Senate Estimates. - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Senate Inquiry - Unplugged (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Senate Estimates. 2020 (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+--- Thread: Senate Estimates. (/showthread.php?tid=37)

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Gobbledock - 10-21-2016

Of window dressing, OneSly, purple ties and probity (or lack of)

Good to see 'that man' Iggins on the ball;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/airservices-onesky-deal-faces-new-senate-inquiry/news-story/ffef596d969d19189153bb4568ce68b4

More investigations to follow.......

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 10-22-2016

The State Safety Program cup – Round one.

Sterle to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the abattoir end.

P 93 – Hansard.  Sterle kicks off proceedings with a short question.  Then follows a torrent of – well - I just don’t know what to call it.  Clearly ‘work-shopped’, obviously rehearsed, probably while sharing a mirror with DDDDDDD; but a ‘jumble’ of buzz words, and nonsense words, which would make Lewis Caroll envious. I must have read the Halfwit opening statement a dozen times now; sometimes I get a glimmer of sense. Only to have that feeble light snuffed out the next read through. For example – despite the ‘mining b’boom’ operational staff numbers remain static; so the front line troops managed the increased volume of traffic without needing additional ‘operational support’ i.e. more controllers. So what is 'back room support'? Then our hero goes on to say that despite the ‘static’ front line non requirement; there was a growth in support staff. What?

Mr Harfield: During that same period of time, other than a couple of additional fire stations, our service provision in air traffic control and aviation rescue and firefighting had not grown. Over the last 10 years our staff numbers had grown 1,500 FTE while our service provision had not really changed. The operational staff numbers had stayed relatively static.

Why? Shirley it didn’t take an additional 1500 folks to draft that ridiculous poster.  

Mr Harfield: It was 1,500 over the last 10 years and, over the last five years, it would have been around 750. At the same time, as I said, our operational staff numbers, which are operational air traffic controllers and aviation rescue and firefighters had not significantly changed.

[All] this staff growth was in our projects and what we would call the back of house, our support areas.

This Muppet do like to ‘badge’ things and use trite little descriptors; “headline increase” and the like. But; and I’m only guessing here – what he is trying to say is, that if the ‘support, back of house’ groups were to be retained, the price of service would increase and the majors told him to put it where the sun don’t shine.  “Unpalatable”.  Furry muff too; if the ‘front line’ is static and there is no increase in efficiency (reduced delays) then he must answer a couple or three awkward questions – like billion dollar earnings, but your broke? Or: what do we get for a five percent increase in charges? Or: WTF are you spending all thy billion dollar earning on – exactly?

[Considering] that this growth had been in back of house, not in our operational areas, obviously the airline industry found that completely unpalatable considering the current economic conditions. We revisited it and we went out with a five per cent price headline increase and consulted on that. Obviously that was unpalatable.

I don’t know who writes this stuff; there are enough swings and roundabouts in the opening ‘blurb’ to confound a barn full of boffins.  No matter – Sterle and his not so merry band keep rolling and do, what I should do; ignore the ‘workshop gobbledegook’ and get to the nitty gritty. I must keep reminding myself that the Senators, in all probability, had an inkling that the AG would be taking a close, if belated look at the ASA. I keep looking for clues, to see if the Senators did know; hard to tell; but what I do get is a clear message that the Estimates committee will be taking a look – and anyway.  

Halfwit reminds me of a couple in the CASA top lines; that Weeks for one. This sentence :-

“[In] restructuring the organisation, which was announced on 17 May, we have proceeded to work through the organisation to reappoint and realign that organisation under the new operating model and that will see a reduction of 900 positions across the organisation.

is a masterpiece in arrogance, ignorance and blarney used to say ‘nothing’. Pompous, pointless verbiage designed to impress.  Like those silly ‘coffee table’ books – tossers love to leave ‘casually’ about the place.  Here’s another – who the hell talks like this.

Mr Harfield: That is correct. This Accelerate Program is not touching our front-line service delivery, which is aviation rescue and firefighting and air traffic controllers. They are actually excluded from the Accelerate Program. As we work through the questions from Senator Xenophon about the interactions with CASA, I will go through that and what we have done in that space.

Enough, the new bucket is starting to look a little shop-worn and battered, courtesy Halfwit, so lets play spot the Senators clues. Halfwit was so busy spinning and weaving, proving that he’d done all his homework in anticipation of the questions; he failed to see the chasm opening up behind him.  

Senator STERLE: I will stay focused and get back onto the question I just want to ask you here first. What is the number of proposed changes to job classification level?

Mr Harfield: We can provide that on notice—all the specifics. We can provide all that.

Senator STERLE: That is easily got? That is no drama?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

All carefully prepared; the positive ‘absolutely’ giving the game away; that question was anticipated, homework done and the Senator ‘happy’.  “Must be winning” thinks Halfwit , “he swallowed all that without a blink”.

Senator STERLE: If you could provide that, that would be good. Is there a target that you want to achieve?

Senator STERLE: Okay, that is good—and at what level.

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

This ‘feel good’ – ‘can-do’ – Absolutely – no worries Senator caper goes on for a page or so. Halfwit now firmly convinced he has the Senator in his back pocket; purring and completely satisfied; mollified by the assurances given, impressed with the Halfwit masterful use of buzz and spin. How thick can you be: ASA has been up to it’s proverbial ass in alligators for about two years now.  Every estimates session has been conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion, attempting to get the lid off this can of worms; yet Halfwit blithely continues his meaningless dialogue unable to see the shadow of a very large axe over his head. The shade of Heff swinging it.

CHAIR: I am really looking for the short answer, and then I will leave you alone. So, the assessment as to the risk profile of a need for these services at an airport has diminished per activities measured by you as passengers in and out. Forget about passengers in and out; to me that is a moot point. But the level of activity at an airport: you have decided that we can cope with more activity in terms of going from 350,000 passengers to 500,000, where we do not think we are going to see an increase in incidents.

Senator STERLE: That is great. We have got it from three of the four most senior people in the pyramid, that there is going to be no contracting out of Airservices work anywhere.

Mr Harfield: Correct. Contracting out in the sense of we are not privatising Airservices, but for me to contract out non-core services, some administrative service or whatever, it does not mean that we will not contract that out—which is normal. It gets undertaken today.

Senator STERLE: With the other 780 or 800 redundancies—you have your job family there—will there be any other contracting out in any of the other job family categories? We have had redundancies, and then will we find contractors coming in to replace them?

Mr Harfield: Not contracting. We may contract out a function—in the sense that there may be a service that we find is more appropriate and more efficient to contract out, and is not what we would call a core service—

Senator STERLE: I understand that.

Mr Harfield: An administrative service that we may be able to do it differently.

Senator STERLE: I do understand that. Mr Harfield, you and the board, and all your people are not dills—I do not say that trying to be smart, but I would hazard as a guess and have a stab there to say that we would be fooling ourselves to not think that work still needs to be done under these other job families, but not for full-time employees? Am I wrong?

About now, Sterle finishes his over and ambles off to the boundary for a spell of fielding and passes the ball to NX. How will the increasingly nervous batsman handle the change of pace? See you back at page 95 to watch the rest of the Halfwit uninspiring innings. Too much blocking and letting the ball go through to the keeper, the run rate reflecting a defensive stance. Nearly done now - a little more to follow; it is the question of how this all stacks up against the ICAO annex, you know the one - State Safety Program - ring any little bells?

Toot toot.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 10-22-2016

(10-22-2016, 06:55 AM)kharon Wrote:  The State Safety Program cup – Round one.

Sterle to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the abattoir end.

P 93 – Hansard.  Sterle kicks off proceedings with a short question.  Then follows a torrent of – well - I just don’t know what to call it.  Clearly ‘work-shopped’, obviously rehearsed, probably while sharing a mirror with DDDDDDD; but a ‘jumble’ of buzz words, and nonsense words, which would make Lewis Caroll envious. I must have read the Halfwit opening statement a dozen times now; sometimes I get a glimmer of sense. Only to have that feeble light snuffed out the next read through. For example – despite the ‘mining b’boom’ operational staff numbers remain static; so the front line troops managed the increased volume of traffic without needing additional ‘operational support’ i.e. more controllers. So what is 'back room support'? Then our hero goes on to say that despite the ‘static’ front line non requirement; there was a growth in support staff. What?

Mr Harfield: During that same period of time, other than a couple of additional fire stations, our service provision in air traffic control and aviation rescue and firefighting had not grown. Over the last 10 years our staff numbers had grown 1,500 FTE while our service provision had not really changed. The operational staff numbers had stayed relatively static.

Why? Shirley it didn’t take an additional 1500 folks to draft that ridiculous poster.  

