Of Mandarins & Minions. - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Senate Inquiry - Unplugged (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Of Ministers and Minions. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+--- Thread: Of Mandarins & Minions. (/showthread.php?tid=77)

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 02-27-2023

(02-27-2023, 06:29 AM)Kharon Wrote:  Hear, hear!!

Finally, one politician who actually 'gets it' – he probably is not the only one, but at least he has the 'wherewithal' to say it. Well said Sir.

HERE -

P2 addendum - Further to Is Betts a fair bett??

Quote:Not just going along for the ride

August 8, 2005 — 10.00am

Not long ago, Victoria's Director of Public Transport made his media debut on a windswept plaza outside the Collins Street tower formerly known as Nauru House.

As reporters waited for the state's top public transport bureaucrat, an improbable figure sidled out. Tall and thin, a cross between Mick Jagger and Mr Bean. Wearing faded jeans, casual suede shoes and a short-sleeved shirt. Untucked.

Among the hacks a murmur grew: "Is that him?" A TV reporter was less subtle: "Don't tell me that's the guy running our transport system."

It is. Meet Jim Betts, Melbourne's wackiest public servant, fugitive from English winters and walking contradiction - a one-time punk rocker who became a top technocrat, faithfully serving the Thatcherite government he had grown up opposing. A former communist who became an expert in privatisation, he was headhunted from London by the Kennett government when it decided to sell the public train-set in 1999.

When privatisation went wrong in 2002 and National Express cut its losses and walked away from half the city's train and tram network, the Government turned to Betts - then deputy director - to put things back together. He did, and last October was given the top job just as a driver shortage led to a surge in late and cancelled trains. At the same time, Yarra Trams was warning that the city's trams were being choked by traffic and the media buzz was of "cost blow-outs" on the Regional Fast Rail project. Betts was young for the position and the challenge was daunting. It was also the opportunity he had dreamed of.

"You can get jobs as a bureaucrat where all you do is shuffle bits of paper around and talk to other bureaucrats," he says. "With public transport, day in, day out you are delivering a service that people depend on."

Betts recently turned 40 - doing Mick Jagger impersonations at his party at a local bowling club - but he looks 30 and dresses 28. He works six days a week and does not drive, shunning the government car he is entitled to.

While some might see him as being on a hiding to nothing, or his job a trifle dry, he disagrees. "If we do a good job running this system we can make a positive impact on the environment ... We can reduce road congestion, which poses a huge economic toll, and we provide an essential service to people with disabilities who don't have access to a car. It's absolutely front line - you can change the world," he says.

It has been an unorthodox journey for a working-class boy from the English town of Reading. Betts is from coal mining stock, nursed on the politics of the pit. As a teenager he would catch the train to London on weekends to pogo in front of bands such as The Clash and The Jam. "I was a punk rocker," he says. "Black spikey hair, jeans stuck together with safety pins, all of that."

He was a proud communist with an anarchistic streak. A sharp mind got him to Oxford University, where he studied under his hero Christopher Hill, the most famous Marxist historian of his generation.

Betts followed Hill into 17th century English history - Oliver Cromwell, regicide and revolution. Odd grounding for a transport technocrat? It all depends on how you look at it. "It was a period of huge turmoil and lots of ideas and uncertainty and people stepping into the unknown," Betts says - a description that sounds not far removed from Melbourne's public transport system.

After university, he gave up his dream of academia and flirted with the cloak and dagger world of MI6. He progressed through the interview process for the spy agency - "the primary criterion seemed to be that you be a good chap" - but cruelled his chances by blabbing to his friends

Instead he went to management school, joined the civil service and was brought into the office of the British Secretary for Transport as the Major government embarked on a massive privatisation of the rail system.

Betts had already married an Australian he'd met in France in 1995 and they were living in London. Then came the life-changing call from the Victorian government. "We're looking to privatise a public transport system that is losing $500 million a year and we're looking for people to advise us how to do it."

Communist turned privatisation expert is an odd contradiction but it's one Betts has reconciled as his politics have softened. What matters most is not who owns an industry but the public services it provides, he says. "As somebody who has an interest in social justice, I think you need a decent health-care system, education system and transport system. It doesn't matter if the person who provides that service is a public servant or private employee as long as the service is good and affordable. What matters is what works."

That means using market forces such as competition and profit-drive as instruments to achieve public good - all within a heavily regulated environment where the government holds private operators to strict standards.

But Betts is a historian and recent history shows that privatisation tanked. Initially, service improved, customer satisfaction jumped and new trains and trams were ordered. But it was all founded on quicksand - the operators were hemorrhaging money. In retrospect, he says, the privatisation team should have been more intent on forging relationships with the operators than on driving a hard bargain.

In Betts' spacious office is a whiteboard covered in meticulous handwriting, and three framed posters that betray a potentially unhealthy interest in the dark side of life. One is of a cadaverous Nick Cave, another for TV drama The Sopranos, the third for Martin Scorcese's film Taxi Driver.

Betts denies any latent masochism but the evidence appears overwhelming: student of bloody history; runs public transport system; likes Tony Soprano, Nick Cave and Robert De Niro's Travis Bickle. The clincher? He's a St Kilda supporter.

"He's quite quirky," says former Kennett government transport minister Robin Cooper, who saw plenty of Betts while in office. "He'll say things that are really quite amusing and then not even crack a smile. He's got a good sense of humour and would need one for that job. It's a job that would drive a serious person insane."

Betts runs the public transport division - a ship of 300 souls including lawyers, engineers and middle managers. He says his job is to keep them inspired. "To keep the passion going and to paint the big picture."

Every fortnight he issues a bulletin to all staff - not quite the usual pap of staff announcements. Instead, Melbourne's wackiest public servant turns out absurdist monologues that read like Monty Python scripts.

"I was alarmed last week to find a cockroach in my office," the first bulletin read. "I thought about demanding a full-scale public inquiry, but then realised it probably came to work with me in my briefcase. Anyway, whatever, his name's Colin and I know you'll all make him welcome."

Two weeks later he was at it again: "My attempts to locate and kill Colin the cockroach are becoming ever more ingenious. I have left an open copy of the DoI corporate plan on the floor of my office in an attempt to bore him to death."

Read them all and you can see the jokes develop almost as fast as the cult following - long discussions about the prophecies of Nostradamus and the English cricket team.

Is Jim Betts Melbourne's answer to another Reading native, The Office's David Brent? Not so much a boss as a "chilled out entertainer". The difference is that most who know him say he is frighteningly good at his job.

Betts says that two or three years ago the public transport division was one of the worst-performing areas of the public service. Now he reckons it's the best. He wants a bureaucracy that will think boldly about problems and their solutions, and that owns up when things go wrong instead of shifting blame. "If you think we are going down the wrong track, it doesn't matter what level you are at, put your hand up and you'll get listened to," he says.

Betts has supporters across party lines and even fierce critics of the Government's transport policies admit they find him impressive. But there have been hiccups. Betts first met Kennett when the then-premier walked into a meeting Betts was having. Kennett later fumed: "Who was that f--- wit who didn't stand up when I came in?" and Betts' phone rang hot: "The Premier just called you a f---wit."

It was scary then. Now it's all material for the fortnightly bulletin. "A number of people have written in support of Jeff. To register your view, tick one of the boxes below:

a) It's terrible - the former premier should show more respect to senior public servants.

b) Nah, good on yer Jeff, he is a f---wit."

Betts is self-deprecating but he's no clown. Connex chairman Bob Annells says he has spent hundreds of hours in meetings with him, thrashing out the deal that saw Connex take over when National Express bolted. "He is an unusual character for that position, both in background and personality, but without a shadow of a doubt that has been a positive," Annells says.

The Connex chief praises Betts' self discipline, mastery of detail and appetite for work, but when the train company stumbles with late or cancelled services, it is Betts who must bring them to heel and dish out fines.

"Jim is the classic iron fist in a velvet glove," he says. "What you see in his normal personality is very easygoing. He loves a laugh and is a personable guy but in my experience, underneath all that he has the requisite toughness ... he does not muck around and when he says no he means no."

He will need to be tough. Problems with train cancellations and lateness are still being tackled, tram routes are still choking and Betts wants a better system for notifying travellers of last-minute timetable changes.

But the biggest problem, he says, is the lack of bus services in outer suburbs, where the Government needs to spend a further $50 million each year to get services up to scratch. Then there's the fast rail and Spencer Street Station projects: nearing completion, but over-time and over-budget.

Mostly, he wants the system to work - to recede into the background of people's lives. He wants to enjoy five minutes without some unfolding, intractable crisis. Then, when it's over, he wants a job at his favourite record store, Greville Records in Prahran.

The one-time punk has mellowed somewhat - getting into country music as his "mid-life crisis". The music is, of course, the dark and brooding variety - not Garth Brooks.

Some might argue that there's still plenty of the revolutionary in Betts, but these days he is more interested in boarding times than the bourgeoisie. It remains to be seen if he and the Government can turn public transport around. "It is a big job and it can be daunting. But if you spend your entire life avoiding responsibility and risk, then you end up doing nothing," he says. "The point is to change the world, it's not to shuffle bits of paper around."

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 05-23-2023

RRAT Estimates: Aviation White Paper update?? - 

Via APH Parlview: 


Also from the Dept website, the now listed submissions: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-white-paper/aviation-white-paper-terms-reference-submissions

WOW! - Big list to go through there...

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Kharon - 05-24-2023

The way is shut.-

And so it will remain until the opposition grow a set and take a stand with a view to dismantling the effect this 'white paper' will have on the future; if indeed there is chance of a productive future.

The White paper, is, of itself not sinister – in theory. It could actually become a cornerstone of progress; alas...Listen (you'll need a bucket) to Sen. White :-



And be afraid – the politicising of the current situation is sickening, sinister and misleading. The part which attacks the previous government 'inquiry' and attempts to reign in the Quangos is not only simply dismissed, but vilified. The Senator seems to have conventionally forgotten that the it was the labour government, their 'white paper' and Albo who created the current mess.  –It is worth mentioning  that the fuel levy imposed to fund the CASA bail out after a seriously bad audit is still on and that it was Albo who created the Quango (pigs in clover) system we have today. A train wreck the industry is still trying to clear up.

White set the feast for the department and the minions gorged themselves as they strolled through the easiest session they ever had. Instead of a 'please explain' they were gifted an advertorial – worthy of Channel 7 Morning show in the vein of 'Pee-Less' tablets or electric tooth brush sales pitch.

Is this really what the travelling public and a crippled industry needs?

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 05-24-2023

Best Betts gives a fist of solidarity to Albo's VOICE!! - 

Via the APH Parlview:


MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Gentle - 05-25-2023

The other complete waste of time was Senator White’s attempts to get Bridget prosecuted for trespass on Inland Rail property..what a waste of space!

There was however one thing just happening over the last couple of weeks that could provide a method re the problems of the “three”… treat AsA, CASA and ATSB like external consultancy firms aka PWC.

If the Betts Black Power t shirt wearers suddenly feel threatened by their ignorance of what’s happening in the three, aka Bridget’s hints then the pass the parcel meets throw them under the bus meets whack a mole occurs, just like what’s happening in Finance / Treasury…

The NYT had a very interesting article on how McKinsey was consulting to US Defence and the Chinese PLA at the same time, he he he  makes PWC’s testicles caught on the proverbial barb wire currently look almost seem moral!  

Betts might not like his faded jeans caught on the barb wire and unless he tosses the three “under” the bus, it might just happen.  I can see Bridget thinks he is a tosser already, ah what a wonderful smile she has when her mind turns to barb wire fantasies  .  Might have some teal lower house women joining in her indulgences re Inrastructure transparency…

Hmmm strange friends/times indeed! Nothing more dangerous than women….scorned!

