first instance?

Miss Hastings : Yes.

Mr Cincotta : However, an engagement takes 21 days for a response.

CHAIR: That's a different issue, and I took particular note of that.

Mr Cincotta : That is not engagement.

CHAIR: I understand that. I'm a retired police officer. That would be no way to function. By 21 days, I can tell you, the tracks are cold.

Miss Hastings : In answer to your question, in an ideal world we would get together with Airservices and discuss the options: our options are this and our suggestions are share the circuit blah blah blah whatever it is.

CHAIR: Let's pinpoint this, because I know it's of interest to Senator Sterle and Senator Rice. Let's pinpoint this. You're over there. You're queen for the day, or king—in a modern society you can be whichever one you want! What's the solution for your problems?

Mr Biviano : In regard to—

Senator STERLE: If you were boss of the airport.

CHAIR: Yes. You want to stop this noise; you want to look after all these good people and stop the noise. How are you going to stop the noise?

Mr Biviano : Moorabbin Airport say that once a plane is off the ground it's not their responsibility.

CHAIR: Don't worry about who said what to whom. You are king or queen of the airport for the day. You are now going to solve this sound problem for the broader community. What are you going to do?

Mr Biviano : I know that the Moorabbin Airport wouldn't do that.

CHAIR: No, I'm asking what would you do, Joe? We're looking for the solution here.

Mr Biviano : If I had some power to fix that problem, we know that the residents like the airport. We would like to have the airport there, because we understand that the airport serves—

CHAIR: That's a given. How are you going to solve the problem?

Mr Biviano : The ambulance, the police, the people who go there.

CHAIR: How are you going to solve the problem? How are you going to make the planes quieter or have less impact on your residents.

Mr Biviano : I would move the trainers out of the residential areas.

CHAIR: Yes, that's one, and I imagine that—

Mr Biviano : There is ample room in the state of Victoria. We've got so much land.

CHAIR: Yes, let's move forward on that. That's a given. Now what would you do with the balance? Do you think it then becomes a tolerable situation for residents, if the trainers are gone?

Miss Hastings : I think it is. The training is the biggest—

Mr Biviano : Because then you only have about 30,000 movements, and we can cope with that.

Mr Cincotta : Eighty-five per cent of the movements are to do with circuit training the trainers only. Nobody has a problem with the in and outs. Nobody's got a problem with it. It's the trainers.

Mr Biviano : And we're scared, because the students come from overseas—

CHAIR: We get it. I've investigated aircraft accidents for twenty years. I wouldn't live under there for any money.

Senator RICE: What I hear you saying is that you feel that the situation is building up to almost intolerable levels to you, but there is no process where your concerns can be constructively acted on.

Mr Cincotta : Correct.

Senator RICE: I'm reading from an Airservices document, Complaints Management:

A complaint or enquiry is considered ‘resolved’ if one of the following applies:

the complainant or person seeking information is satisfied

all reasonable steps have been taken to investigate the complaint and an appropriate remedy and/or a full explanation for the situation has been offered to the complainant or person seeking information

the complaint or issue of concern is being managed through a separate process.

Clearly, most of them fall into that second one: they have explained to you why it's the case, and that's it. They don't need to do anything.

Mr Cincotta : Yes, exactly. In most cases, if the issue relates to circuit training, circuit training is a function of the airport. Therefore, that's the reason for the complaint and the issue is closed.

CHAIR: I think you guys have a very valid thing to be looked at.

Senator STERLE: How long has Moorabbin been a training airport?

Mr Cincotta : I believe since it came into operation in the 1950s.

Mr Biviano : Yes, '49-'50.

Senator STERLE: So it always has been.

CHAIR: It's just the volume.

Mr Cincotta : It's the volume.

Senator STERLE: Has it always been seven days a week?

Mr Cincotta : Yes.

Senator STERLE: And it has always been till 10 o'clock at night?

Mr Cincotta : Yes. On weekends it's till 6 pm, but on weekdays it's till 10 pm, yes.

Mr Biviano : Recently, within the last 10 years, probably, the helicopter training has increased. These people didn't get a town planning permit. They are private companies. They have to pay out to do whatever they want. You know those big helicopters, like the police helicopters—you know how noisy they are?

Senator STERLE: Yes.

Mr Biviano : Just imagine having one of them all day, plus the others, having the small circuit, and the fixed-wing planes having the larger circuit—all day long. I would invite you people to come there, maybe Saturday morning at 10 o'clock. I will prepare a cup of coffee for you.

CHAIR: We're already with you, Joe, I think! We've indicated that we're with you.

Mr Cincotta : Could I just make another point in terms of what can be done? We've put forward practical solutions. There is a resistance to change and no impetus to have to change, because—

Senator RICE: There is no legislative requirement.

Mr Cincotta : Yes, there are no requirements. In terms of practical solutions, Joe touched on moving some of the training to regional airports—building infrastructure and moving that there. At the same time, we want a win-win for the airport too. We understand they've got operations that they need to fill. People need to be trained, and they make money out of the trainees. That's by far the best solution. Regional areas obviously haven't got the volume of people. So that's one. There are other potential changes. At Moorabbin Airport there are two circuits, an east circuit and a west circuit. Some sharing of the training between the two circuits would be appropriate, to reduce. If you're only getting—

CHAIR: At the moment, there is an emphasis on one, is there?

Mr Cincotta : It's all on one. It's only when there is overflow on one that they move to the other.