Mr Harfield: It was 1,500 over the last 10 years and, over the last five years, it would have been around 750. At the same time, as I said, our operational staff numbers, which are operational air traffic controllers and aviation rescue and firefighters had not significantly changed.

[All] this staff growth was in our projects and what we would call the back of house, our support areas.

This Muppet do like to ‘badge’ things and use trite little descriptors; “headline increase” and the like. But; and I’m only guessing here – what he is trying to say is, that if the ‘support, back of house’ groups were to be retained, the price of service would increase and the majors told him to put it where the sun don’t shine.  “Unpalatable”.  Furry muff too; if the ‘front line’ is static and there is no increase in efficiency (reduced delays) then he must answer a couple or three awkward questions – like billion dollar earnings, but your broke? Or: what do we get for a five percent increase in charges? Or: WTF are you spending all thy billion dollar earning on – exactly?

[Considering] that this growth had been in back of house, not in our operational areas, obviously the airline industry found that completely unpalatable considering the current economic conditions. We revisited it and we went out with a five per cent price headline increase and consulted on that. Obviously that was unpalatable.

I don’t know who writes this stuff; there are enough swings and roundabouts in the opening ‘blurb’ to confound a barn full of boffins.  No matter – Sterle and his not so merry band keep rolling and do, what I should do; ignore the ‘workshop gobbledegook’ and get to the nitty gritty. I must keep reminding myself that the Senators, in all probability, had an inkling that the AG would be taking a close, if belated look at the ASA. I keep looking for clues, to see if the Senators did know; hard to tell; but what I do get is a clear message that the Estimates committee will be taking a look – and anyway.  

Halfwit reminds me of a couple in the CASA top lines; that Weeks for one. This sentence :-

“[In] restructuring the organisation, which was announced on 17 May, we have proceeded to work through the organisation to reappoint and realign that organisation under the new operating model and that will see a reduction of 900 positions across the organisation.

is a masterpiece in arrogance, ignorance and blarney used to say ‘nothing’. Pompous, pointless verbiage designed to impress.  Like those silly ‘coffee table’ books – tossers love to leave ‘casually’ about the place.  Here’s another – who the hell talks like this.

Mr Harfield: That is correct. This Accelerate Program is not touching our front-line service delivery, which is aviation rescue and firefighting and air traffic controllers. They are actually excluded from the Accelerate Program. As we work through the questions from Senator Xenophon about the interactions with CASA, I will go through that and what we have done in that space.

Enough, the new bucket is starting to look a little shop-worn and battered, courtesy Halfwit, so lets play spot the Senators clues. Halfwit was so busy spinning and weaving, proving that he’d done all his homework in anticipation of the questions; he failed to see the chasm opening up behind him.  

Senator STERLE: I will stay focused and get back onto the question I just want to ask you here first. What is the number of proposed changes to job classification level?

Quote:Agency: Airservices Australia

Topic: Accelerate Program

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked: What are the number of proposed changes to job classification levels?

Answer:

A list of the current number of roles at each job classification level compared to that proposed for 30 June 2017 is at Attachment 1.

These proposed changes have not yet been finalised as they are subject to staff consultation. They may also vary as Accelerate Program initiatives progress over coming months.

No operationally rostered air traffic controllers or aviation rescue fire fighters have been affected and risk assessments have been undertaken to ensure operational service delivery is not impacted.

Mr Harfield: We can provide that on notice—all the specifics. We can provide all that.

Senator STERLE: That is easily got? That is no drama?

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

All carefully prepared; the positive ‘absolutely’ giving the game away; that question was anticipated, homework done and the Senator ‘happy’.  “Must be winning” thinks Halfwit , “he swallowed all that without a blink”.

Senator STERLE: If you could provide that, that would be good. Is there a target that you want to achieve?

Senator STERLE: Okay, that is good—and at what level.

Mr Harfield: Absolutely.

This ‘feel good’ – ‘can-do’ – Absolutely – no worries Senator caper goes on for a page or so. Halfwit now firmly convinced he has the Senator in his back pocket; purring and completely satisfied; mollified by the assurances given, impressed with the Halfwit masterful use of buzz and spin. How thick can you be: ASA has been up to it’s proverbial ass in alligators for about two years now.  Every estimates session has been conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion, attempting to get the lid off this can of worms; yet Halfwit blithely continues his meaningless dialogue unable to see the shadow of a very large axe over his head. The shade of Heff swinging it.

CHAIR: I am really looking for the short answer, and then I will leave you alone. So, the assessment as to the risk profile of a need for these services at an airport has diminished per activities measured by you as passengers in and out. Forget about passengers in and out; to me that is a moot point. But the level of activity at an airport: you have decided that we can cope with more activity in terms of going from 350,000 passengers to 500,000, where we do not think we are going to see an increase in incidents.

Senator STERLE: That is great. We have got it from three of the four most senior people in the pyramid, that there is going to be no contracting out of Airservices work anywhere.

Mr Harfield: Correct. Contracting out in the sense of we are not privatising Airservices, but for me to contract out non-core services, some administrative service or whatever, it does not mean that we will not contract that out—which is normal. It gets undertaken today.

Senator STERLE: With the other 780 or 800 redundancies—you have your job family there—will there be any other contracting out in any of the other job family categories? We have had redundancies, and then will we find contractors coming in to replace them?

Mr Harfield: Not contracting. We may contract out a function—in the sense that there may be a service that we find is more appropriate and more efficient to contract out, and is not what we would call a core service—

Senator STERLE: I understand that.

Mr Harfield: An administrative service that we may be able to do it differently.

Senator STERLE: I do understand that. Mr Harfield, you and the board, and all your people are not dills—I do not say that trying to be smart, but I would hazard as a guess and have a stab there to say that we would be fooling ourselves to not think that work still needs to be done under these other job families, but not for full-time employees? Am I wrong?

About now, Sterle finishes his over and ambles off to the boundary for a spell of fielding and passes the ball to NX. How will the increasingly nervous batsman handle the change of pace? See you back at page 95 to watch the rest of the Halfwit uninspiring innings. Too much blocking and letting the ball go through to the keeper, the run rate reflecting a defensive stance. Nearly done now - a little more to follow; it is the question of how this all stacks up against the ICAO annex, you know the one - State Safety Program - ring any little bells?

Toot toot.

Excellent OBS so far "K" and I certainly look forward to the next instalment...

Pre-empting where I think you'll be going next - - the following is from Chapter 2 of the newly minted Murky Mandarin SSP, highlighting the relevant obligations of ASA as a State aviation safety service provider as defined in ICAO Annex 19:

Quote:2.2 Safety management system obligations

Australia has introduced the requirement for the implementation of SMS in certain sectors of the aviation industry. CASA has introduced the requirement for the following civil aviation service providers to implement SMS:

• ...Air Operators—Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) 82.3 and CAO 82.5 require both high capacity and low capacity RPT operators to establish and maintain appropriate operations with a sound and effective management structure that uses an SMS approved by CASA....
  

• ...Air Traffic Service Providers—CASR Part 172 provides that an air traffic service provider must have, and put into effect, an SMS that includes the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to provide the air traffic services covered by its approval safely...
  

• ...Aerodrome Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS)—CASR Subpart 139.H provides that the ARFFS provider must have an SMS consistent with the requirements in the Manual of Standards, including the policies, procedures and practices necessary to provide the service safely...
  

• ...Aeronautical telecommunication and radionavigation service providers – CASR Subpart 171.C requires service providers to have SMS processes in place to assess...
  

These requirements recognise the relevant ICAO SARPs outlined in ICAO Annex 19, Safety Management, and the safety benefits to be gained by the effective establishment by industry of an SMS. Where appropriate this requirement will be extended to additional sections of the industry.

CASA provides a range of support for the implementation of a SMS and continues to develop and review the guidance material to assist industry with their SMS.

More information on Australia's adoption of SMS can be found on CASA's website.

Links to more information about requirements for civil aviation service providers SMS implementation is at Appendix F.

 
Also included in SSP para 2.2 is a short paragraph outlining CASA's oversight obligations of a State service provider's SMS:

Quote:Service providers’ safety performance

An important element of a mature system of safety management oversight is agreement between the safety regulator and service providers on the key performance indicators and expected level of performance to be achieved. In the Australian safety regulatory system this level of performance is in part judged by how the service provider delivers against its SMS, therefore oversight of a SMS is included in CASA's audit programme for the operators who are mandated to have a SMS.
(P2 - It would/should be safe to assume that there would also be significant organisational developments within a service provider, such as 900 odd redundancies, which 'should' automatically red flag a need for CASA to facilitate a special audit process.) 