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Kharon - 05-25-2023

Patience dear heart:-

If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,   
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;   
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 06-24-2023

On the pointlessness of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office (et.al other like agencies) -   

Via the embuggerance thread:

(06-22-2023, 11:49 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  GlenB embuggerance update: 22/06/2023

Quote:Clinton McKenzie

Quote:Originally Posted by glenb [/url]

Dear Mr Buckley,

I refer to your email dated 28 March 2023, in which you expressed dissatisfaction that Catherine’s decision letter did not express a view about whether APTA had been treated fairly compared to other Flight Training Organisations (FTO). Catherine is on leave from the Office but, in her absence, I reviewed her records of investigation. From these, I can see that she considered, and sought information from CASA about this issue and ultimately decided she could not confidently conclude who (within CASA) knew what about your business model at what time, to assess the way your business was treated compared to other similar organisations. I apologise that this conclusion was not explained more clearly in her letter of decision.

Noting this investigation is closed, our Office may file but not necessarily respond to any further correspondence you send on the matter.

Kind regards

As I said in one of our recent video discussions, Glen, the most appalling thing for me out of the RoboDebt Royal Commission hearings was the revelations as to the extent of the deterioration of the Commonwealth Ombudsman function.The Ombudsman’s Office was sent some ‘RoboDebt’s all fine and dandy and legal, nothing to see here’ correspondence from the policy Department, the Ombudsman’s Office asked ‘are you sure about that and have you given us all the legal advice you’ve received’, the policy Department said ‘yep’ and the Ombudsman just drank that Koolaide.

The Ombudsman’s Office was fed misleading information, the Ombudsman’s Office suspected the information was misleading, but didn’t dig any further.We know, from the hearings of the Royal Commission, what would have been dug up if the Ombudsman’s Office had done its job properly.

The ‘explanation’ given to you for the ‘conclusion’ of and the closing of the ‘investigation’ of your allegation that ATPA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs by CASA is, in and of itself, an admission that the Ombudsman’s Office did not do a proper investigation! It’s breathtaking that the Office is now so busted that it thinks that a reasonable explanation for not finding out whether APTA was treated differently and unfairly compared to other FTOs is that the Ombudsman’s Office looked at some information provided by CASA and couldn’t work out who in CASA knew what.

Differing levels of knowledge and ignorance of different individuals within CASA could be the cause of the very problem which the Ombudsman was supposed to be investigating! The Ombudsman’s Office’s job was to first get to the bottom of whether APTA was actually subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs were not subjected in similar circumstances, irrespective of the cause of that differential regulatory treatment. If APTA was in fact subjected by CASA to regulatory requirements to which other FTOs in similar circumstances were not subjected – such as APTA being required to provide copies of contracts, containing clauses to the satisfaction of CASA, because non-employees were engaged in the delivery of flying training under the authority of APTA’s AOC, but other FTOs who engaged non-employees were not required by CASA to provide copies of contracts with those clauses - that’s the failure of administration that the Ombudsman’s Office is supposed to identify.

The next step is to identify the cause of that failure and to fix the cause. For example, if it turns out that CASA is an internal governance basket case, such that different silos of the organisation have different levels of knowledge and views about what regulatory requirements apply to FTOs in similar circumstances, and interpret and enforce those requirements differently while having internal arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong, that governance failure is the cause of the problem. Best to fix that.

I shake my head in disbelief in much of what I read coming out of the Ombudsman’s Office on this and other matters in last few years. It’s no wonder to me that faith in politicians and the institutions of government is at an all time low.

Sandy in reply, via the UP:

Quote:CASA “basket case”

CASA is a basket case and so are all the independent government authorised monopoly bodies that purport to carry out duties that should be undertaken by Departments of Government with a Minister at head.

Unfortunately there’s been an almost universal and naive belief that all ills will be banished by appointing an independent body to administer parts of government responsibilities, an umpire just like the footy! The rules of football are simple in the extreme compared to the ever changing complexities of society.

These bodies inevitably become self serving because human nature needs incentives to keep the line. It’s one thing to create a limited time task force or inquiry for one off concerns, entirely another to expect one government body to be critical of another or work to crucial time lines in an economical and efficient manner.

IBACS, Ombudsman offices for just about everything, the likes of CASA, ATSB and AirServices, and don’t worry numerous others can be found in the 1200 Commonwealth instrumentalities.

We should disband the lot and put all those main areas of government administration into Westminster style Departments with Ministers at head.

For the others, properly resource the police, courts and MP’s offices and let the voter decide.

I’m afraid we are all responsible for letting silly ideas like ‘Ombudsman’ become established with zero critical analysis.

But back to the thread, we need full publicity to influence the body politic, maybe coupled with legal action.

Also via the UP jj232, on the [url=https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/653244-alice-springs-airport-tower-closing-due-staffing-levels-2.html#post11455843]'Alice Springs - Tower Closed' thread, brings into light why it is the current status quo, of federal independent statutory agencies being unaccountable and 'a law unto themselves', won't be changing anytime soon...  
  

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by A320 Flyer 

What an absolute disgrace this country has become…. Probably all somewhere for an inclusivity and diversity conference…. Possibly a presentation on “the voice to parliament and it’s importance to air traffic services”

Its all purely because ASA management has always believed the job can be done with less people, Covid was the green light to take risks they never would’ve any other time. Obviously this was never the case and what your seeing now is the result of the decision to make large numbers of ATCs redundant. They have now gone on a large training and hiring drive but it will take 10 years to get numbers to where they need to be.

Unfortunately we have a transport minister who seems uninterested in actually doing anything. She recently received a letter from a local Federal member in her own party in Sydney telling her he believes they are some big problems in ASA and could see meet with certain union members. Her response was she has spoken to ASA and they have assured her they are fixing it. Wouldn’t even allocate 30mins to hear from them. I feel sorry for industry but nothings going to get better for a long time.

Ahh...but the miniscule did mention the dreaded "A"-word in recent days...

Ref: miniscule a' la King actually mentions the "A-word"??

Via Twitter:

Quote:Catherine King MP
@CatherineKingMP

We rely on aviation[/size], but to reach our net zero targets we have to find a way to cut aviation emissions.

Today we announced the members the jet zero council & $30 million of funding for sustainable aviation fuel.

https://t.co/0HldnG87d5
@Bowenchris @ALeighMP

God help our GA industry because the miniscule and Albo, or indeed the Ombudsman never will! - 

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 09-15-2023

Latest GREEN PAPER BOLLOCKS!! - 

Via Oz Flying:

Quote:Associations get behind the Green Paper



15 September 2023

The Australian Airports Association (AAA) and the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) have expressed support for the Federal Government's aviation green paper.

Published last week, the green paper Towards 2050 is a discussion paper that outline issues and calls for feedback ahead of the white paper to be released next year.

“This process is an important opportunity to review the policy and regulatory settings to get the right framework to have a thriving aviation sector for the decades to come,” AAA Chief Executive, James Goodwin said.

“We look forward to working with Minister King to develop immediate and long-term solutions for airport operators."

AAA National Chair, Kym Meys said it is crucial the process also brings the sector together on reaching emissions targets.
“The time is right to review the range of existing and emerging settings impacting the sector as it recovers from the impacts of the pandemic,” he said.

“Airports have a role to play in reducing emissions via scope one and two, and Australian airports are committed to playing their part in meeting aviation 2050 targets.

“We have seen airports affected by recent extreme weather, including floods and fires, and it is encouraging to see the process examining what needs to be done to help prepare airports to be more resilient during extreme weather events.
"The AAA is pleased to see government agencies are a focus in the White Paper process."

RAAA CEO Steve Campbell said his organisation was still to formulate their response, but found the content of the green paper was as expected.

"The RAAA welcomes the release of the much anticipated Green Paper by the Government this week," Campbell told Australian Flying. "There is a lot to unpack by November to get our submissions in but on first glance there seems to be no surprises.

"The RAAA held its Canberra Roadshow event this week which was fortunate timing as we had the first formal briefing by the Government on the green paper.

"We also our heard from Minister Catherine King at our evening event at Parliament House. The Minister was keen to let our members know that the Government is very much aware of the challenges that regional aviation is facing now and into the future."

Campbell sounded a warning the although the white paper process was welcome, it should not impede policy initiatives that are needed now.

"Whilst we understand that the point of a white paper is to be an over-the-horizon look at aviation policy, our members are more focused on the issues of today.

"Skills shortages are not unique to the aviation industry but we are keen to work with Government on ways to improve the uptake of pilots and engineers.

"These issues are more front and centre than how they can get to net zero by 2050."

Plus for the Bureaucrat view, via the Infrastructure Mag:

Quote:New Aviation Green Paper to inform sustainable policy



Kody Cook, September 8, 2023,

The Federal Government has released its Aviation Green Paper, which details a number of key sustainability issues facing the sector, and aims to inform the creation of a policy-setting Aviation White Paper. 

The Green Paper states that as a ‘hard-to-abate’ industry, aviation faces unique challenges in reaching decarbonisation goals. 

The Paper states that there will be a range of measures that will help maximise aviation’s contribution to net-zero including efficiency gains, propulsion technology advancements, use of high-quality offsets and the development and uptake of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). 

To guide the transport sector’s transition to net-zero, the Federal Government has said that it will lead development of a Transport and Infrastructure Net Zero Roadmap and Action Plan. 

The Roadmap and Action Plan is expected to deliver evidence and leadership to accelerate decarbonisation across the transport and transport infrastructure sectors, including the aviation industry, as well as offer industry policy clarity to support investment decisions in decarbonisation of assets and fleets. 

The Roadmap is also expected to outline the roles of different governments, industry and the community, and share best practice to demonstrate shared responsibility. 

In July 2023, the Federal Government announced the development of government-guided sectoral plans to support Australia’s Net Zero 2050 plan. 

The Roadmap will form the Federal Government’s sectoral emissions reduction plan for transport and its development will support consideration of proposals to be considered in the Aviation White Paper.

The Green Paper outlines a number of key points: 

• Aviation generates approximately 2.5 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions and domestic aviation accounts for about seven per cent of emissions from the transport sector
  
• Aviation’s proportionate emissions impact is expected to grow as other sectors continue to decarbonise
  
• Factors such as the need for light, high energy density fuels and limited available substitutes make aviation a ‘hard-to-abate’ sector
  
• Key measures to maximise aviation’s contribution to net zero include; efficiency gains, new propulsion technologies, high-quality offsets, and SAF, which will all need to be pursued to reach net zero by 2050
  
• The international community is embracing these opportunities, with governments and industry committing to ambitious decarbonisation targets. Key trading partners such as the US, United Kingdom, Europe and Japan are all taking action
  
• Through the Safeguard Mechanism, Australia’s two major emission-producing entities in aviation – Qantas and Virgin Australia – are required to reduce their emissions intensity by 4.9 per cent per year to 2030
  

Through the Green Paper, the government is seeking feedback on aviation matters, including:

• Airlines, airports and passengers – competition, consumer protections and disability access settings
  
• Regional and remote aviation services
  
• Maximising aviation’s contribution to net zero
  
• Airport development planning process and consultation mechanisms
  
• General aviation
  
• Fit-for-purpose agencies and regulations
  
• Emerging aviation technologies
  
• Future industry workforce
  
• International aviation
  

The Green Paper was informed by the Scenario Analysis of the Future of Australian Aviation report undertaken for the Department by L.E.K. Consulting.

Submissions on the Green Paper will help to inform the development of the Aviation White Paper, to be released in mid-2024.
The Federal Government has said that it will also engage with stakeholders through a series of roundtable sessions in October and November 2023.

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 02-09-2024

Dear Jane...L&Ks Sandy - 

Via the AP emails:

Quote:

Dear ....,
 
Anthony Albanese has looked Australians in the eye and knowingly and repeatedly lied to them about his commitment to the Stage 3 tax cuts.
 
Labor's changes to the legislated Stage 3 package show that Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers can't be trusted with Australia's long term economic prosperity.
 