CHAIR: The reason being?

Mr Cincotta : Because they use the other one to deal with the ins and outs. It will be argued from a safety—

CHAIR: So they don't want the trainees mixing with the experienced—

Mr Cincotta : Correct, yes. That's a reason, but it's a reason that can be managed. If you put a couple of extra people in the tower to monitor the planes, you could manage some aircraft moving onto that. The ins and outs only happen during the day, so in the evening, when we get the night movements, that circuit's not being used at all, but they could switch. There are numerous strategies or initiatives. If you sat down and workshopped, you could come up with a list of ideas. There is no appetite to change at the moment. You could put some further curfews in. The weekend at 6 pm—that's when most people are at home having their barbecues. Could you make that perhaps 2 pm and manage those training flights at different times or using the other circuit? There are a number of options that could be thought through, obviously done in an agreeable way with what would work with airport management. But at the moment there's just no appetite, because there are no responsibilities.

Miss Hastings : Can I just add to what John is saying about sharing the circuits? At the moment, the one circuit is pretty full with circuit training. However, since the airport aim to grow that part of their business to 500,000 movements, they would have to use the other circuit anyhow, because this one is full. They come across with: they can't do it because it's unsafe. When it suits them, they'll be using it, to grow their business.

Senator RICE: Yes. They'll be able to manage it when they have to.

Mr Cincotta : They will manage it when they need to, and they do manage it now when there's overflow. They use the other circuit. There are things that can be done that at the moment are not being done because—

Senator RICE: They don't have to.

Mr Cincotta : they don't have to. At the CACG meetings there's no government pressure on the airport management to do anything. Airservices—it's not their responsibility. CASA have always played the safe card. You've got what's called a Community Aviation Consultation Group, but it's not a consultation group. There is information-sharing and there are no initiatives or change that comes from the community engagement.

Senator STERLE: That was my first question. Now I will ask my second question—and both parties can take it on notice. Mr Cincotta, you said that your group has lodged many, many recommendations. Can you provide them to the committee, please?

Mr Cincotta : Sure.

Senator STERLE: Not now; you can just send it to us.

CHAIR: As clarification: to take a matter on notice means that, away from here, you have all the time you like to prepare and submit you answer to the committee secretary, who will distribute it to senators. I will go to you, Joe, and then we will suspend the hearing.

Mr Biviano : The bill says 'to require the minister to appoint an independent community aviation advocate'. What are you doing there is forming another layer. We had the residents, the Ombudsman, Airservices Australia and then the minister. So we're going to have another layer over there—this advocate. What sort of expertise would he have? Would it be an environmental scientist? We would like someone who understands today's environmental problems—not another officeholder that probably costs another $5 million, but someone who would be fair dinkum about this.

Senator RICE: I think this role is for someone who has skills in understanding what the issues being faced by the community are and is able to communicate those issues and actually make sure that those issues are being adequately addressed by Airservices and the—

Mr Biviano : That's what we thought about the Ombudsman.

Senator RICE: But the Ombudsman, as you have experienced, only looks at whether the process is being following. The Ombudsman's role isn't actually to listen to the community.

Mr Biviano : We thought that he was there to help us.

CHAIR: You wouldn't be worried about what government was thinking if you knew how often it wasn't! We hear you all loud and clear. To some extent, the basis of your community expressions is somewhat different to the overall thing. For my part, I've found you very reasonable and I think there are things that can be activated despite where this bill may or may not go.

Mr Cincotta : We recognised in reading the bill that it seemed a bit more targeted towards other airports. But, at the same time, where it resonates with us is the responsibility of Airservices—and that's important for us.

CHAIR: I'm inclined to think that our committee will probably, in private, resolve to write to the Minister for Transport about your particular issues and ask him—it is a him at the moment—to pay particular attention and perhaps instruct someone to have a look and come back. We'll just see what goes with that.

Mr Cincotta : That would be great. We've got particular issues that can be dealt with.

Senator STERLE: While we are on the record, this same issue will 4,000-odd kay that way.

Senator RICE: Yes. Jandakot and Parafield also had—

CHAIR: Some of these are unanticipated developments—and life goes on. The architects who write the rules and regulations and programs don't always anticipate that one day the sky will be full of drones, which is another one of our pets on this committee.

Mr Cincotta : We understand and appreciate the issues that Parafield and the other ones have. Moorabbin Airport, which is 25 kilometres down the road, has 100 per cent residential density around it. When it was built there was nothing. So times have changed.

Senator RICE: And you are now the second-busiest airport in the country.

Mr Cincotta : Which people won't understand.

CHAIR: I deal with this every day with dairies that were there before the houses came up to the edge and the dairy is the one that has to move.

Senator STERLE: And our truckies.

CHAIR: There are all sorts of things. These are relatively complex problems that come from development. I thank the three of you. We know what effort is involved. We wish you safe travel back to your point of origin. On the questions taken on notice, the committee has established 13 July—which is about three weeks away—for responses, if possible. If you aren't able to do it in that time, we do have some tolerance but we would prefer answers to come in that time. It works in with our management plans.

M is s Hastings : The DVCA and MARA work quite closely with this. Do you want separate responses or are you happy with the one response?

CHAIR: One is fine. The senator obviously wants to look at the depth of the data on that.

M is s Hastings : Thank you very much.

Proceedings suspended from 10:35 to 10:53