 
  Back to you Ferryman -


MTF...P2

Ps A couple more handy references for you "K" -

Time for the Rev Forsyth to review the review

In particular:

Quote:Ps Very soon PAIN & associates will be continuing with the SSP (ICAO Annex 19) review and how it relates to the so called Department action on ASRR recommendations 1 & 2: References -

PAIN/IOS audit of Australia's SSP (ICAO Annex 19) 

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 10-23-2016

The State Safety Program cup – Round two.

Xenophon to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the ferry dock end.

Sterle collects his sweater and sunny’s from the Ump handing the ball after one last polish to Nick. Halfwit has edged back behind his stumps, hoping to hear something; Sterle just winks at Nick. There is always a hush in the stands as the wily spin bowler starts his delivery; rightly famed for an ability to bowl in a manner designed to deceive ‘in flight’.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Harfield, you properly heard some of the questions I asked of CASA. Can we follow through with those? This is further to Senator Sterle's line of questioning—Airservices has a board and safety committee. Is that right?

Mr Harfield: That is correct.

Then from behind the umpire -

Senator STERLE: And they considered the risks associated with the restructuring?

Halfwit’s face is a study; he thought Sterle was out at cover – he does manage to block but from well behind his crease, off the back foot – game on. The second delivery is a ripper and misleads Halfwit, close call he almost gets willow to leather, tangles his feet and a big shout LBW as the ball thumps into his pads.  It is a fine lesson; with question or ball, you have to see where it comes from and where it is going; simply believing you know, is no substitute for watching and good footwork.

Senator XENOPHON: Right, so presumably—given the magnitude of these changes, that I think you have acknowledged—the same processes, protocols and thoroughness that the safety committee would look at these matters with would have been undertaken by the whole board. Is that right—the board as a whole?

Mr Harfield: That is correct.

Senator XENOPHON: And are you able to provide to this committee details of any memoranda relating to the deliberations of the committee? In a sense, the entire board acted as the safety committee, rather than it being delegated to the safety committee.

Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.

Senator XENOPHON: So is there an email trail, or a paper trail, of the level of the forensic look that the board took to assess the risks—

Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—

The parts above I‘ve bolded clearly show why Halfwit shot selection was flawed; he believed Nick was going for an ‘off-break’ and set up for it, expecting four runs. The under-cutter^ nearly claimed his wicket.

^(A delivery in which the ball spins horizontally on its axis to produce drift but no turn).

You can see where Nick is going; he understands the weakness in the Halfwit defence and exploits them. By the time you have read from the Xenophon first ball to the top of page 96; even Blind Freddy (g’day mate) can see what NX is after.  ASA have been making tidy little parcels; some for the Board, some for CASA and some for the shedder. Each parcel is ‘black letter’ legal; within the extreme interpretation of the terms under which it’s ‘importance’ is measured. It is a very clever plan and provides responsibility ‘cut-outs’; weak links in the evidence chain which is being forged that will break – in the right places – to limit the number of ‘decision makers’ dragged into any form of ‘inquiry’.  

A second function is to reduce the size and scope of the safety case, here again, we see the used car salesman defence technique gainfully employed.  Caveat emptor – really, truly matters here. The Senators are ‘considering’ buying a used vehicle; the paint looks great, too good; why?  Well the rust and the joint of the ‘cut and shut’ job need to be covered and a shiny new paint job is best.  Same as the brakes; the wheels look good, tyres are newish and neatly blackened; therefore the brakes must be working in a similar manner. When there is an accident due to brake failure and the rusted heap has collapsed around itself; the salesman’s defence will be simple: “At the time of sale M’lud, the brakes met the DoT requirements (just); which meets the minimum requirements imposed on the seller; once the vehicle has left our premises, the matter of safety maintenance becomes the responsibility of the new owner”.  You guessed it; the defence walks out of court, chanting winner, winner, chicken dinner. My apologies for the long bang on that drum; but it is essential that the ‘message’ be delivered. The whole ‘vehicle’ rust, bog, dodgy brakes, soggy clutch, DIY electrics, sloppy steering etc. must be examined before purchase. To examine only the paint and tyres, in isolation, then purchasing the whole thing based against that assessment would be folly.  The vehicle the Senators are considering is ‘air safety’, best bet hire a qualified, independent mechanic to check it out all of it; before ‘chequing’ it out of the yard.  

Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.

Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—

Mr Harfield: It depends on what level of change and where it affects our operating certificates that are overseen by CASA. For example, if I change something in our finance department for payroll, I do not have to consult CASA on that.

Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.

What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.

Senator XENOPHON: No. I understand that it is an evolutionary process, but is a risk assessment required to CASA in respect of the magnitude of this change?

Mr Harfield: Where it affects our operating certificates.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay. How about you answer the question directly? In this case you have already said that the board of Airservices did not delegate the restructuring to a safety committee because of the magnitude of the change. Correct?

Mr Harfield: No, we have a safety management system that determines it. For each particular change, we make a determination through what we call a safety case determination. We go through that to determine what the magnitude of the change is for the area affected, as well as what the significance is. That will then tell us what level of safety work is to be done. We have also completed what is called a safety plan, which details all the safety work that has to be undertaken through a particular change. We can provide that to you.

Mr Harfield: I am aware of a couple of instances where certain requests were made and there had to be a discussion about what exact information was required, but there has been no withholding of information or cases of information not provided.

The last two balls of the Xenophon over are things of beauty.  The ANAO leg break:-

Senator XENOPHON: But there were scathing remarks by the Auditor-General's office about the probity management framework, Airservices engagement with the ICCPM, probity management in engaging ICCPM and its subcontractors and allegations of perceptions of conflicts of interests and the like. It was a pretty ugly report—would you at least acknowledge that?

Mr Harfield: If you have a look, they were what we would call authorised exemptions to the probity practices. At all times the financial delegate approving these transactions not only may approve the transaction but also authorise the transactions to take place. The people that are mentioned in that report were moving through and following. The processes of the organisation, in some cases, were not complied with, but at the end of the day the financial delegate still authorised the transactions.

Followed by CASA audit ‘Wrong-un’.

Senator XENOPHON: Sure. But in this case, given the magnitude of the change and given the potential implications—given that you say that the entire board considered the issue of safety, because the safety committee was not enough, in a sense, that is not a criticism, for the entire board to look at this—did Airservices provide a risk assessment to CASA arising out of the organisational change?

Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.

What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.

There’s more in the Hansard; after the tea break things 'becomes interesting', with hindsight. If you have the time and patience; the session from 1830 to 1930 (IMO) is the watershed; the committee has definately (a) had enough and (b) got enough on record. Reading through now; for the final time, I say that Halfwit finally did something good for aviation. He finally managed to annoy and frustrate the committee into an ‘inquiry’; that’s three inquiries within his ‘leadership’ period: ANAO MkI; ANAO Mk II; JCPAA I and, with a little luck – Senate Mk I.

Well done that man; good innings – for the other team. The applause for the Senate XI is long and loud as Halfwit is stretchered off the field; clean bowled by an O’Sullivan Yorker, which bounced off Halfwits boots; missed his bat and hit the biggest target; his fat head.

Well, that’s me done with it. It’s all there in Hansard.  Dry as sticks and about as (dare I say) palatable. But for the tax payers and the weary travelling public it’s a three course banquet.

The Senate XI have not, as yet, used the powerful SSP as a means of winning the championship; not too much opposition so far to test it against - but despite it's 'wet lettuce' appearance; it is a handy tool - if needed (hint).

But well played the Senate XI, well played indeed. Thank you for your efforts, they appreciated and valued.

Toot toot.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 10-25-2016

Round one of the H&H inquisition -  

(10-23-2016, 12:20 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  I think it's worth going back to an article in the Can'tberra Times from September;

Quote:Airservices callous and wasteful, say
unions

Airservices  Australia's approach to hiring consultants has been "callous and wasteful", according to its workplace unions.

Aviation industry figures were calling on Friday for "heads to roll" over the agency's lack of probity, cost control and its failure to get "value for money" from consultancies on the $1.5 billion One­SKY air traffic control system, revealed in a scathing National Audit Office report.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which has many members facing the loss of their jobs at Airservices, says the agency has been caught out by the National Audit Office after spending $9 million on external consultants ICCPM while moving to sack almost 1000 staff.

The consultancy rates were up to 30 per cent higher than the Defence Department was paying ICCPM, the auditors found, with one lucrative contract processed by a senior Airservices executive who was married to ICCPM's chief executive.

The probe by the ANAO looked into Airservices' use of a consultancy firm during its $1.5 billion OneSKY air traffic control and navigation project after a Senate committee alleged "dodgy dealings" with ICCPM.