Through my Cost of Living Committee hearing on Monday, I uncovered that Treasury undertook postcode analysis so the Prime Minister could find out how many people in Dunkley would benefit from this change.
 
Yet, Labor didn't even bother to ask Treasury how many Australians would be paying more tax, and the kicker is - Treasury don't actually know the answer!
 
This has shown that all Labor cares about is politics - not genuine tax reform and long term prosperity.
 
But we know Australians deserve better. They deserve a Government committed to encouraging aspiration and reform of our tax system.
 
The Coalition is committed to lower, simpler and fairer taxes, which is why we will not oppose the reduction in the 19c tax rate to 16c.
 
Sadly, Albanese's lies and broken promises means that delivering the stage 3 tax reforms as they have been legislated (to start on 1 July 2024) is now impossible.
 
However, the Coalition is committed to going to the next election with a tax policy that is in keeping with the principles of the stage 3 tax reforms.
 
We remain committed to fighting bracket creep and enshrining aspiration because strong leaders keep their promises, even when it is hard.
Our package will:

• Deliver lower, simpler, and fairer taxes;
  
• Fight bracket creep and enshrine aspiration in our tax system;
  
• Reward hard work and support a strong economy where every Australian can get ahead;
  
• Unite Australians, rather than pit them against each other.
  

It will be a policy that is fully-costed, that will deliver on Australia's future security, and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on.
 
Most importantly, it will be ready to implement the moment we are elected back into government, because the Coalition delivers on our promises – unlike the liar in The Lodge. 
 
Sincerely,



P.S. If you want to see more, see our press conference with the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer on Facebook and Instagram.

Sandy in reply...

Quote:Jane,

Fine aspirations and I appreciate your continuing advocacy for our Party. 

But now we need actual policies with some detail to persuade people that we are the Party of less tax and more free enterprise which is the only way forward to a stronger more prosperous Australia. 

What we need in General Aviation (GA) is a commitment to put aviation back into a Department with responsible Minister. This is the Westminster system. The present independent corporate model has failed, we’ve lost hundreds of flying schools and charter operators. CASA is incapable of producing a rational and affordable environment for GA. 

We should pitch to the aviation community with a definite policy, we stand to gain a lot of votes from a very disillusioned cohort, the aviators of Australia and their families.  

Labor Minister Gareth Evans kicked aviation out of his Department in 1988, huge damage has ensued. 

Best regards,   Sandy

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 02-14-2024

Betsy and his Minions run amok with Aviation administration - UDB!

Via Parlview:


MTF...P2 

PS: The following is the Act to which Betsy and his minions are thumbing their trough swilling noses, both to the Minister of the Crown and the Parliament: Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 02-22-2024

Miniscule Dicky King mentions the A-Word: YSSY SLOT REFORMS?? -

From above:

(02-14-2024, 07:35 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Betsy and his Minions run amok with Aviation administration - UDB!

Via Parlview:

Quote:Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to change topics to the slots review. I'm just wanting to get an update. We've been waiting for the outcomes of this for a little while. Where are we up to with the review, and are there any potential decisions around the slots?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think it's a matter for government as to the timing of any announcements. From memory, towards the end of last year the minister said she would have something further to say around slots. It's a matter for government as to when that will be.

Senator CANAVAN: Just excuse me—let me pop in and out of this issue. I believe there was a review conducted some time ago—a year ago now.

Ms Purvis-Smith : In 2020.

Ms Werner : February 2021.

Senator CANAVAN: That was completed, then?

Ms Werner : Yes, the review reported in February 2021.

Senator CANAVAN: Three years ago now. Have you provided any options to the minister around the former as a result of that review?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think it's fair to say that we've provided advice to the minister around slots.

Senator CANAVAN: When did you provide that advice?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I might not have that with me. I'll see if my colleague Ms Werner has something along those lines.

Mr Vincent : The department has provided a briefing on a number of occasions, as set out in the aviation green paper. The government has been considering the recommendations of the Harris review and has indicated that it will have more to say in due course.

Senator CANAVAN: When did you brief or advise the minister on these options?

Ms Werner : On 28 October 2022, the department sought the minister's agreement to release an options paper in order to consult with stakeholders on the implementation of options recommended through the Harris review, which reported in 2021. We then provided further advice on the options from the options paper on 2 December.

Senator CANAVAN: 2022?

Ms Werner : 2022. On 15 February 2023 the minister agreed to limited stakeholder consultation on options, and on 19 May 2023 the department released an options paper to stakeholders. On 11 July 2023 the department provided the minister with advice on the outcome of the consultations. Following that, we briefed the minister on 31 August, 5 September and 11 October.

Senator CANAVAN: 11 October?

Ms Werner : 2023, yes. We've since briefed a certain number of times; most recently on 24 January this year.

Senator CANAVAN: I realise the initial delays—we had COVID and lots of impact, obviously, from that, but we're a couple of years on now. What's taking so long?

Ms Werner : I think, as Ms Purvis-Smith said, the government will make an announcement about the reforms in due course. That's all waiting for.

Senator CANAVAN: Minister, do you have anything to add? This is very important, obviously. It potentially has a big impact on airfares and supply of flights across the country. Why is the government sitting on its hands here when it's got these recommendations and a couple of rounds of consultation? What's the delay?

Senator Chisholm: I don't think you can suggest we're sitting on our hands given the thorough process that the department took through and the work that the minister has been doing. Obviously it is really important—I agree with that, Senator Canavan—but it's also complex. We want to make sure that we get it right. I would expect an announcement in due course.

Senator CANAVAN: Do you have a particular deadline in mind?

Senator Chisholm: I don't.

Senator CANAVAN: No date. 'Due course' is a long time.

Senator McKENZIE: Before the next election?

Senator Chisholm: Up to the minister.

Senator CANAVAN: Am I right in saying that the current regulations are subject to a sunsetting deadline with regard to the slots?

Ms Werner : Yes, that's correct. They're due to sunset in April 2024.

Senator CANAVAN: So only six weeks or so, I think. Easter.

Senator McKENZIE: What happens then?

Senator CANAVAN: Good question.

Ms Werner : The department or the minister has sought a deferral agreement from the Attorney-General to defer the sunsetting. We haven't had a response yet from the Attorney-General, but the plan is to defer the sunsetting.

Senator McKENZIE: When was that lodged with the AG?

Ms Werner : On 31 August 2023.

Senator McKENZIE: A little while ago.

Senator CANAVAN: But no response has been—

Ms Werner : No response has yet been provided, no.

Senator CANAVAN: Wow.

Senator McKENZIE: Right wing, left wing.

Ms Werner : Although we are in touch at official's level.

Senator CANAVAN: This particular sunsetting clause is in regulation, is it? It's in a legislative instrument?

Ms Werner : The sunsetting applies to all of the regulations after 10 years.

Senator CANAVAN: My point is that you don't need to come to the parliament, presumably, to extend the sunset period.

Ms Werner : Sorry, no.

Senator CANAVAN: You can change it through a—

Ms Werner : That would be a legislative instrument.

Senator CANAVAN: Yes, so another regulation can change it. Is that a disallowable regulation?

Ms Werner : Excellent question, Senator. I wouldn't want to mislead you; I don't know.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We'll take that on notice for you.

Senator CANAVAN: Take that on notice.

Senator McKENZIE: Can you do that in the next 15 days, before we get back to a sitting week, please.

Senator CANAVAN: You could possibly do it while we're here.

Ms Werner : I was thinking we can probably do that pretty quickly.

Senator McKENZIE: Possibly someone could check before 11 whether that's disallowable.

Senator CANAVAN: There would be someone there who could do that. So we only have six weeks and 12 sitting days before the deadline. Given the request to extend it, is the government not going to make a decision before Easter this year? Does it want to extend, given the advice—

Ms Purvis-Smith : That's up to the government as we have said. Any announcements are up to government. Sorry, are you talking about the deferral, or are you talking about the slots?

Senator CANAVAN: If the government's committed to make these changes in due course, but it's also, at the same time, seeking to extend the existing arrangements, I just wonder whether due course is actually beyond April this year.

Ms Purvis-Smith : It's up to the government. I think it's fairly shortly, but it's up to the government as to when it wants.

Senator CANAVAN: Has the department or the minister or the minister's office advised any of the airport industry; Sydney airport, the airlines that use Sydney airport? Has it advised any of them about the request to defer the current regulations?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I'm not aware of that.

Senator CANAVAN: If you could take that on notice—

Ms Purvis-Smith : I can.

Senator CANAVAN: To be clear: have you communicated that the minister has requested an extension, effectively, of the current system.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We can take that on notice.

Senator CANAVAN: It's the first I've known of it.

Senator McKENZIE: Of the AG, and he hasn't written back.

Senator CANAVAN: Back in August last year, too. It does seem strange. I'm not that close, as I said, but from what I've been reading, the minister sort of indicated that the decision may be imminent on this for some time, but we now find out that for six months or so, in fact, she's been seeking an extension of current arrangements. It seems strange. Why wasn't that request made public?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I think the extension of the current arrangements can happen—the announcement doesn't need to—it can be done kind of separately, is what I'm trying to say.

Senator McKENZIE: But there's been a lot of angst about slots over time.

Senator CANAVAN: They're not mutually exclusive. I think if some of the industry are listening to this and are only just finding out about it, they would be quite interested to know this. It seems strange that the government would hide it or be secretive about it.

Ms Werner : I think the only thing that's sunsetting is the regulation; the act, of course, doesn't sunset.

Senator McKENZIE: What's the practical implication of that?

Ms Werner : Were the regulation to sunset?

Senator CANAVAN: Yes.

Ms Werner : That would mean that some of the arrangements around demand management at Sydney airport would no longer be in place.

Senator McKENZIE: Such as?

Senator CANAVAN: Would none of them be in place? Would that allow Sydney Airport to effectively sell out slots to whoever it likes?

Ms Werner : No. The movement cap and the curfew would both remain in place. The regulations go to things like the constitution of the compliance committee and who can be appointed to that. It provides detail around what's contained in the act.

Senator CANAVAN: To be clear, what we're really interested in, as is most of the industry, is whether the sunsetting regulation mean that the major players—i.e. Qantas—won't have the same slots it has before 1 April? If this were to sunset, would it change that around? Would it change the number of slots that Qantas automatically has available to it?

Ms Werner : I believe that all that's sunsetting are the regulations. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act will remain in place, as will the Sydney Airport Compliance Scheme and the Sydney Airport Slot Management Scheme.

Senator McKENZIE: What does that mean?

Senator CANAVAN: You seem to be reading off some talking points. That's not my question.

Ms Werner : Sorry.

Senator CANAVAN: I'm not asking a hypothetical question; I'm asking how the current regulations work, effectively. If they were to sunset, would Qantas potentially lose slots—the airport may decide to keep them.

Ms Werner : The only things that would sunset when the regulations sunset—the regulations go to the compliance committee, the functions of the slot manager and the requirements in relation to slot manager records. The regulations cover the composition of the compliance committee. They also cover the duration for which the slot manager must keep records and the secretary's power to request access to the slot manager's records. That's all that would sunset.

Senator CANAVAN: So the answer to my question is 'no', is it? They wouldn't necessarily lose slots from this sunsetting.

Senator McKENZIE: I think you've got the answer there. You have a colleague next to you.

Ms Werner : Mr Vincent?

Mr Vincent : It was mentioned that a deferral has been sought, and in that circumstance arrangements continue as they—

Senator CANAVAN: No, I'm asking whether, if the deferral is not granted and these regulations are sunsetted, would that mean Qantas might lose its share of the slots? Just a yes or no—it's a fairly factual and probably the most crucial question. I would have thought it would have been discussed.

Mr Vincent : I'd have to come back on the implications.

Senator CANAVAN: Can you take that question on notice?

Ms Purvis-Smith : We can take that on notice.

