– Steve Hitchen
When a question asked in a public senate hearing is taken on notice by the organisation giving evidence, there is an imperative that the answer to the question be provided quickly and accurately. In most cases, the reply is published on the senate committee's parliament house webpage.
But on 7 December last year, neither CASA CEO Pip Spence nor Executive Manager Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Jonathan Aleck were able to tell a senate hearing the value of the costs awarded to them against Angel Flight by the Federal Court.
In three different court actions, Angel Flight unsuccessfully challenged CASA's Community Service Flight (CSF) restrictions and in doing so was ordered to cover the regulator's costs of defending the actions.
CASA took the queston on notice among others, which raised the ire of both committee chair Senator Susan McDonald and committee member Senator Glenn Sterle.
But when the package of answers was published on the senate webpage in January, one answer was not among them: the Angel Flight court costs.
In fact, Spence had replied to the question on 10 December, three days after the senate hearing, showing that at the time the stated costs had been $67,000 with further costs under negotiation with Angel Flight.
Questions directed to McDonald's office about the letter were greeted with bewilderment: they had no record of receiving it in their logs even though it was specifically addressed to the senator as chair of the committee.
Despite the Spence letter being the answer to a question taken on notice in a public hearing, the secretariat of the Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) has elected not to post the letter on the inquiry website, saying the contents of the letter could not be divulged because negotiations were ongoing.
But how can the committee make a decision on whether or not the letter should be published it if never arrived at the office of the committee chair?
It was starting to smell like a cover-up or a bureaucratic bungle.
CASA has asserted that they did not ask for the letter to remain confidential, and have since supplied a copy to Australian Flying with the expectation that it would be published.
The letter is, however, out of date now and the costs Angel Flight will have to pay are expected to be significantly higher.
Of course all this could have been avoided had CASA been able to tell the committee in the hearing of 7 December what the value of the costs was.
The no-response from CASA triggered a visceral response from Senator McDonald that is clear in the Hansard.
"I am really frustrated that, having heard the evidence this afternoon, Dr Aleck didn't come prepared for questions about Angel Flight, about the costs," she said. "He is the head of the legal team. He would have been directing the proceedings. I imagine that he had to sign off on what the requests to the courts were and then what the courts decided.
"I would be fascinated to know what amount you asked the court to award and then what the court did award. I cannot believe, Dr Aleck, that you do not know the answers to this question.
"I appreciate that Ms Spence is covering for you, but I am very, very unhappy with the horrible abuse of your position with CASA."
Senator Glenn Sterle shared Senator McDonald's frustration.
"Now, seriously, Mr Aleck, just tell the chair how much you put in; tell the chair how much you got awarded," Sterle stated. "You know darn well. Come on."
At the time of writing, the office of Senator McDonald was trying to confirm the status of the Spence letter, why it had not been published and who made the decision to not do so.