Now Airservices is in the midst of sacking up to 1000 of its workers, saying it can no longer afford them.

The government's response to the audit was more muted than the unions' with Transport Minister Darren Chester saying he had met with Airservices and told its management he expected improvements in the wake of the Audit Office's report.

CPSU deputy national president Rupert Evans came out swinging on Friday, attacking Airservices' senior management and alleging "callous and wasteful" conduct.

"It beggars belief that they would be wasting millions of dollars on consultants, then turn around and sack hundreds of staff on the grounds that they're broke," the union official said.

"It's entirely unfair and unacceptable that staff are paying the price for the questionable practices of Airservices management.

"Hardworking people who have committed their careers to the safety of Australia's skies are being thrown on the scrapheap so a few consultants can cash in.

"There has been growing unease and disquiet for some time among our members about the way that Airservices' senior management is operating and this audit absolutely reinforces thatconcern.

"Management's inability to properly deal with consultants casts serious doubt on their ability to be trusted with anything, let alone the safety of Australia's airspace or management of money."

Technical union Professional Australia joined aviation identity Dick Smith in calling for the resignation of Airservices chief executive Jason Harfield.

"The failure to ensure the proper management of probity concerns and conflict of interest issues let alone get value for money fell within the remit of the current CEO," union official Dave Smith said.

"These failings shouldn't have made him a candidate for the CEO position and should see him resign."

Airservices, Mr Harfield and ICCPM have all declined to comment and maintained their public silence on Friday.

Mr Chester's office said in a statement that he expected to see improvements from Airservices in the wake of the ANAO report.

"The report highlights a number of areas where Airservices can improve its procurement and performance," the statement read.

"Airservices has accepted all of the report's six recommendations.

The minister has met with the CEO of Airservices to discuss the report and expressed his expectations on the timely delivery of any changes as a result of the report's recommendations."

Link here;

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/airservices-callous-and-wasteful-say-unions-20160902-gr7i4c.html

My comments;

1. It's blatantly obvious that the ASA Board must be terminated. Under the current members tenure ASA has  dive-bombed into a loss making outfit, for no logical reason other than the fact that the entity has been mismanaged at an executive decision making advisory level - the Board.

2. Purple Haze has proudly boasted that he is the Grand Wizard of OneSly. A totally mismanaged billion dollar project at the CEO level of the organisation. There is no doubt the Board ducked up with his appointment, despite the never ending warnings. The ANAO report, numerous inquiries and public knowledge of mismanagement are proving that the Board and it's decision making abilities are flawed, unprofessional and amateurish.

3. The public (taxpayer), ASA unions, aviation industry and stakeholders and ASA's staff have lost all confidence in the CEO and the Board, with a lack of confidence growing by the day in Minister Selfie Chester's ability to handle the imploding mess. All Chester can do is 'meet with ASA' and 'discuss his expectations'!! Is this government serious?? Meet and discuss? What are you doing Goldman Sachs Turnbull and Piss Trough Joyce? How about trading 'meet and discuss' with 'sack and replace'? There is no longer any option. The spotlight is becoming brighter on ASA, the investigations more in depth and the trail of shit even wider.  If Sachs Turnbull and Joyce don't shuffle 'Chester the beautiful' to another portfolio and roll the ASA Board and CEO, soon, I believe the Senators and investigators will inevitably expose a sordid mess at such a high level that the Turnbull Government by default will be handing Bill Short'one and White Elephant Albanese an election golden goose. Chester and his wet lettuce leaf need to be composted.

TICK TOCK hums the ASA clock

Update to JCPAA ASA OneSKY ICCPM Procurement Inquiry:

Quote:Terms of Reference
Any items, matters or circumstances connected with the following Auditor-General reports:

• No. 1 (2016-17) Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSKY Australia Program
  
• No. 13 (2016-17) Delivery of Health Services in Onshore Immigration Detention
  
• No. 16 (2016-17) Offshore Processing Centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea: Procurement of Garrison Support and Welfare Services
  

Background
Having considered Auditor-General Reports 11-37 (2015-16) and 1-19 (2016-17) on 13 October 2016, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit resolved to conduct an inquiry based on the above Auditor-General reports.
 
Under section 8(1) of the legislation establishing the JCPAA, the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, one of the duties of the Committee is to ‘examine all reports of the Auditor-General (including reports of the results of performance audits) that are tabled in each House of the Parliament’ and ‘report to both Houses of the Parliament, with any comment it thinks fit, on any items or matters in those … reports, or any circumstances connected with them, that the Committee thinks should be drawn to the attention of the Parliament’.

Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit
PO Box 6021
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Phone: +61 2 6277 4615
Fax: 02 6277 2220
jcpaa@aph.gov.au

The committee is now accepting submissions up until 7 November 2016:

Quote:Media Releases
17 Oct 2016: Public Accounts Committee starts new inquiries

 
And a public hearing is slated for 25 November 2016:

Quote:25 Nov 2016
Canberra, ACT

MTF...P2

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 10-26-2016

Senate - Spring Carnival.

Welcome to the trackside commentary. We are covering the Senate big race meeting courtesy of our sponsors, the Malaysian Probity Quest. Our sponsors have, very kindly, ensured all we could possibly need has been thoughtfully provided – along with a script; no pressure, which they would be ‘so teddibly’ happy about, (delighted even) if we could work some of the lines into our commentary. Well folks, you all know how this works from previous racing carnivals; and, know that spruiking ‘sponsored’ work is not really our forte. However. The facilities are marvellous and perhaps, at least until the end of the last race – we may have a kindly word for the unneeded ‘sponsors’; we do have our own and – corporate loyalty rules.

Three big prize races in the main program are of interest – Race to the Bottom Cup; Spin Doctors Trophy; and, the big one; Fiscal Probity Stakes.  We will, in due course, go ‘track side’ and get the latest from our own ‘sponsored’ touts and bagmen.  (Sponsored as in we buy the beers, they ‘tell all’).  (Aside: off mike; -to some PC fool dressed in green) What?  WTD - it’s a time honoured tradition, ya eedjit.

As its so early and everything is set up for us, we have the luxury of time to discuss the actual events, and the specially prepared track before looking at the runners and the odds.

Race 3)- ‘Race to the Bottom’ Cup. Ghee whizz punters – what a race; and bloody hard to pick a winner to boot. Do you know there has never (not ever) been a clear winner of this race? Well, ‘tis true. Every time, in living memory, the event has been run it ended in a photo finish – no bull. Every time, you could throw a blanket over the first three across the line. Drives the Stewards nuts; when they must decide between a nostril hair, a chin whisker or a long top lip exactly ‘who won’. Makes it hell for the punters – same old runners, same old jockeys, same old bloodlines, from the same old stables.  There are, of course always ‘rumours’ of the ‘fix’ being in; but serious pundits denounce that notion. They see it as being more along the lines of an ‘investment’; when two of the three stables are doing ‘well’ they are quite happy to let the third ‘win’.  That way they control the ‘Mystique’ the kudos and the investors.  You can see how it works; the ASA stable entry in all kinds of financial bother, the ATSB entry has multiple problems of the ethical sort; but the CASA has just announced a change of jockey and so they are, temporarily out of the do-do. It is, dear punters. all a question of ‘ratio’s’ and dollars. We shall, in due course announce the entrants. There is no news, thus far, if the DoiT will actually bother entering this year; who knows?

Race 4)- Spin Doctors Trophy. What can anyone say about the marvellous spectacle this race appears to provide, every year. It is the stuff of legend, a miracle, an education and the greatest challenge of all, for the punters. Seriously, it is. Some of the many entries have bamboozled the ICAO syndicate, using unofficial ‘form’ guides, generated by a little fellah in Putney, who manages to convince that the form presented is accurate. Like this – “Lord Quick-as-a-flash” has done the five furlong trial at record speed; amazing. What the punters guide fails to mention is that the race is seven furlongs and LQAaF needed a tow truck to get it back to stables after the five. Such is the art of spinning the ‘form’ to get the ‘odds’ right. Then ’spinning’ the living Bejasus out of ‘the facts and circumstances’. Short odds on all entries – only way I can survive; at least that’s what I want you to believe.

Race 5)-Probity Stakes. Our tent is being filled by beautiful damsels, bearing all manner of goodies. The aroma of fresh coffee laced with some form of exotic, high proof brew is beckoning us away from our work. Probity is, as any lawyer worth a squirt will tell you, (gratis) - overrated and mostly a fabrication of those buying the drinks and paying for lunch.

Alas, the flesh is weak, the appetite jaded and; as horse races are a daily event. the Fiscal Probity Stakes can wait, until refreshments have bee served and enjoyed. Perhaps then, we shall, should the muse descend, discuss the Probity Stakes. We shall see.