Senator McKENZIE: The department will have assisted the minister to write a letter to the Attorney-General seeking a deferral in August last year. As part of that work, I'm assuming you will have briefed the minister on what happens if it does sunset, what happens if it gets the deferral and what happens if it doesn't get the deferral. I am very confident in this department's ability to provide its ministers with the options they need to make sound decisions. My question to the officials who are in charge of this area is: was the minister briefed on the implications for deferral, extension and sunsetting? Yes or no?

Ms Werner : Yes, the minister would have been briefed on those things.

Senator McKENZIE: I think Senator Canavan's question is: what are the implications for it sunsetting? If you've already provided that advice to the minister, I'm still confused listening to the evidence here and I don't really have clarity on what happens if it does sunset in April.

Ms Werner : The issue is that there are four different instruments: the act, the regulation, the compliance scheme and the slot management scheme. We would need to take on notice the relationship between the compliance scheme and the slot management scheme, and the regulation.

Senator CANAVAN: In the act is there a default allocation of, or mechanism to allocate, slots in the absence of a legislative instrument or regulation?

Ms Werner : No.

Senator CANAVAN: When did the slots compliance committee last meet?

Ms Werner : It met in late 2020.

Senator McKENZIE: Why hasn't it met since 2020?

Ms Werner : The last meeting was on 9 July 2020, and then the appointments lapsed in 2020. It hasn't been reappointed.

Senator McKENZIE: Why?

Mr Vincent : The Australian government has been considering options to strengthen the compliance framework.

Senator McKENZIE: It’s 2024.

Senator CANAVAN: Did they lapse because the terms of the members finished at that date?

Ms Werner : Yes.

Senator CANAVAN: I suppose that was in the thick of COVID, so maybe there was a decision to hold off on appointing new people et cetera. It would have been dormant around that point. Has there been an explicit decision not to appoint new people to the slot committee?

Ms Werner : There hasn’t been an explicit decision not to appoint them. The thinking is that we are undertaking significant work around reforming what various elements of the slot management regime will do, including the compliance committee. Once those roles are understood, that would be the appropriate time to reappoint the compliance committee.

Senator McKENZIE: Is that all tied up in the green-paper white-paper process?

Ms Werner : No.

Senator McKENZIE: They’re completely independent?

Ms Werner : They’re two different reform tracks, yes.

Senator CANAVAN: Has the department suggested potential members to the minister for the committee?

Ms Werner : No.

Senator CANAVAN: So the minister hasn’t asked for any advice on who should—

Ms Werner : No.

Senator CANAVAN: The act mentions the compliance committee quite often. It’s got particular roles.

Ms Werner : Yes.

Senator CANAVAN: Section 66(1) of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 says, ‘There is to be a Compliance Committee for Sydney Airport.’

Ms Werner : Yes.

Senator CANAVAN: But there isn’t one, and there hasn’t been one for nearly four years. How is the government in compliance with this act of parliament?

Ms Werner : The facts that you state are correct.

Senator McKENZIE: The question remains.

Senator CANAVAN: Has the department asked for any advice from the Attorney-General on this section of the act in the continuing absence of a compliance committee?

Ms Werner : I don’t think we’ve asked that specific question.

Senator CANAVAN: Maybe if you could take that on notice. This is an act of parliament, and your job is to implement acts of parliament. It doesn’t say the minister ‘may’ or ‘can’; it says, ‘There is to be a Compliance Committee for Sydney Airport.’ So what is the excuse for not creating a compliance committee?

Ms Werner : As I said, given that we are in the process of reforming what the compliance committee will do, it was considered appropriate to wait until that work is complete before reappointing the compliance committee.

Senator CANAVAN: Just to be clear: has the department advised the minister that it’s preferable not to-

Ms Werner : No.

Senator CANAVAN: So you’re not blatantly in breach of an act of parliament, because you have said a number of times that it was decided that it wasn’t worth establishing, or not appropriate to establish this committee, while this reform process goes on. Who made that decision?

Ms Werner : The department has made that decision.

Senator CANAVAN: Not the minister? The minister hasn’t said, ‘I don’t want’—

Ms Werner : No, not the minister.

Senator CANAVAN: How has the department taken upon itself to not do something that this parliament has said there must be? This parliament has said, ‘There is to be a Compliance Committee for Sydney Airport’. I don’t see how you’re not—

Senator McKENZIE: Under what power have you done that?

Senator CANAVAN: Yes.

Ms Purvis-Smith : I understand the question. I think, as Ms Werner explained, given the work undertaken in relation to reforming compliance and issues around this issue, decisions were taken not to instate the compliance committee. Also, there was a lot of feedback from previous members of the compliance committee that it wasn’t effective. So we are doing a lot of work to look at how it can be effective.

Senator CANAVAN: I don't think that helps; in fact, it makes the situation worse. It sounds to me that the department decided, 'This won't be a very effective body, so we just won't create it.'

Senator McKENZIE: 'We won't set it up.'

Senator CANAVAN: But the act of parliament says that there is to be one. It's not up to the department to decide that.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We are looking at ways of setting it up when we're looking at the compliance work that we're currently doing.

Senator CANAVAN: I think this is a matter that has to be looked at a bit more seriously by somebody. I don't think we should get in the habit of departments deciding they can ignore acts of parliament, as you clearly have in this case.

Senator McKENZIE: Have you let the minister know that this is the department's decision, Mr Betts?

Mr Betts : I think it's now on the public record, so this will be wrapped up in their wider consideration of the full process.

Senator Chisholm: Based on the timing, it did expire under the previous government if the dates were correct.

Senator CANAVAN: I'm making it very clear. I think, from the evidence we've received, that it doesn't sound like it's been an explicit decision of the minister—if we can trust the advice and evidence we've been provided with here. The department said they'd made the decision to not comply with this particular act. I just want to be very clear: has the department, at any time, advised the minister or written to this minister or a minister in the previous government—

Senator McKENZIE: Any minister—not Catherine King but the minister in the previous government.

Senator CANAVAN: to say, 'We know that section 66(1) of this act says "this", but we've decided "this".' Has that happened?

Ms Purvis-Smith : I'd have to take that on notice.

Senator CANAVAN: I definitely think this needs to be—sorry, I'm not making a political point. I think it's very important for the parliament to know that the laws we pass are implemented by the departments and agencies established for that purpose.

Senator McKENZIE: Just on that, I would like you to table or supply the committee with internal documents to the department showing when and how that decision to not comply with the act was made.

Ms Purvis-Smith : We'll take that on notice.

CHAIR: Senato

Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997

With the above in mind, I note that yesterday Miniscule Dicky King got out from behind her desk and actually made an announcement of reforms to the Sydney Airport slot management...

Quote:Reforming Sydney Airport slots to boost efficiency, competition and consumers outcomes

MEDIA RELEASE: Wednesday 21 February 2024

The Australian Government is today announcing a major package of reforms to the Sydney Airport demand management scheme, improving the use of this significant piece of national infrastructure while maintaining community protections.

These reforms follow an extensive consultation process and will deliver better efficiency, competition and consumer outcomes.

The Government is not making any changes to the existing curfew arrangements or movement caps at Sydney Airport.

To encourage competition, the Government will update the demand management system so that it better aligns with modern international standards.

The Government will significantly increase transparency about how slots are allocated. Airlines will be required to provide regular information on how they use slots, such as reasons for cancellations or major delays, and this monitoring information will be regularly published.

Independent audits of slot usage will be undertaken, with results published, to better detect and crack down on anti-competitive behaviour. This will help make sure that travellers have better information about airline performance.

The first such audit will be carried out this year, meaning that any misuse of slots will be uncovered and acted upon as soon as possible.

To ensure slots are not misused, the Government will modernise the compliance regime to include penalties that address anti‑competitive behaviours, along with updated and strengthened enforcement tools for the Government to watch airlines more closely and take effective legal action where necessary.

The Government is modernising the process that allocates aircraft slots to airlines at Sydney Airport to make the system more competitive and efficient. This will benefit new entrant airlines wanting to set up new services, crack down on slot misuse and create a more level playing field in slot allocation processes.

To improve connectivity for regional communities, regional NSW services will be able to apply to use any slot during new peak period hours (changing from 6‑11am/3-8pm to 7-11am/5-8pm), not just the slots that are already set aside for priority access by regional NSW services. The peak period is changing to help free up currently unused slots during 6-7am and 3-5pm so that the airport can better operate in the way it was always intended to.

In addition, when allocating slots to airlines, the Slot Manager will be required to consider giving priority to regional NSW airlines asking for peak period slots (7‑11am/5‑8pm) among the other priorities for slot allocation.

The Government is also going to introduce reforms that will increase the resilience of Sydney Airport and Australia’s entire aviation network by introducing a ‘recovery period’. This strictly controlled ‘recovery period’ will be implemented after severe weather events or other major disruptions, for example security issues, to temporarily allow up to 85 movements per hour for a maximum of two hours on the same day following the disruption.

There will be no increase in the overall number of flights for that whole day. This is because the scheduling cap of 80 flights per hour will stay in place – only flights that are already scheduled to happen that day will be able to take off or land.

This recovery period will not extend into curfew hours and there will be mandatory publication of information about when and why the recovery period is used so that the community can be confident it is being used properly.

This change will not increase noise impacts on communities, but it will mean more travellers can reach their destinations and spend the night at home rather than on a terminal floor or in a hotel room.

This package of reforms will benefit the flying public and include strong protections for communities affected by aircraft noise and those in regional areas.

The Government will be consulting with community and industry organisations on the best way to implement these reforms ahead of bringing forward legislation to Parliament.

This is just one element of the Australian Government’s plan to reform Australia’s aviation sector to crack down on bad behaviour and deliver better outcomes for the travelling public.

The Aviation White Paper, to be released later this year, will have more to say, including in regards to consumer protections.

For more information visit https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/syd-demand

And from Oz Flying:

Quote:

80/20 RULE LOOKS TO SURVIVE GOVERNMENT OVERHAUL OF SYDNEY SLOTS
written by Jake Nelson | February 21, 2024

The Federal Government has unveiled a suite of reforms for the troubled Sydney Airport slot system, but has confirmed no change to the controversial 80/20 rule.

Movement caps and curfews will also remain at Sydney Airport, but the Government says its reforms will increase transparency around slot allocation, hold airlines accountable for “misuse” of slots, make the allocation process more efficient and introduce a “recovery period” after major delays.

Currently, an airline can keep a takeoff slot indefinitely as long as it operates the slot at least 80 per cent of the time, a rule whose architect – Rex deputy chairman John Sharp, who implemented it when he was in government – now calls it “too generous”...

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 02-29-2024

Sen Fawcett decimates Defence absurd decision to deny Ukraine Taipans?? -

Via Senator Fawcett's YouTube channel:


Hansard of above:

Quote:Senator FAWCETT: CDF and Secretary, can I acknowledge up-front that, whilst estimates processes can appear to be the parliament beating up on the department, I think everyone on the committee understands and respects the good work that the majority of people in Defence do day after day, supporting Australia, its interests and our community. But, as you've acknowledged in talking about the first principles review, we can always be better, and this process is designed to help the department to be as good as it can be. With that preamble, can I ask the question: who signs off on the briefs to government over issues such as the Taipan helicopter and its serviceability? Do you do that personally?

Gen. Campbell : Senator, I didn't hear the last part: the Taipan helicopter and something.

Senator FAWCETT: Its serviceability and availability and the Ukraine issue; all those things. Who signs off on those briefs to government?

Mr Moriarty : It does vary. Some submissions go through the CDF and me. Occasionally, there'll be a brief from the CDF or me. At other times it will be another appropriate officer in the department. Often, the CDF and I are copied in.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay. Let's be specific, then. Regarding the briefs around the Ukrainian requests for Taipan: who authorised those briefs to government in order to provide the ministers with talking points?