Toot toot.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 10-30-2016

Where the sun don’t shine.

Not an elegant title, but an accurate, succinct one. It certainly reflects the views of the PAIN association on the risible proposal by the ‘minister’ for another review. The aviation industry does not need yet another review, but direct, sensible, responsible action from the government.

Rather than rattle on for many, many pages I shall subtitle this post – The pagans prayer.

Please may we have David Fawcett appointed to position of authority oversighting all matters aeronautical; even if only for a twelve month.

Please may we have Mike Smith appointed as DAS of CASA as soon as he can be on a jet home.

Please have the proposed review of ‘matters aeronautical’ returned to where it belongs – back in the present idiots fundamental orifice.

That’s it; thank you, we would be obliged if that could happen yesterday, or at latest by tea time today. Selah.

History shows us that in pagan times there were always two divisions; the top dogs and many minor deities. This was not a bad system, for those without the temerity to call on the ‘big guns’ to help, could always appeal to a more modest source of divine intervention. A small votive offering; such as a candle or even a rag tied to a tree branch was considered sufficient inducement to have one of the minor league take an interest in your particular cause.  Statistics are against this system working; but at least it offered hope in some form and folk felt better for it.

It has been seriously suggested that ‘aviation’ return to this system – as a statistical reality. For there was more chance under the ancient ways of getting things done, changed or improved under the pagan system than there ever will be under the Canberra system. A humble prayer at least had a fighting chance of being answered. Under the Canberra rule, you can sacrifice your daughters, pray until you’re blue in the arse, lavish time, money and effort in a vainglorious attempt to even get your wishes heard and go home empty handed.

Aviation has tried the Canberra system; some of the politicians even believe, to this day that it can work; well, they are entitled to believe that or any other damn fool notion which pleases.

Dear Senators; please can we have a return to sanity. You know as well as we do the whole thing is out of any semblance of control. The solution is simplicity it’s self and will cost no more than we already spend; our prayers, hopes and dreams are on the wind.

The Cloths of Heaven

Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half-light;
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

W. B. Yeats

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-12-2016

Sterlo & Bazza: The new RRAT paradigm -

Quote:...I am going to read some excerpts from correspondence I had on behalf of the Queensland government Department of Transport and Main Roads. They were fantastic. They had taken information from us. We said that we had a real problem. We found out there is an RTO in Tweed Heads—and I will give you the name of the RTO. I am not going to rush, because I am going to come back into this chamber every week and do a speech on this and keep everyone updated with what is going on. There is a twisted, bent, corrupt RTO in Tweed Heads who was bringing the Indian students from Queensland into New South Wales. They were doing their training there. He was assessing them, then he was ticking off and saying that they were fit to drive, and then they were going back to Queensland. The Queensland government—thank goodness for the Queensland government—issued 113 'show causes' to these 113 people who came through this corrupt provider of heavy vehicle transport licensing: 'Why should you have a licence?...

Two days ago, as Chair of the RRAT Reference committee, Sterlo (with the support of Deputy Chair Bazza) finally got to examine in Senate Inquiry the State & Federal bureaucrats that allowed this 'disgusting behaviour' to occur.

References: 1) Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
(Senate-Thursday, 10 November 2016); or for viewing
2) Rural & Regional Affairs & Transport - Thursday, November 10 2016, 16:20  

Quote:Chair: ...I want to touch very quickly on what started this. This may sound like it is a joke, but it started off as a tweet. I saw a tweet on a Sunday in, I think, February this year while I was at the airport waiting to get to Canberra. It was a story by Chris Reason from Channel 7 in Sydney of a B-double configuration—and I did not know it was a B-double at the time; I thought it was just a semi—hauling for Scott's Transport in Mt Gambier that was stuck on the M5 in Sydney.


The two drivers happened to be foreign drivers who were here on a visa, and not only did they take the wrong road but they could not get under the bridge. Then, when the traffic started piling up—I do not know what day of the week the incident occurred—they could not reverse the B-double, and we all know that part of your licensing accreditation is that you have to be able to reverse the B-double for about 70 metres or something equivalent. Even worse, they could not break the configuration up to get it off the highway; an RMS inspector had to come out and do it for them.

So, just so there is a bit of background, what we did find out: the committee wrote to the minister at the time—I do not want to go on a foreign-driver hunt and kick the living daylights out of foreign drivers; I just want to get the bottom of it, and the rest of my committee members feel exactly the same way, I believe. There was an accusation that the drivers could have been on 457 visas. The police, for whatever reason, let them go, and they went. But they were not here on 457 visas; after questioning of this committee, in a public inquiry of the Ministry for Immigration and Border Protection, they were found to be here on student visas.

That is it for background...

And so started the S&B inquisition...

Now my reason and interest for reviewing this Sterle initiated inquiry is to observe whether the obvious passion & commitment Senator Sterle has for transport safety issues, translates across the other committee members and in particular Deputy Chair Senator O'Sullivan.

Fortunately, from what I observed, there is no chance of the new RRAT committee lowering its previous high standards of non-partisan inquisition. I would even suggest the Sterlo v Bazza tag team (good cop v bad cop) routine is even more effective than the Sterle, Heff alliance...

Examples: 

Quote:Senator BACK:  But what you were talking about did not result in a crash.

Mr Stapleton : No.

CHAIR: This was on the M5.

Senator BACK:  But it must have resulted in massive—

CHAIR: No, I will just help you out, Senator. In the TV interview that I watched, the drivers were both interviewed. One got out of the bunk; he said, 'It had nothing to do with me.' Once it was all uncoupled, moved and reallocated, they jumped in the truck and drove off, and everyone wished them goodbye and farewell.

Senator BACK:  Yes, I share your same concerns.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Would you agree that all of these circumstances do not reflect, for example, what might happen in the health field with medical professionals, or with engineers or any range of other professionals, and that—as to the pathway from where they are until they become licenced to, in this case, go out onto the road or to, in other cases, go up in aeroplanes—it seems that a lot of this is left to chance or to the integrity or skill of someone else who is making a decision on behalf of all of us in Australia to put a person on the road?

Mr Stapleton : I see the question you are asking, but we do have organisations that oversight engineering qualifications and medical qualifications and, at times, they do get it wrong, as you are aware.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Sure.

Mr Stapleton : The issue that is in front of us at the moment is how you manage foreign licence holders entering the system. There are processes in place. It is difficult for us to know if a person is a permanent or temporary visa holder. That information is not available to state authorities, so we can often not tell you the status of people when they come to Australia. There is no ability for us to follow up. We really require the person to surrender that information to us.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I was recently briefed by the department on a matter of immigration where they told me that, no matter how strong the processes were in immigration applications, from one point of departure for one nationality they had had over 2,000 occasions where the transcripts provided by students from universities, in this case, to underpin their application—you are loosely aware of the immigration point system—were all completely fraudulent. So can I put a ridiculous proposition to you—and I will leave it at that, because it is something we can examine with other witnesses.

Mr Stapleton : Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I could be a type 1 diabetic who suffers from intermittent epilepsy with an atrocious driving history from somewhere in the world—I do not want to start picking on places, but let us say from a developed nation—where the attention to standards might not reflect the ambition that we have here. I can effectively come to this country and, through a series of events, without any serious due diligence, find myself driving a truck down the highway. Is that an unfair characterisation of what is possible within the current constraints of the system?

Mr Stapleton : The example you just gave me is not limited to foreign drivers. There is always an issue of declaring medical conditions here in Australia as well.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I appreciate you for assisting me with making my point.

Senator GALLACHER:  Your medical practitioner does it for you in Australia, though.

Mr Stapleton : Yes, they do. Depending on which jurisdiction you are in, they have the option of declaring that they have a patient who has a medical condition.

Senator GALLACHER:  Plenty of times this happens.

Mr Mahon : In Queensland, it is a legal requirement to declare your medical condition if it has an impact on driving.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  There is one thing about a declaration—that is, if you do not declare. Do we have any measures at all, any due diligence that goes to determine—I mean, if I fill the form in and I say I do not suffer from epilepsy, I do not suffer from diabetes type 1, I do not suffer from some other condition that may materially impact on my ability at some stage to perform the function of driving this heavy vehicle, once I make that declaration, that is it? I am not trying to seek something out; I am just trying to come to understand it—is that it? It is a self-declaration, and that is that?