Mr Jeffrey : As the secretary has said, it does vary, so we'd need to take it on notice. Sometimes I can be signing the brief; sometimes it can be from the head of Military Strategic Commitments, if it's a specific operational item; and sometimes it can be the head of Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group. It depends on the issue of the advice.

Senator FAWCETT: There's one issue here, which is whether we provide the helicopters. One of the outcomes of the first principles review is supposed to be accountability. Who is accountable? Who is responsible for approving the briefs that go to government over this issue of whether we donate the Taipan to Ukraine?

Mr Jeffrey : I think we'll take it on notice. It's not about trying to obscure it; it's just that the questions around disposal of the MRH-90 are dealt with by the department, but there were three group heads or service chiefs: the Chief of Army, the Deputy Secretary of Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and I were all involved in that advice. As for who specifically signed it off, I'll need to get that on notice for you.

Senator FAWCETT: That would be useful. Given that it's some years after the implementation of the first principles review, where the whole intent was to move away from a committee process where nobody actually took responsibility, I'm a little disappointed to hear that, with an issue this live, we can't say who's responsible for advice to government. Can I take you to the three reasons that government ministers, quoting Defence advice, have given as to why we are not considering providing them and, in fact, have rebutted the request from the Ukrainians. One is that it's too late, one is that they're potentially not safe and the other is that they're not the right platform for Ukraine. There are some documents that I'd ask to be distributed, just in case you want to reference them. Minister Wong, in her response to me last week in question time, said that, by the time Defence had received the request from the ambassador from Ukraine, the helicopters had already been subject to extensive disassembly. If you look at document 1, which I've asked to be distributed, you will see that the Deputy Prime Minister, in a radio interview, said:

… what became clear is that the value in those frames lay in the spare parts that they could generate. Those frames have been since then stripped of those parts …

That's very clear messaging to the Australian people that it is too late. Who signed off on that brief?

Senator McAllister: Perhaps we can just wait for those documents to be distributed. None of those documents are before the officials at the moment.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. The question, though, is about who signed off on the brief to the government that the parts had already been stripped from the helicopters. You can verify that in the documents; that's fine. But the fact is that is what was said by the ministers, including Minister Wong just last week, who made that statement in the Senate. Who signed off on that brief?

Senator McAllister: Senator Fawcett, I'm not trying to be difficult. You have very thoughtfully—I appreciate it—prepared copies that are shortly, I understand, to be distributed to officials. I'm reluctant to ask them to comment on material that they can't see.

Senator FAWCETT: Okay. Minister, do you deny that Defence has provided a brief to the government on the Taipan helicopter and included the fact that parts have been stripped?

Senator McAllister: That is a question that you can put to the officials.

Senator FAWCETT: I have just put the question and I want to know who signed off on that brief.

Mr Philip : The government received a letter from the Ukrainian government, dated 17 December and received on 19 December, in relation to this request. We provided advice to the government—to the acting defence minister—on 8 January. On 18 January, the acting defence minister sent a response letter to the Ukrainian ambassador.

Senator FAWCETT: That's very helpful, but it doesn't answer the question. Who signed off on the brief that enabled both Minister Wong and the Deputy Prime Minister to say to the Australian public that all the parts have been removed? Who signed off on that brief?

Mr Jeffrey : I'll just repeat the answer. We'll need to take on notice who specifically signed the advice. It's not typically something that we would offer to this committee. The nature of advice to government is obviously confidential. Who signs it is less important than that it comes from the department, but we will take it on notice.

Senator FAWCETT: Let's start there. The department writ large is responsible; okay. As for the photographs that have been published by various news channels and the ABC—I recognise that they were not taken last week; they are a few weeks old—I have information from people on the ground that they are largely representative of the fact that aircraft still with engines, main rotor gearboxes, main rotor heads, tail rotor gearboxes and tail rotors are sitting in the hangar in Townsville, which says that the statements that have been provided for the ministers to make are not technically accurate. They may have been accurate for the airframes that were at 6th Regiment in Holsworthy, but they are not representative of the whole fleet. Who did the due diligence to fact-check that advice before it was provided to government, given that the evidence that has come to light shows that there are aircraft in Townsville which, whilst they have had parts removed and are not flyable, are still airworthy and, in some cases, substantially complete?

Major Gen. King : My division is responsible for the sustainment and acquisition of all of the helicopters, including the MRH-90 and, indeed, the disposal process and working with Airbus Australia Pacific and NATO Helicopters in relation to the disposal process. The photos that you refer to that were unlawfully taken in that facility were taken some months ago and not some weeks ago; nonetheless, I take your point in relation to the configuration of those aircraft. As for the statements that have been made about those aircraft and their status of disassembly, at no stage have we discussed the aeromechanical components; we've discussed the level of disassembly. I do not refute that there are, in some cases, aspects such as main rotor gearboxes and landing gear still attached to those aircraft. You would appreciate, given your experience, that items such as main rotor gearboxes are large. They require care in handling and, in many cases, it makes no sense to remove those from the aircraft until you are ready to transport them or you have the equipment to move them appropriately.

All of the aircraft that have been removed from service have undertaken a demilitarisation process, and this largely is where we refer to the disassembly. I note that in the media many have spoken about things such as well-meaning people who are capable of reassembling aircraft. The complexity is not in the aeromechanical components. It's not in the rotor blades or the gearboxes; it's in the black boxes and their interface into the software of the aircraft. The first of the three phases of disposal was demilitarisation. That is removing sensitive items, ITAR items, such as the radios, the plant computers and the self-protection systems. Many of those systems you can't see in those photos because they sit inside the aircraft. They are fundamental to how a software-driven aircraft operates. They are not aeromechanical components. But you cannot fly that aircraft, even in a degraded way, without those systems being attached to the aircraft.

When we talk about the complexity of the system, we're talking about those systems that you can't see in those photos that relate to how we've commenced the disassembly. Of course, a number of the mechanical components, such as engines and gearboxes, have been removed from the aircraft and are being fed back through, as per the disposal process, to support what was agreed, which was to support the other nations in feeding those parts back in through the OEM to support their chronic supply chain issues.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. I accept all that you have said, but it does not change the fact that one of the priority parts is tail rotor gearboxes. People across the world who operate this aircraft know that tail rotor gearboxes are a priority, so they would be one of the first things that would be removed. But there are still, as we speak today, aircraft in the hangar that have tail rotor gearboxes attached. So, the statements that have been made that all those parts have been stripped and it's beyond recovery and it's too late, which I assume ministers have made on the basis of advice from Defence, are not correct. Whilst I understand your point that things like crypto or radios that have ITAR significance have been removed, other nations have provided F-16s and other complex aircraft—again, often fly-by-wire type equipment—and the Ukrainians have worked with other partners to resolve those issues. So, the statement that Defence has made—the first of the three points—that it is too late, is true for some airframes but not the whole fleet. Can I get your confirmation that there are still some aircraft in Townsville which, whilst not complete, are not beyond recovery and are still airworthy, in that the parts have been removed by qualified technicians, using appropriate procedures and appropriate documentation?

Major Gen. King : If I understand your question, Senator, you've asked two questions about the status and the configuration of those aircraft and about the process under an airworthiness system in order to remove those components and, potentially, reattach or put those components back on the aircraft. Yes, I can confirm that there are some dynamic components—by that, I mean gearboxes—that are still on aircraft in Townsville. There are a significant number of components that have been removed, though, from all aircraft, including those in Townsville, that make it complex. I haven't had a chance to read what you've provided, but I don't believe that it has been said that those aircraft have been completely disassembled or all disassembled. I think we've used the term 'largely disassembled'. I think the context is the complexity of reassembly, and not just the aeromechanical components but also the avionics systems and their interface into the software. In relation to your second point, about the airworthiness system, I can confirm that, within a week of the government announcing the cessation of flying, on 29 September, we had removed or reduced substantially the airworthiness framework around all of those aircraft, simply to support the removal of those components in an airworthy fashion so that they could be inducted back into the OEM. The aircraft themselves and many of the components that were identified as not being available for disposal or re-use no longer sat inside that airworthiness framework.

The perception that we could simply reattach those components to these aircraft is not true. We have not had an airworthiness framework around those airframes for nearly five months. A boring but important nuance in relation to how we manage these aircraft is that, when we were told to remove them from service, and the contract for sustainment of these aircraft ceased on 31 December 2023, we made a conscious decision, from the announcement of the government, to minimise the costs, step back from the contract and focus on disposal through sourcing those parts off the aircraft and not to focus consciously on things such as the airframes, where there was no interest from other suppliers or other parties who operate the aircraft.

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. Can I go to the second point, then, around safety. In document No. 7 that I have given you, Minister Conroy says about the aircraft, in an interview with the ABC: 'We have no idea whether they're safe. We don't know if they're safe to fly. We have not established whether they're safe to fly. We still don't know whether these aircraft are safe to fly. We don't know whether they're safe to fly.' Five times he makes that assertion. Has Defence provided a briefing to government ministers that the aircraft are not safe?

Lt Gen. Stuart : As you are aware, there are two air safety investigations that are currently underway by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau. We have not, and won't, draw any suppositions or conclusions before those reports are delivered. We currently expect them in April and September this year, I believe. There is no assertion or assessment around safety of the aircraft. The aircraft were grounded post the 28 July crash in the vicinity of the Whitsunday Islands, which resulted in four fatalities. Those investigations are underway. I can't speak to the minister's comments. I would expect that he was referring to the fact that those air safety investigations are underway. We've not made any assertions about the safety of the aircraft in drafting our advice as to their suitability for gifting to Ukraine.

Senator FAWCETT: I know the chair wants to wind up for morning tea. I will ask two more questions on safety; I will come back to the third issue afterwards. Document 4 which I have provided is the statement by NHIndustries after they had analysed the flight data recorder of the aircraft which had the incident in the Whitsundays. They made the point that there is no issue that has been identified with the aircraft. All systems are operating normally, which is why they did not propose to make any modifications or recommendations to other operators. Army, I am assuming, is aware of that statement that the aircraft is safe to operate, which is why New Zealand, France, Germany and other nations have continued safe operations.

Lt Gen. Stuart : Yes, Senator. We worked with the OEM to ensure access and analysis. We worked with them for the analysis. The Defence Flight Safety Bureau worked with them for the analysis of the voice and flight data recorder. It's a statement of record and fact from the data that was gathered from the voice and flight data recorder that, at the point of the accident, the engines were functioning normally. That's a fact. But drawing inference from that around broader safety issues is not what we are doing; nor should anybody else. That is for the Defence Flight Safety Bureau to determine, in terms of getting to understand the causal factors for both the Jervis Bay and the Whitsunday tragic accident on 28 July.

Senator FAWCETT: That is a valid comment for ADF operations, but the person who made this statement, NHIndustries, operate under the NATO airworthiness management framework. They have made the decision that this helicopter type is safe to return to flight. Do you acknowledge that?

Lt Gen. Stuart : I acknowledge, and I don't dispute that.

Senator FAWCETT: The submission that was made by the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations for a joint standing committee inquiry quotes Australian Defence officials who have reflected to them that the MRH-90 is a safe helicopter. Do you accept the fact that the Defence Force is telling people in the Australian community that this helicopter is safe?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We have never made any claims that the aircraft isn't safe. That can exist at the same time as the fact that there are two air safety investigations underway.

Senator FAWCETT: I accept that.

Lt Gen. Stuart : That is the reason for the decision to ground the helicopters in the first instance, particularly in relation to the Whitsunday accident, and the fact that there were four fatalities, and the air safety investigations will determine the causal factors. But we've never made any claims that the aircraft wasn't safe. The claims around its suitability and the decisions that have been taken around its withdrawal from service are quite separate from the grounding.

Senator FAWCETT: We will come to those after morning tea.

CHAIR: On that note, we will break for morning tea.

Proceedings suspended from 10:35 to 10:53

CHAIR: Welcome back, everyone.

Senator FAWCETT: Just to recap: we have been talking about advice to the government that has had the government saying to the Australian public that it was too late, that the aircraft were not safe, and that they are not the right platform. We have subsequently established that the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister have since been stripped, that they were not accurate, and that the aircraft are safe—as demonstrated by NHI and other operators. Senator Wong said in question time last week:

The advice from Defence was clear that this was not the right platform for Ukraine and Defence, and the government made decisions on that basis.

Who provided that advice to government, and on what basis?

Senator McAllister: May I make an overarching remark before asking the officials to respond? You commenced your question by characterising the evidence that was provided earlier. I do not think that accurately characterises what was described to you. Officials are happy to put on the public record their understanding of the issues before you and respond to your questions, but I don't think it assists to then summarise their advice in a way that is inconsistent with the material that is before the committee.

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, thank you for that chiding.

Senator McAllister: It is a challenge, isn't it? The officials have given advice—

Senator FAWCETT: Minister, you have asked previously not to be talked over. Could I ask for the same courtesy? Thank you. The interaction highlighted that there were some concerns; that it wasn't only mechanical parts, but electronic parts that had been removed, countered by the fact that it is a standard part of maintenance procedures to remove and replace. The Ukrainians have adapted to the same condition with other advanced systems from other nations. So it is not too late. It is a factor, but it doesn't mean that it is too late to consider, which is the point I am making. I come to the third point. What qualifications does someone here have to say that this is not the right platform for the Ukrainians, when the Ukrainians have done their own analysis, have spoken to their partners in Europe, and have decided that they would like to ask for it?

Lt Gen. Stuart : I might start by framing the thinking which underpinned my part of the advice. The first of the four points I would make is in relation to the substantive issue of gifting to Ukraine. It is something we take seriously. I will speak only for Army's contribution to that support for Ukraine. There are two key parts: one is that we have contributed over 517—

Senator FAWCETT: General Stuart, we have limited time. I am aware of what we have done in the past. I am asking specifically about the Taipan, and on what basis the decision was made that it was not a suitable platform. What were the qualifications of those who made that decision?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We are looking for things that are going to be suitable for the task and sustainable. In the case of the MRH, my understanding is that the task was for a CASEVAC, a casualty evacuation platform. In my experience, it is not suitable for that task. You need to have a reliable aircraft for that task, and it needs to be dedicated. That is based on our nearly two decades of experience with this platform and the performance of the system, which is consistent with all of the other user nations, which has seen an availability rate in the order of 40 per cent across the global fleet. So our people, both uniformed and contractors, for nearly two decades have worked exceptionally hard and have done a phenomenal job to get the very best out of this system. That is the best the system is capable of providing. One of the key challenges in the system, which is well documented, and which has been discussed in this committee over a number of years, is the support system and the paucity of spare parts. That system, and the paucity of spare parts, have not changed. Thirdly, it is extremely expensive to operate. I gave testimony last time that it was in the order of $45,000 per flight hour. It is well north of that now. It is a complex system, as General King and I know that you inherently understand.

Regardless of whether it is the ADF operating the aircraft, NATO partners or Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest that the system would be able to perform any better than it currently has done, and provide any better than 40 per cent availability. That is just not sufficient and doesn't provide the assurance for any commander if it were to be used for a CASEVAC platform.

In terms of the second part of your question—

Senator FAWCETT: Could I just address that first part before we move on to the second. Could I ask that document 6 and document 2 be distributed. Document 6, which you will get in a minute, is a document released by the New Zealand Defence Force under freedom of information, or their equivalent of it. It highlights that they are getting over 70 per cent availability—on average, six out of eight aircraft available for their usage—which is why they are very happy with the performance of the aircraft. That's a recent assessment of their availability. Document 2 is based on cabinet papers from New Zealand—and these were revealed by Radio New Zealand—highlighting that the New Zealanders deliberately chose the same configuration as the Australians so that they would be able to share non-recurring engineering costs et cetera. We're talking about a near neighbour who is operating essentially the same platform—bar the HMSD; I think they use ordinary NVGs—which is capable of being configured with 12 stretchers in the aeromedical evacuation role. They are getting over 70 per cent availability, which is probably better than almost any other fleet that we have here in Australia.

Document 5—if I can get that distributed as well—highlights that they do that with their deeper maintenance, the 600-hour maintenance, being done by a team of only 13 people. That's done in accordance with Airbus procedures, run by Airbus in one location, which is exactly what the Ukrainians have proposed in their request.

We have very clear evidence from our nearest neighbour that the same configuration of aircraft that we have, run in a maintenance program operated predominantly by Airbus, in accordance with their procedures, in one location, can get over 70 per cent availability in an aircraft that can be configured to carry 12 casualties. Why is the Australian defence department advising government and saying to the public that it's not suitable, when our nearest neighbour can achieve those kinds of performance outcomes and their model is what Ukraine is proposing to operate?

Lt Gen. Stuart : We are not comparing like for like. The calculation of availability in the instance of the New Zealand fleet does not count the aircraft that aren't in what I would characterise as the operational fleet. What does that mean? If we put it in the Australian context, we would have to have in the order of six to eight additional aircraft that aren't counted in the rate of effort generation. In other words, if we were to compare on a like-for-like basis, we would need to have a bigger fleet, more aircraft available, but the availability statistics are only calculated on the smaller operational fleet, if that makes sense.

Senator FAWCETT: The figures they provide break down into both availability and serviceability. They highlight that their serviceability—I probably should have used that word—which is aircraft online, available for them to use, is an average of six out of eight. The availability is actually higher than that. Their day-to-day serviceability for people to sign out and go flying, for the Ukrainians to deploy on an AME mission, is over 70 per cent.

Major Gen. King : That's representative of eight aircraft across a worldwide fleet of just under 500 aircraft at the time. I go back to the original equipment manufacturer's data on the rolling averages. Over the last five years, that worldwide fleet has achieved between 35 and 42 per cent availability, with the exception of a three-month period. As well as that, in terms of Australia flying this aircraft, in August 2013 we became the world leader in hours flown on this aircraft. Our 59,000 hours represents 15,000 hours more than any other country in the world. What I infer from your statements is that we don't know how to operate this aircraft. I think we do know how to operate this aircraft. We're very proud of what we have achieved, but we actually have not been able to achieve anywhere near the contracted capability.

In terms of that New Zealand piece, there are some nuances in relation to how they operate the aircraft. I think it is important to reflect on all of the operators and the chronic issues that everyone is dealing with, including New Zealand, around things like supply chains.

Senator FAWCETT: General King, thank you. I am sure the Ukrainians will be happy to apply the same nuances that New Zealand do. I'd also point out that, in terms of the global figures, after Norway ditched their fleet—and that has been frequently referred to by the Norwegian equivalent of the ANAO—their internal review highlighted that part of the problem with spares was that the Norwegian defence force hadn't actually ordered the spares that they needed; hence, there were delays. They said there was as much blame on the Norwegian side as there was on NHIndustries' side. But the point is: if eight aircraft were gifted to Ukraine and they worked with their partners, as they indicated that they wish to, to operate in the same manner, with the same nuances—to use your word—as the New Zealanders do, they would have a viable AME capability. Mr Moriarty, an answer to a question on notice from Senator Reynolds about assistance to Ukraine was:

Defence has a range of mechanisms, including consultation with other government agencies and partner governments, to determine the most appropriate support to Ukraine.

Clearly, there has not been consultation with Germany or France over this issue of the NH helicopter as a support for Ukraine. Before any further disassembly is done, given that the aircraft are not irrecoverable, given that they are safe to fly and given that it is proven by a near neighbour that, with certain nuances, they can achieve over 70 per cent serviceability and they're suitable for the AME task, will the government stop the removal of parts, consult, as per your stated process, with partner nations and Ukraine to see whether there is a will on behalf of Germany and France to support Ukraine as per their request, and then gift them the existing aircraft in their existing state so that there's no more expenditure of resources and money required by the Australian defence department, so that they can work with their European partners to establish whether it's six or eight or 10 aircraft to save the lives of their troops, given that they are losing some 30,000 men, wounded or killed, every month, which is half the ADF every month? Will the government commit to actually following its process, engage with partners and see what the art of the possible is before we blindly proceed to dig a hole and bury these helicopters?

Mr Moriarty : What I can assure the committee is that we will continue to engage closely with the Ukraine contact group, where a number of the key partners of Ukraine internationally meet regularly to talk about Ukraine's requests and priorities. Those are discussed. General Campbell has participated in some of those conversations; the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed. We are actively engaged with the contact group to discuss and work through Ukraine's priority requirements.

Senator FAWCETT: But have you raised the issue of Ukraine's request for Taipans and ascertained the willingness of those partners, who are the key shareholders and interested parties in the MRH or NH90 globally, as to whether they are happy to support Ukraine's request, as Ukraine has indicated they are?

Mr Moriarty : What I am prepared to say is that air support, including rotary wing, has been a topic of some discussion in the contact group.

CHAIR: I understand Senator Green has one clarifying question.

Senator GREEN: The MRH-90 is something I have learned a little bit about recently, being based up in North Queensland. When did Defence first assess the option of providing MRH-90 aircraft to Ukraine?

Mr Philip : We received a letter from the Ukrainian government dated 17 December 2023. It was received on 19 December. We worked across Defence to assess that request, drawing upon Army Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group in terms of the operation of the platform, and within International Policy Division we worked through the international policy aspects of our support to Ukraine.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: No consideration was given by anybody at any time prior to that?

Mr Philip : We regularly have discussions with the Ukrainian government, with the Ukrainian ambassador. As the secretary mentioned, we participate in the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. We work with other partners and are constantly assessing options to provide support to the Ukrainian government. In the course of discussions—I won't go into the details of government-to-government discussions—with the Ukrainian ambassador on 24 October, he raised a range of possible options for support involving Australian Defence Force platforms that were in stages of disposal. We gave him an update on the status of the MRH-90 capability. It was not a formal request. We did not conduct a formal assessment at that time. As I said, we are constantly in the process of assessing options for support to Ukraine. Depending on how a proposal develops and where we fit that into our priorities, we will dedicate more resources to that assessment. As I mentioned earlier, a formal request didn't come until that letter of 17 December.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: Does government ever get proactive—

CHAIR: Senator Birmingham, sorry, but it is not the coalition's call. Lieutenant General, you had something to add. Then I'm going back to Senator Lambie, who had one clarifying point, then Senator Shoebridge, who has been very patient. Could you please provide a very short response to the question.

Lt Gen. Stuart : To add to my colleague's response to your question, Senator Birmingham, in May of 2022, which coincided with a range of requests for gifting to Ukraine but didn't include helicopters, we did look at and consider the option of gifting MRH. The reasons that we have been discussing informed the advice.

Verdict: Senator Fawcett when morally engaged is a LETHAL WEAPON...