Mr Mahon : It is, but there are legal ramifications if something occurred.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  There certainly is if they live through the accident, but what about the family of six in the vehicle on the other end? I am somewhat—

Mr Stapleton : I am aware of a case in Queensland, last week, where someone failed to declare a medical condition and they are going to jail as a result of that because of the accident that occurred.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  That is good news and that should happen, but I am trying to talk about the bit in the middle. This isn't as if they can only affect themselves. If they wanted to, they could fill the form out however they liked, I could not give a continental, right? But if they have epilepsy and they are going to swim the English Channel and they tell you they have not, go hard. But this has the potential to catastrophically affect other road users because of this. I am perplexed. I know the reasons why, Mr Stapleton; all this stuff has resource questions, and the ability to do it and the massive additional job. But it could not happen in aviation. Why doesn't it happen in aviation? Simply, because the 200 passengers in a big jumbo do not want someone up the front that has just ticked and flicked their way through to the job, but this here has the same potential. We have people with dangerous goods and all sorts of things, and it seems to me that they are—I am getting cyclical here and I do not want to keep repeating it—but this seems to me to be not a perfect world in terms of licensing these people. It is bad enough in a sedan, but in something that can have a catastrophic impact, it is of concern to me. Are there any moves afoot—are we developing standards? Are we looking at this? Will we soon get some good news that we will be able to be a bit more probative with these applications on these people in these massive vehicles?

Mr Stapleton : The Austroads guidelines for medical condition reporting are reviewed periodically, and I believe it has only just been completed recently. On the issue that you are talking about, mandatory reporting, each jurisdiction has done their own work over a period of time. In Queensland, we reviewed our reporting requirements about three or four years ago, and we provided paths for doctors to report to us if they felt that their clients were not actually reporting a medical condition to us.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  How would the good doctor know that? What would trigger that? They have a patient who is a truck driver—what is the bit in the middle?

Mr Stapleton : There is nothing stopping a Queensland doctor from advising us the moment they become aware of a medical condition. They are indemnified under Queensland legislation to make that report.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  But you are assuming that they know what their patient's occupation is and the impact of this?

Mr Stapleton : They normally would because the patient is required to get a certification from them that they are fit to drive.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Alright.

Mr Stapleton : You cannot hold a licence without the certification of fitness to drive, so that process is there.

Mr Mahon : And that applies to any licence class.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  But that assumes, then, if a contingent visits on them, that they are with the same medical practitioner who has made a declaration and the patient continues to have a relationship with the doctor.

Mr Stapleton : It is the particularly difficult with heavy vehicles because a number of the conditions require a specialist certification. One of the problems we do have is, because of the lack of specialists in regional Queensland, that some drivers find it very difficult to access a specialist, so they have to come to the city or wait until someone comes out. When it comes to doctor shopping for some of the conditions, it is pretty difficult. There are not too many people you can go to.

CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan is a Queenslander—I thought I would just throw that in.

Mr Stapleton : I am aware of that.

CHAIR: I can feel him thinking—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  And a very proud Queenslander.

Mr Stapleton : As we are.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. And to Mr Stapleton and Mr Mahon, thank you very much. We do have a lot of questions. We appreciate your assistance today and it will be great if New South Wales could be here because, by crikey, we are going to need a lot longer with the RMS when they get here. We will let you head back to sunny Brisbane.

We can chat amongst ourselves on the record while we wait for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. Yes, I share your concern, Senator O'Sullivan. What I share even greater heartburn over is how the hell we can have B-double truck drivers stuck on the M5 and when the RMS come to break it out, back it up and move it away, they then wave them goodbye.

Senator BACK:  They got back in the truck.

CHAIR: How the hell did that happen? That never happened when I was on the road. I had to have bits of paper to go—

Senator GALLACHER:  They have to make $300, and they trapped 3,000 cars.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  It makes me want to walk home.

---

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Thank you for that contribution, but it did not respond to the burden of my question. The last thing I want to do as a senator examining Border Force is to start creating a pattern that questions the competency of processes in place when it comes to critical investigations. We have in other inquiries, unrelated to this, uncovered that some of the very simple 101 questions you would ask in the most basic of investigations have not occurred. We have, privately, put that down to the fact that we are transitioning to Border Force and everyone wants to give everyone sufficient space to establish and get patterns going. My question to Mr Gray is: if investigators went in this instance, wouldn't you think that one of the first questions would be to determine the relationships that may be with other visa holders in that organisation? You do not need to be too careful. We are not going to pursue your investigators and find out why they did not. I am just asking you: when you do come back with the answer, will it surprise you if they did not ask a basic range of questions to determine the prospect of this sort of relationship?

Mr Gray : Rather than responding to whether it would surprise me, I would prefer to come from another direction, if that is all right. When we attend a business premise in these circumstances, it is often done with the consent of the individual. So we are not necessarily going there under a warrant power or any other coercive power in that regard. We do a lot of employer awareness based work. Our officers will go out and talk to employers. I cannot answer the specific question you have about this employer, but one of the common things that we would do in those employer awareness sessions is to say, 'With your consent, we would be happy to look at the people who are on your books and assist you and advise you on whether they are lawfully in the country or have appropriate work rights to be here.' That is part of the activity that we do, but, as I said, I cannot say that happened on this particular occasion.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Let me coach this another way. Are you aware that, within Immigration, there were over 2,000 students here from a single country and fraud was detected. On broader examination, they found the educational transcripts that over 2,000 students provided were fraudulent. Are you familiar with that?

Mr Martin : Not the specifics of that investigation, but generally in visa processing we scrutinise applications and documentation quite rigorously in order to make our assessment and occasionally we are criticised for doing that. We assess applications on all the information that we have available at the time and, if there are any concerns or suspicions raised, we would generally dig deeper into the documentation.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Mr Martin, that is not the briefing I was recently given. The briefing I was given was that, if you have an application and there is some feature about which you are concerned, then it is elevated and other things happen. We will call it due diligence, investigation, critical examination. But I am told that, for the greatest bulk of the applications, there is no due diligence.

Mr Martin : No. I do not agree, Senator.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  So a briefing I have received from the minister's office to that effect you are telling me is completely inaccurate?

Mr Martin : If the briefing suggested there is no scrutiny of applications then I would have to disagree.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  No—I will repeat myself to assist you. Of 100 applications, how many would go through a serious due diligence examination? Let us use the 2,000 students. How many of those who have a transcript from an educational facility in another country would you go through and satisfy yourself absolutely about the bona fides of that certificate?

Mr Martin : I guess it depends on a range of factors. Depending on the level of risk and our internal risk settings, it is possible that there are applications that may be considered low risk—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Mr Martin, we have a saying here—we can go until the bells go, if you want to, but mine was a mathematical question and if you do not know the answer say so and we will take it on notice.  

Mr Martin : Okay, understood.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Of 100 applications, or make it 1,000 or whatever sample you like, I need to know on average with how many would all elements of the applicant's statements and declarations be subject to test.

Mr Martin : With student visa applications, can I clarify? I will take that on notice.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I found it astonishing that you worked in this field and were not aware of the 2,000 detected that had fabricated documents.

Mr Martin : Not the specifics of that incident, no.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  But you are generally aware that that happened?

Mr Martin : It can happen from time to time.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Mr Martin, seriously, we are having a soft afternoon—

Ms Dale : Can I jump in—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  No you cannot, Ms Dale, for the moment, thank you—I do not need mean to rudely truncate you, but my questions are to Mr Martin. There have been half a dozen of them and I am no wiser. My question is a very simple one. Does every application that comes forward to you receive a high standard and critical examination of the statements made by the applicant, the bona fides of the statements, and do you do critical due diligence on any documents that are presented with the application to ensure that they are not fraudulent documents? Every application—this will not have you thinking. I am asking does every application go through an intense screening process to determine the bona fides and the validity of declarations and any supporting documentation? Every one? I know the answer.

Mr Martin : As I was trying to explain, there are some applications which we would consider low risk, based on our internal risk settings, where we would not scrutinise every aspect.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  What would determine low risk?

Mr Martin : Generally it would depend on the course, if we are talking about student visa applications, that the person is applying for, the country that they are coming from, their previous immigration history may come into it.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  So the foundation answer is that there may be applications that are dealt with on the papers?

Mr Martin : That is correct.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Now help me a bit here. Of every 100 applications that come forward—I am sure there are heavy days and light days—how many do you think are dealt with on the papers?

Mr Martin : Purely based on papers I would say about 30 per cent. But I would like to take that on notice to confirm.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Let us take that on notice. I promise you I will not accept your answer prima facie either, so ask the people who provide you with the advice not to be clever and start to reduce that number if there is some little check like making one phone call to an aunty. I am interested in the intense examination of these applications. It would seem to us—I put a question before to the department of transport and I will put it to you—that in the due process, in the journey that someone might take to get behind the wheel of one of these, what do you call them; I am not a truckie—

CHAIR: Let's start with a B-double.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  B-double.

CHAIR: Or a prime mover; anything over a heavy rigid.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  There is a journey that occurs where there is great reliance made on the self declaration by the individual, supported sometimes by the issue that they have already been through a process before they arrive here. I put in a crazy statement about someone who has type 1 diabetes or suffers from epilepsy, but they have declared they did not. There is a chance that, if they are in your 30 per cent, you will be none the wiser whether they did or they did not. Some of this will underpin their ability to make the journey to where they end up behind the wheel of a semitrailer.  

Mr Martin : If I may say, even within that 100, applicants would need to meet health checks; they would need to be examined by a medical officer that is approved by the department and pass testing. So an assessment would be made on that. That is regardless of whether they are in that 30 per cent—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Where are those health checks done? Can they be done at their point of origin?  

Mr Martin : Yes, by physicians that are appointed by the department.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Have you ever stumbled across any schemes, in these hundreds of thousands of applications we process every year, where people did supply information on which you could not eventually rely, or was contradicted by facts?

Mr Martin : The panel of doctors that we appoint are generally of good standing, and we audit them on a rolling basis.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Back at the point of origin—back where the application is made?

Mr Martin : That is correct. We also share those resources with other like-minded countries.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I appreciate that answer, but it does not help me with the question. My question was, within your scope of knowledge, have there been circumstances where you have found that you could no longer rely upon the assessment by the doctor at the point of origin?

Mr Martin : Not to my knowledge.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  So in hundreds of thousands of applications, multiplied over five or 10 years—a million applications, we have not had an instance—whether it be the medical advice or the transcript from the universities, or so on—that we have found that they are false and fraudulent, or that we could not rely upon them when the facts where known?

Mr Martin : Certainly, other records that may be issued by authorities other than, say, panel doctors, or doctors appointed by the department, have been found to be fraudulent. In one part, it goes to the record keeping practices of other countries. Where we are aware of concerns, we scrutinise those documents thoroughly. If we have concerns, we will verify them, often with the source country who can give us information. And there are other techniques available to us to further verify those documents.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  One final thing I want you to take on notice is the question about this very, very broad, widescale alleged fraud where thousands—if they are not thousands, you can put it in the dustbin—of students arrived here on false documentation upon which we relied to allow them to come to our country. Would you take that question on notice.

---

CHAIR: Okay, so as an ex-road train driver who was never a trainer, if I were having people trained in HC or MC I would expect that they did not just read what to do out of a book—that they actually had skills, industry knowledge and experience in that configuration of vehicle. But that is not the case in New South Wales?

Mr Garner : It is certainly a requirement, if you are to be a trainer and assessor—

CHAIR: Hang on, I am getting confused here. I took what you just said to us—you said 'industry competence'? My shorthand is not that good. But I am asking: do they have to be actual truck drivers to be able to be a trainer/assessor? In that kind of vehicle?

Mr Garner : They have to have industry experience, yes.

CHAIR: What does that mean?

Mr Garner : That means that they must be able to demonstrate that they have sufficient experience that they have that competence—

CHAIR: Industry experience?

Mr Garner : Sorry, I think I might not have given you quite all the information there. Just the licence on its own would not be sufficient—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I think the burden of his question is: can you do it without a licence? Could they have been a dispatcher, could they have been a foreman in a transport company or could they have been a logistics manager?

Mr Garner : I do not believe so. Again, it is not written down anywhere, 'You must have this licence.' The requirements are that they must have current industry skills and knowledge. I do not believe you would be able to demonstrate those without holding a licence.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  That is a pretty critical question—

CHAIR: Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  would you be able to take that on notice?

CHAIR: I really need to know.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Are you the one to do it, or do we have to—

Mr Garner : I am sure we can answer it. I am just not quite sure what the question is—

CHAIR: What I want to put to you, just in my trucking vocabulary, is that I want to know if the trainer/assessor is actually a truck driver who has been a truck driver, who actually knows the industry and has the skills—that he or she has not just obtained that licence because they have read about it in the book and done the drivers licence, which makes them competent. They can do that—it makes them competent to be a truck driver. No—I will take that back, because we have found today that there are people who are not competent and yet they are truck drivers. There are 114 of them in Queensland, for example. It is all very well having that licence, but you said they must have industry competence. What does that mean? That is what I want you to take on notice.

Mr Garner : Yes—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I think we have all been surprised—

Mr Garner : I can answer that question now—

CHAIR: You can answer that now—great.

Mr Garner : The answer is yes, they are required to have industry experience, which means, in this particular instance, they would have to have worked as a truck driver recently.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  You have read that—you have just refreshed your memory from something, have you?

Mr Garner : No—perhaps I misheard the question, that is all.

CHAIR: So they have to have been a truck driver for how long? Is there a time period?

Mr Garner : There is no specific time period.

CHAIR: Hypothetically—and I am allowed to ask this here because it is Sterle rules when I am chairing—could they get the licence one week and actually pass as a trainer assessor?  

Mr Garner : No, I do not believe so.  

CHAIR: This is integral to our inquiry so I really need to know because I am being told something a bit different. I am being told that you only have to have the licence. That if you are a HR licensee and a HR trainer assessor and you want to go into MC, you just go off and get your MC licence and you only have to have held that licence for 12 months. You do not even have to be engaged in the industry. You do not have to have any experience. You have your licence and in 12 months time you can be an MC trainer and assessor. The same goes for HC.  

Mr Garner : You would need to demonstrate that you are a competent practitioner in whatever it is you are teaching. If you are training and assessing in multicombination you would need to be able to demonstrate that you were an experienced practitioner as a multi-combination truck driver.  

CHAIR: That is not what I have been told. You have said it verbally but you need to supply—if you can—where the rules are and what the actual rules are.  

Mr Garner : As I said, the rules are that they must have current industry skills and knowledge. That is what the rules say. They do not specify any specific amount of time.  

CHAIR: What I have said is that they can get their licence, hold it for one year and not do any work in that field and they have the job.  

Mr Garner : We would not accept that level of expertise—  

CHAIR: So can you guarantee me that all trainer assessors in Australia have those qualifications and that experience?  

Mr Garner : No, I cannot guarantee that.  

CHAIR: Why not?  

Mr Garner : Because we do not examine every trainer and assessor at any point in time.  

CHAIR: Would you guarantee that all who come under your jurisdiction have those qualifications and experience?  

Mr Garner : We could not guarantee that every single trainer and assessor—and we are talking somewhere in the order of 50,000 people—has exactly that level of expertise. They are certainly required to do so and, when we conduct audits or other regulatory activities, we test that industry experience. But we could not, in all honesty, say that at any point in time every single person in this sector complies with that requirement.  

CHAIR: What would you say to me, Mr Garner, if I said that I have been speaking to people who have said that it was that corruptible—my words—that there are incidences of three or four people being in the one truck with a trainer sitting in the bunk and they will all get licenced? Would you say that someone has given me a bump steer or I have made it up—that it could not happen?  

Mr Garner : I certainly would not suggest that you had made it up. To be honest, I do not know how to respond to that because I can see—  

CHAIR: I will tell you how I would love you to respond: I would love you to say that that is absolute bulldust and that you can guarantee that every single driver out there is trained by experts in their field to the highest standard. That is how I would love you to answer it.  

Mr Garner : We would love to be able to answer that, Senator.  

CHAIR: Senator O'Sullivan, do you have any questions?  

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  No, I do not. You have covered it very competently, Chair.

 

MTF...P2  

Ps For possible QOTM nomination on the "CAC" lady Ms Andrew...

Quote:CHAIR:  ..I will come back to one last thing: Ms Andrew, you are in charge of kicking people out? It is not worded that way—what is it?


Ms Andrew : My particular area looks after the cancellation powers.

CHAIR: Has that been active?

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  What was the beautiful name of your branch?

Ms Andrew : Character assessment and cancellation.

CHAIR: CAC?

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  We are going to put you in our speed dial.

CHAIR: Are you kept busy?

Ms Andrew : Very busy.

CHAIR: May I ask, is there a certain trend or class of these that is keeping you more busy than others?

Ms Andrew : We have general cancellation powers, which are the powers that we used for our particular truck drivers here. Last year, we cancelled 55,000 visas across a number of streams and for varying reasons. We are quite busy.

CHAIR: What about student visas?

Ms Andrew : I cannot give you the exact breakdown, but I can take that on notice.

CHAIR: I would be interested, if you could take that on notice, if there is any trend in the trucking industry. Thanks, Ms Andrew from CAC. If there are no further questions, thank you very much to Ms Dale and the department officers.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 11-13-2016

The ‘safety’ conundrum – in a nutshell.