MTF...P2

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 06-13-2024

Betsy's: How to obfuscate Budget Estimates on the Aviation Sector?? - 

From Betsy's FOI disclosure log:

Quote:10 May 2024 FOI 24-278 2023–2024 Additional Budget Estimates—Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport—Departmental Key Briefs

From the 541 pages, of possible Senate Estimates talking points and possible Senator questions, the Aviation Sector gets mentions from pages 350 to 402 and includes such subjects as the Croc-o-shite report, Aviation Agencies: Funding & current issues and of course the Aviation White (Elephant) Paper:

Quote:Key Issues Transport Safety and Investigation Bodies Funding and Operational Review (the Review)
• On September 2023, the Government appointed Professor John Skerritt to lead the Review. As part of the Review, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts is providing secretariat support.
• To inform the Review, an external consultant was contracted to undertake Activity Based Costing models and stakeholder consultation was undertaken with a range of aviation, maritime and rail stakeholders.
• The Review will provide the Government with a report detailing recommendations for consideration as part of the 2024-25 Budget process. OneSKY
• The OneSKY/Civil Military Air Traffic Management System (CMATS) Program is an Airservices and Defence partnership to replace Australia’s ageing and separate civil and military air traffic management systems with a new single national system.
• The Program has incurred significant delays and the Defence component has been listed as a Project of Concern (POC) by the Minister for Defence Industry. This decision was publicly announced on 27 October 2022. Governance and reporting measures have been strengthened to enable identification and treatment of emerging risks and issues.
• Four POC Summits have been held, to pave a way forward for the Program. The latest was held in early December 2023, co-convened by the Minister for Defence Industry, the Hon Pat Conroy MP, and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Catherine King MP. A fifth POC is scheduled for May 2024. Further information is available in media releases published by Minister Conroy. ATSB Safety Findings
• On 22 November 2023, the ATSB released its investigation report into a helicopter accident near King River, Northern Territory, which resulted in the death of a person collecting crocodile eggs while suspended on a sling line from the helicopter.
• The report found that CASA did not have an effective process in place for assuring an authorisation would be unlikely to adversely affect safety. As a result, CASA delegates did not: identify and assess the risks; ensure appropriate and adequate mitigations were included as conditions of the approval; or assess the effects of changes on the overall risk. This resulted in the removal of height, speed, and exposure limits, allowing carriage of the egg collector above a survivable fall height.

---

[If raised] – Will the Aviation White Paper deliver Sydney Airport slot reform?
• The Government is considering the recommendations from the Review of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Scheme, an independent review by Mr. Peter Harris AO.
• The Government has recently concluded targeted consultation regarding potential changes to the Scheme, with a particular eye to modernising the slot allocation framework and strengthening compliance measures to ensure that slots are not being misused by airlines. • The Government has stated it will have more announcements to make about these reforms in due course. [If raised] – How will the Aviation White Paper support achieving net zero by 2050?
• The Government has committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and has implemented new reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism requiring annual emissions reductions for Australia’s largest emitters, including Qantas and Virgin Australia.
• The Aviation Green Paper outlines potential policy settings that support the aviation sector’s transition to net zero and seeks industry and community views on these.
• The policy settings are also being considered by the Jet Zero Council, which brings together representatives from across Australia’s aviation industry with government to collaborate on the most effective ways to reduce emissions.
• The Council is considering the role of sustainable aviation fuels, emerging technologies and operational efficiencies on the path to net zero.
• The Government is also developing a Transport and Infrastructure Net Zero Roadmap. The Roadmap will form the Australian Government’s sectoral emissions reduction plan for transport, including aviation (refer to SB23-000858 - Net Zero Transport and Infrastructure Roadmap for additional information). [If raised] – Will the Aviation White Paper ensure a more transparent and open bilateral framework?
• The policy of successive governments has been to negotiate bilateral agreements that provide ‘capacity ahead of demand’ and seek benefits in the national interest. • Australia has air services agreements with more than 100 countries facilitating international travel to and from Australia.
• The department will undertake bilateral negotiations with other key international priority markets over the next year. These markets are determined after consultation with airlines, airports, tourism bodies, and government agencies.
• The Aviation Green Paper notes the Government considers the current approach to bilateral air services negotiations appears well adapted to supporting the national interest, but seeks stakeholder views on opportunities to improve the approach to international negotiations.
• Refer to SB23-000944 – Bilateral Air Services Agreements for additional information.

Hmm...IMO the notable omission in this Betsy weasel worded confection is the ICAO audit final report findings and recommendations?? - 

MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 07-06-2024

AIOS is endemic under the Can'tberra bubble?? -  (AIOS - "acquired institutionalised ostrichitis syndrome")

I note that yesterday there was a short public hearing for the Senate Support for Ukraine inquiry - via YouTube:

Quote:Excellent evidence  presented by Kateryna Argyrou (Co-Chair of Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations) but very damning on the disingenuous Albanese government and overburdening, inept Federal Bureaucracy.

You will see that there is mention of the bizarre failing of the Albanese goverment and the Defence bureaucracy to facilitate the donating of our much maligned fleet of Taipan helicopters to Ukraine. The following APDR headline and subsequent article is a reminder of how that self-serving bureaucratic decision was seen with incredulity by our international counterparts...

Quote:Australian Army blocks Taipan helicopters for Ukraine to cover up their own failures

By Kym Bergmann -08/02/2024



The truth is finally starting to come out.  It took only 90 seconds and two questions from Senator David Fawcett to Foreign Minister Penny Wong to confirm what many have long suspected – the only thing between desperately needed Taipan helicopters being donated to Ukraine is a veto by the Army, which the government is too weak to overrule.

The following exchange took place on Wednesday 7 February:

Quote:Sen Fawcett: The reality is that Ukraine first expressed an interest in using the Taipans for casualty evacuation during a meeting I held with them during a NATO conference in October last year – and I made sure that your government was advised of that interest even before I left Copenhagen and returned to Australia. Minister – why didn’t the Albanese government even bother to pick up the phone to consult the Ukrainians before deciding on a plan to dig a hole and bury the helicopters?

Sen Wong: As I understand it, in relation to these matters the Government has acted on advice from Defence.  The advice I have is that the advice from Defence is that these were not the right platform for Ukraine and the Government and Defence made decisions on that basis.

Sen Fawcett: Minister, I think the Ukrainians are well placed to decide what platforms will keep their soldiers alive (shouts of Hear! Hear!). Now that the Government has a formal request from Ukraine – and it has been established that a number of helicopters remain airworthy in Townsville – will the Albanese government reverse its decision and donate the aircraft, even in their current state, to allow Ukraine to work with its NATO partners that continue to safely operate the same type of helicopter to establish an Aeromedical capability to save the lives of their people?

Sen Wong: In relation to this issue, I will continue to take the advice from Defence about the best way forward for this platform, but also I will make the broader point that the government continues to keep under review the nature and breadth of the assistance to Ukraine.

The arrogance of the Australian Army in deciding what is, and what is not, suitable for Ukraine is a level beyond breathtaking.

The last time the Army was engaged in a conflict of the scale and savagery of the invasion of Ukraine would have been during the Siege of Tobruk in 1941 – and even that was a minor skirmish compared with the ongoing assaults being launched daily by Russian forces.  Taking into account the static nature of much of the current conflict and the use of massed artillery, and the daily casualty rate, one would need to go back to Passchendaele on the Western Front in late 1917 for a closer analogy.

The armed forces of Ukraine have collected more combat experience in the last two years than the ADF has in the previous six decades.  When they say that they can make good use of Taipans it is ridiculous that the Australian Army from the comfort of the offices of Canberra can overrule their request.

Ukraine is well aware that the Taipan/NH90 family have an excellent safety record – and the sensor mix is unmatched in its class.

The motivation is obvious: senior officers in the Army would be highly embarrassed if another nation was able to safely and effectively operate Taipans when they have so mismanaged the program.  While prime contractor Airbus Helicopters is not completely without blame, the poor availability of Taipans is explained largely by:

• Not enough trained and qualified aircrew;
  
• Not enough spare parts ordered;
  
• Unintegrated logistic data bases such as CAMM2;
  
• A deliberate unwillingness to learn from successful operators, such as New Zealand;
  
• Too many geographically diverse centres of support;
  
• A support contract that gave Defence a perverse financial incentive to ground the fleet;
  
• Spurious or unnecessary groundings, caused by a failure to implement updates recommended by the manufacturer
  

This list needs to be combined with an unhealthy, illogical and uncontested obsession on the part of a few senior Army officers to return the good old days of Black Hawk helicopters.
As has been widely reported, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of returning between 12 and 20 helicopters to flying condition will be minimal because there are plenty of volunteers to do the work for free: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-07/last-ditch-offer-to-divert-taipan-helicopters-help-ukraine/103434286

If even that is unacceptable, then the Government should transport helicopters and parts to Europe and let Ukraine’s NATO allies France and Germany – major operators of the Taipan / NH90 family – do the work over there.

At about the same time as Senator Fawcett’s questions, Defence Minister Richard Marles had an extraordinarily softball interview on the ABC’s “Afternoon Briefing” program during which he made a number of inconsistent or misleading claims:

• He said he had no idea how much the Taipan parts would be sold for. How then can he claim that this strategy represents the best value for money for taxpayers;
  
• Claimed that the dismantling had commenced before the request from Ukraine had been received. This is close to a lie – Senator Fawcett advised the government of Ukraine’s interest around October 10; disassembly started around October 19;
  
• He said on several occasions that Army faces a major capability gap with the early retirement of Taipans and was unable to say when, or how many, Black Hawks will be fully operational, despite the expedited delivery of 12 of them. Even if the first 12 are operational by the end of 2024 that does not replace 45 Taipans. There is no logical explanation for why this has been allowed to happen;
  
• Repeated that Australia – not Ukraine – is better placed to decide what is “useful and practical” for the armed forces of Ukraine.
  

Clearly, the Australian Army has convinced the Government to fully back their strategy of destroying Taipans simply to stop anyone else from using them.  In their minds, the fate of Ukraine is far less important than covering up for their own incompetence and mismanagement.

In some remarks at the end of Question Time, Senator Fawcett commented that Army – and the Government – are more interested in saving face than in saving the lives of Ukrainian soldiers. He concluded:

“That is not the Australia that I know. That is not the Australia that has put its shoulder to the wheel many times to support like-minded nations – particularly here, where we are seeing such a great loss of life and injury to their population as they fight against totalitarian regimes in order to protect the democracy that we share and want to preserve.”

The above mirrors very closely the same disengaged and overburdened Federal aviation bureaucracy (with no proper oversight from a totally disinterested and inept Minister of the Crown), that seemingly makes shit up and disregards serious industry concerns on matters of essential aviation infrastructure and unnecessary over-regulation...


MTF...P2 

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Peetwo - 07-07-2024

(07-06-2024, 10:30 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  AIOS is endemic under the Can'tberra bubble?? -  (AIOS - "acquired institutionalised ostrichitis syndrome")

I note that yesterday there was a short public hearing for the Senate Support for Ukraine inquiry - via YouTube:

Quote:Excellent evidence  presented by Kateryna Argyrou (Co-Chair of Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations) but very damning on the disingenuous Albanese government and overburdening, inept Federal Bureaucracy.

You will see that there is mention of the bizarre failing of the Albanese goverment and the Defence bureaucracy to facilitate the donating of our much maligned fleet of Taipan helicopters to Ukraine. The following APDR headline and subsequent article is a reminder of how that self-serving bureaucratic decision was seen with incredulity by our international counterparts...

Quote:Australian Army blocks Taipan helicopters for Ukraine to cover up their own failures

By Kym Bergmann -08/02/2024



The truth is finally starting to come out.  It took only 90 seconds and two questions from Senator David Fawcett to Foreign Minister Penny Wong to confirm what many have long suspected – the only thing between desperately needed Taipan helicopters being donated to Ukraine is a veto by the Army, which the government is too weak to overrule.

The following exchange took place on Wednesday 7 February:

Quote:Sen Fawcett: The reality is that Ukraine first expressed an interest in using the Taipans for casualty evacuation during a meeting I held with them during a NATO conference in October last year – and I made sure that your government was advised of that interest even before I left Copenhagen and returned to Australia. Minister – why didn’t the Albanese government even bother to pick up the phone to consult the Ukrainians before deciding on a plan to dig a hole and bury the helicopters?

Sen Wong: As I understand it, in relation to these matters the Government has acted on advice from Defence.  The advice I have is that the advice from Defence is that these were not the right platform for Ukraine and the Government and Defence made decisions on that basis.

Sen Fawcett: Minister, I think the Ukrainians are well placed to decide what platforms will keep their soldiers alive (shouts of Hear! Hear!). Now that the Government has a formal request from Ukraine – and it has been established that a number of helicopters remain airworthy in Townsville – will the Albanese government reverse its decision and donate the aircraft, even in their current state, to allow Ukraine to work with its NATO partners that continue to safely operate the same type of helicopter to establish an Aeromedical capability to save the lives of their people?

Sen Wong: In relation to this issue, I will continue to take the advice from Defence about the best way forward for this platform, but also I will make the broader point that the government continues to keep under review the nature and breadth of the assistance to Ukraine.

The arrogance of the Australian Army in deciding what is, and what is not, suitable for Ukraine is a level beyond breathtaking.

The last time the Army was engaged in a conflict of the scale and savagery of the invasion of Ukraine would have been during the Siege of Tobruk in 1941 – and even that was a minor skirmish compared with the ongoing assaults being launched daily by Russian forces.  Taking into account the static nature of much of the current conflict and the use of massed artillery, and the daily casualty rate, one would need to go back to Passchendaele on the Western Front in late 1917 for a closer analogy.

The armed forces of Ukraine have collected more combat experience in the last two years than the ADF has in the previous six decades.  When they say that they can make good use of Taipans it is ridiculous that the Australian Army from the comfort of the offices of Canberra can overrule their request.

Ukraine is well aware that the Taipan/NH90 family have an excellent safety record – and the sensor mix is unmatched in its class.

The motivation is obvious: senior officers in the Army would be highly embarrassed if another nation was able to safely and effectively operate Taipans when they have so mismanaged the program.  While prime contractor Airbus Helicopters is not completely without blame, the poor availability of Taipans is explained largely by:

• Not enough trained and qualified aircrew;
  
• Not enough spare parts ordered;
  
• Unintegrated logistic data bases such as CAMM2;
  
• A deliberate unwillingness to learn from successful operators, such as New Zealand;
  
• Too many geographically diverse centres of support;
  
• A support contract that gave Defence a perverse financial incentive to ground the fleet;
  
• Spurious or unnecessary groundings, caused by a failure to implement updates recommended by the manufacturer
  

This list needs to be combined with an unhealthy, illogical and uncontested obsession on the part of a few senior Army officers to return the good old days of Black Hawk helicopters.
As has been widely reported, the cost to the Australian taxpayer of returning between 12 and 20 helicopters to flying condition will be minimal because there are plenty of volunteers to do the work for free: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-07/last-ditch-offer-to-divert-taipan-helicopters-help-ukraine/103434286

If even that is unacceptable, then the Government should transport helicopters and parts to Europe and let Ukraine’s NATO allies France and Germany – major operators of the Taipan / NH90 family – do the work over there.

At about the same time as Senator Fawcett’s questions, Defence Minister Richard Marles had an extraordinarily softball interview on the ABC’s “Afternoon Briefing” program during which he made a number of inconsistent or misleading claims:

• He said he had no idea how much the Taipan parts would be sold for. How then can he claim that this strategy represents the best value for money for taxpayers;
  
• Claimed that the dismantling had commenced before the request from Ukraine had been received. This is close to a lie – Senator Fawcett advised the government of Ukraine’s interest around October 10; disassembly started around October 19;
  
• He said on several occasions that Army faces a major capability gap with the early retirement of Taipans and was unable to say when, or how many, Black Hawks will be fully operational, despite the expedited delivery of 12 of them. Even if the first 12 are operational by the end of 2024 that does not replace 45 Taipans. There is no logical explanation for why this has been allowed to happen;
  
• Repeated that Australia – not Ukraine – is better placed to decide what is “useful and practical” for the armed forces of Ukraine.
  

Clearly, the Australian Army has convinced the Government to fully back their strategy of destroying Taipans simply to stop anyone else from using them.  In their minds, the fate of Ukraine is far less important than covering up for their own incompetence and mismanagement.

In some remarks at the end of Question Time, Senator Fawcett commented that Army – and the Government – are more interested in saving face than in saving the lives of Ukrainian soldiers. He concluded:

“That is not the Australia that I know. That is not the Australia that has put its shoulder to the wheel many times to support like-minded nations – particularly here, where we are seeing such a great loss of life and injury to their population as they fight against totalitarian regimes in order to protect the democracy that we share and want to preserve.”

The above mirrors very closely the same disengaged and overburdened Federal aviation bureaucracy (with no proper oversight from a totally disinterested and inept Minister of the Crown), that seemingly makes shit up and disregards serious industry concerns on matters of essential aviation infrastructure and unnecessary over-regulation...

Addendum:

For a truly exemplar Senate Inquiry submission the 28 page AFUO contribution is well worth the read but as an Australian very embarrassing in the AFUO's clinical appraisal of the Albo Government and bureaucracy ineptitude to properly and efficiently administer support for the Ukrainian nation and it's people... : https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?hearingid=31560&submissions=true

Quote:1) MRH90 Taipans

The ‘MRH-90 Taipan helicopters’ decision, which first emerged through reporter Kym Bergmann’s work
in December 2023, was a huge missed opportunity for Australia and Ukraine. It stands as the prime
example of where Australia’s support has failed to be ‘timely, coordinated and comprehensive’.
Donating the Taipans would have doubled the value of Australia’s total support for Ukraine overnight,
and could have bolstered Ukraine’s medevac capability to help provide wounded soldiers with medical
attention in the crucial ‘golden hour’, which dramatically improves their chances of survival.

As the Committee may be aware, the Defence Minister’s Office and the Department of Defence had
been made aware of Ukraine’s interest in the Taipans as early as the middle of October 2023, one
month after the Government agreed to not return the platform to service. The Taipans decision
appears to have been made entirely by the Department of Defence without consultation with Ukraine,
with Ministers later stressing that the Government had acted on the Department’s advice. There has
been no elaboration about the analysis that led Defence to this conclusion or of how factors like risk,
safety, battlefield impact, cost, and national interest were weighed in this exercise. There has been no
insight provided into whether any consultation was undertaken across government about the
appropriateness of this decision, whether it was in the interests of Australian taxpayers, and why the
decision had been made for Ukraine that these helicopters were not appropriate, which has a hint of
parochialism.

The Taipans episode undermined our community’s confidence that the Department of Defence has
robust mechanisms in place to systematically and proactively consider opportunities to support
Ukraine. Further, it was unfortunate that the Ukrainian Government was not advised of the Australian
Government’s decision on Taipans until February 2024 — 4 months after Senator Fawcett passed on a
message about Ukraine’s interest. This delay highlights the clear need for two-way dialogue and
creative thinking, where decisions are made quickly and Australia acts at scale to grasp opportunities
to support Ukraine.

“That is not the Australia that I know. That is not the Australia that has put its shoulder to the wheel many times to support like-minded nations – particularly here, where we are seeing such a great loss of life and injury to their population as they fight against totalitarian regimes in order to protect the democracy that we share and want to preserve.”

MTF...P2

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - Sandy Reith - 07-07-2024

Senator Fawcett says it’s not the Australia he knows.
Unfortunately one could be forgiven for saying he’s not been paying attention.
Due to the increasing arrogance of a bureaucracy that’s been allowed to grow without proper Ministerial control, the ineptitude, inefficiency and downright laziness of the PS is pervasive, particularly at the highly paid managerial levels.
Until we demand accountability and MPs decide to implement full Ministerial and Parliamentary responsibility for the actions of government then little will change.

---

RE: Of Mandarins & Minions. - P7_TOM - 08-06-2024

Of Passing interest.

A referred topic from the UP relating to the DAPS. I grew up using DAP and, FWIW, have always preferred using them. But, Jepps and the Aerad have served their turn, and after a while, they become as familiar as the DAP. There is some sound advice offered on thread, the OP moans of 'confusion' – best answer came from Dr Pixie - “

“Find the new index(s) of pages, and build yourself a new DAP containing those pages”.

Simple enough solution from the old school, which was quite capable of helping itself, QED.  Done it myself, (twice) tedious but only for a coffee (or two). Then, the EFB question came up. Personalty, I have no quarrel with a 'built in' system, hard wired, great kit, once you have worked out how to use them (properly). A definite improvement. Not so certain about having a thing like an 'I-pad' floating about the  cockpit (sans proper certified fitting). For mine, too twitchy – fiddly and difficult to secure in a position where the 'glare' is removed from the business end of the panel, difficult to adjust in the bumps, one touch, in the wrong place at the wrong time – game over. But that's just IMHO.

Duck Pilot weighed into the discussion, - HERE - raising some points worthy of 'genteel' discussion, for instance:-

“Probably because CASA don’t allow candidates to use EFBs in the exam.”

If not, why not? Perhaps this could be 'optional' – lots of the younger troops can use these things at lightning speed; no fumbles and they are within their 'comfort zone' of a familiar data source. It could be argued that if all else fails, then a nodding familiarity with the 'paper work' version could be an asset. Of course, there is always the spectre of 'cheating' to consider; perhaps that underscores the prohibition – who knows.

“Why are they still using the 727 in the exam?”

Why not? Among the toughest exams the Brits have is a tricky confection known as 'Performance A'.  I can still see the book sat on my shelves. Tough course and difficult exam (negative marked); but the benefits produced outweigh the effort. There exists a real life 'need' for an understanding of legal pitfalls, performance limitations and operational advantages; irrespective of the air frame presented; the 727 serves this purpose very well indeed. The traps for the uneducated apply across the base principles, every day. 

“CASA are grossly disconnected from the industry that it’s now beyond the joke.”

Trooo Dat -

“Pure academic exam that has absolutely no bearing on assessing the candidates or aviation safety.”

That is a notion which, if debated, would end up 50/50 Yeah and Nay. Many of the 'complexities' of flight planning have been removed, particularly for longer range flights; time and potential error removed. Computers do a terrific job; provided the 'right' ' information is punched in; a standard plan modulated to the expected conditions is a very efficient tool – but, (had to be one) – IMO the PIC needs to have the ability and 'savvy' to call for amendment – step around some weather or 'bumps' or whatever, within the bounds of sanity. That extra ton or two of motion lotion – to be sure, to be sure. I do wonder though, if an additional module in computer 'logic' would be worth the trouble; the thing can't 'think' or 'feel' for itself; and, for the humble pagan to understand 'what's it doing' and why' could be of assistance – don't know, just saying.....

“Same can be said for the MCC rubbish. Initial Part 121 type rating should satisfy the MCC requirements, but what would we know??”

Gee whiz! The ultimate in Pandora's box technology – the human being.

“Pandora's box is a metaphor for something that brings about great troubles or misfortune, but also holds hope. In Greek mythology, Pandora's box was a gift from the gods to Pandora, the first woman on Earth. It contained all the evils of the world, which were released when Pandora opened the box.”

Operating two crew with the right folk is priceless, I've flown with guys and girls who were exactly that; and, the other sort. They come in all flavors, but the right 'stuff' – not the corporate (HR) version, which is firmly at the bottom of my top ten list, is terrific.. HR know sweet sod all about operating an aircraft when the 'what's-it' hits the windmill. And, IMO its there, in that moment, that the differences manifest. What I have noted is the 'differences' – only when it matters – once, perhaps twice in a career; it is going to tell the tale; and no one knows, not until that point, whether or not the Capt or FO is or is not worthy of the title. A formal course – v 121 type rating? May/ perhaps tick some of the 'requirement' boxes, but at the end, IMO it all depends on how 'plugged – in' the other player is to the game at hand. Jury out on that one.

“More like a money making exercise for a select few who have their noses in the trough. Corporate conflict of interest comes to mind…. “

More and more of this we see, almost on a daily basis. Look no further than the DAS and her used car salesman; any Estimates session will do. Aviation managed by a bunch, the majority of which would;d hardly know which end the smoke comes out of. Until CASA is restored to 'design function' and crewed by professionals; then the likes of AMROBA and other 'professional bodies' will continue to be ignored while the industry continues to decline; slowly sinking into the mud, blood and shit of a bureaucracy Hell bent on money, control and power, carefully discarding any and all semblance of 'operational common or garden sense. We could probably do without those who shamelessly pander and accept the rubbish dished out as 'making us safer'.  BOLLOCKS.~!

---