Putting matters aeronautical aside for the moment; the following passage of play, for me at least, defines the dilemma in which the government, the enforcement agencies and the public find themselves.

Mr Mahon : In Queensland, it is a legal requirement to declare your medical condition if it has an impact on driving.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: There is one thing about a declaration—that is, if you do not declare. Do we have any measures at all, any due diligence that goes to determine—I mean, if I fill the form in and I say I do not suffer from epilepsy, I do not suffer from diabetes type 1, I do not suffer from some other condition that may materially impact on my ability at some stage to perform the function of driving this heavy vehicle, once I make that declaration, that is it? I am not trying to seek something out; I am just trying to come to understand it—is that it? It is a self-declaration, and that is that?

Mr Mahon : It is, but there are legal ramifications if something occurred.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: There certainly is if they live through the accident, but what about the family of six in the vehicle on the other end? I am somewhat—

Mr Stapleton : I am aware of a case in Queensland, last week, where someone failed to declare a medical condition and they are going to jail as a result of that because of the accident that occurred.

The final Stapleton paragraph defines the quandary. 'After the fact' – if you are proven to have broken a law, then, quite rightly, you will get the shit kicked out you; furry muff. The penalties for breaking the rules, in this case are severe. But are those rules a deterrent? Clearly not.

The government can only write rules and law etc. which, after the fact penalise the ‘wrong-doer’. The ‘agencies’ can enforce that law, provided they can prove the breach, after the fact. The ‘problem’ may only be addressed – after the fact; this is all that can be done. From a purely ‘safety’ standpoint, this is not enough; but the law makers can do no more; the enforcement agencies can do no more and yet ‘accidents’ continue to happen, despite the best efforts of those who make and enforce law.

The easiest route to explaining what I’m banging on about is to take a drive – say from home to the airport. Speed limits – there are penalties in place for speeding, which, after the fact – can be severe. There are ‘speed cameras’ which provide the evidence for prosecution – strict liability – pay the fine – loose the points; and, off you go again – trying not to get ‘done’.  The spirit and the intent of that law is lost; despite the ‘revenue’ generated from the camera; the total cost to the nation of a high speed prang is great. A fatal prang, with multiple vehicles more expensive again, when you total the entire cost from delay, services, administration, hospitals, funerals and the cost to a family in terms of loss. Yet, despite all the deterrents, you can sit on the speed limit on any city major road and there will be vehicles, large and small, flying past you as though you were standing still; horns blaring, lights flashing, idiots sat on your back bumper etc.  Why? Because you are obeying the law . Right or wrong law is debatable. Non the less, a law which was writ and is enforced with an aim  to keep you and others safe.

The pro’s and con’s of the ‘speed’ control debate are too big a subject and I digress.  To the point; there is little more ‘government’ can do, other than write law, which, after the fact, penalises. That law, no matter how erudite cannot prevent the ‘intent’ to break it. For a ‘safety case’ the law, standing alone cannot prevent an accident, no more than it can prevent murder or theft.  So, what’s to be done to prevent an accident ‘before it becomes fact’.

Even the simplest of crimes, say illegal parking, is viewed more as gamble than a safety risk. Yet the fool parked on an intersection corner preventing you from seeing the oncoming traffic does not care about the potential for accident – just finding a ‘park’ within easy walking distance of destination. After the fact, the law may act – the driver may even get a ticket – but does that enforce the reason why the ‘No Parking’ sign is there? No, regrettably it does not. In the pub that same bloke will be bemoaning the fact that he was given a ticket – not admitting that he inconvenienced many other folk and may, potentially, have been the cause of an accident. Just pissed off because he got booked.

Law upon law keeps the legal profession busy, very busy indeed. There are some who say that myriad, complex law even promotes ‘criminality’ through the loop holes and wriggle room created within the complexity. But then, even the simplest rules have had very little real effect – look at the ten commandments (well it is Sunday)– only 10 of ‘em – and they get broken every day. So that system failed as well, although there is much support for the argument that it is harder to break a simple rule. Endless.  I can only wish Glen Sterle and Barry O’Sullivan the very best in their quest to find a solution and be grateful it’s not me doing the job.

Aye well; there are many, much, much cleverer folk than I who can’t work it all out. But IMO it is apparent that layer upon layer of law will never help with prevention, only a cheap, easy conviction; about which the next offender will not give a continental.  As we say in aviation – if you think safety is expensive – have an accident.  

Toot – toot.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - thorn bird - 11-13-2016

My dear Kharon, you of all people should know the result of over regulation and the freedom, simplification and personal responsibility can bring. Did you not notice some three thousand odd years ago a sharp decline in the numbers you ferried across that great river? You of all people should know the reason.

You must be aware that back then there were 794 "commandments" which were added to each day. The people of the time were growing increasingly troubled, furtively looking over their shoulders, frantically leafing through their commandment books in a hopeless endeavour of being "Compliant" and not ending up condemned to your ferry. The user pays principle so entrenched in our society today and to hell with the public good was in full affect, in even those times you charged them a fare.

In desperation the people formed associations dedicated to making reform a priority. Committees pondered long and hard, submission after submission brought to the authorities to no avail, all protests fell on deaf ears.

Moses had grown old and infirm at this time relying on a Murky acolyte and his minions to enact and enforce the "Commandments" which grew and grew in number and complexity, thus increasing Murky's power and influence.
Finally when almost open revolt seemed more than likely craven idols were beginning to appear all over the place, Moses became increasingly unsettled. The whispers from Murky that all was well were not backed up by the facts.
Finally Moses called the tribal elders together to demand a reason for all the sinning that was obviously going on.
"Too many commandments" they cried " they must be simplified and reduced in number least we all must front the boatman"

"But what can I do"? Moses responded "I am but a weak and addled old man, I dare not interfere with the directions of them most high for fear for my immortal soul"

"Negotiate" cried the elders.

And so it was great Kharon, all that time ago,  that Moses took charge, ignored the protestations of his Murky Mandarin and his minions and climbed the mountain to converse directly with the god of truth to seek enlightenment.

The days passed till finally the old man trudged down the mountain clutching two stone tablets. The people gathered before him, saw his weary drawn features and in great fear that he had not succeeded in lifting the dreaded "commandments" that threatened to crush them and consign their souls to the scrape heap of decimated industries.

They cried out for the answer, a long silence prevailed.

Finally Moses spoke, "I bring good news and I bring bad news" the people shuffled some in hope, some in dread, they had been so disappointed so many times before.

"Tell us the good news" they cried

Moses waited for silence then spake thus " After great communion with the "Truth" the commandments have been cut to TEN"

A great cheer went up the people danced and cried out with joy, until finally they realised the bad was to come.

Silence spread across the multitude, a crestfallen Murky appeared and in a wavering voice, a voice that carried some hope that he and his minions would still carry some authority asked.

"Tell us the bad"

Moses threw down the tablets at Muky's feet and in a booming voice cried.

"ADULTERY IS STILL IN"

Here endeth the lesson.

In reverence to section 18C of the anti discrimination Act this analogy is a figment of my imagination.
It is not intended in any way to depict any religion either past or present, nor is it intended to mock, denigrate or ridicule anyone except those people who deserve it. You know who you are!

"K" edit - {When the time comes dear friend; thou shalt travel first class, at company expense and take thy beloved lampshade with thee. Selah.}

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-21-2016

Beer & nuts for Hoody at the Barry-O corral..


Apparently Barry-O & Sterl-O have unfinished business & will subsequently be reconvening Supplementary Estimates...  

Quote:

Well at least Hoody has got some inkling what NX is going to ask...

Quote:NX written QON 205 & 206:

Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

---

Please provide an update on the Pel-Air report.

Chuck in a few curly questions on the latest shenanigans on the MH370 cover-up/cock-up and it could be an entertaining half hour or so; prior to dinner -  
MTF...P2
Ps Although he is bound to already have a copy but perhaps Barry-O, just for the public record, could ask for a copy of this recently released report from the ATSB:

Quote:Summary

On 11 November 2015, a Jabiru J160 aircraft, Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) registration 19-7549, sustained a partial loss of engine power while enroute from Gunnedah to Cessnock, NSW. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot elected to divert to Scone aerodrome. However, due to an increasing rate of descent, the pilot conducted an emergency landing into an open field near Scone. The aircraft landed without incident.
Blockage of the wing fuel tank filler vent cap was found during the subsequent inspection of the aircraft fuel system. Partial disassembly of the engine also identified that the number-four cylinder had sustained a broken inlet valve spring.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) commenced an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the engine power loss. CASA requested the technical assistance and oversight of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in conducting a detailed examination of the occurrence aircraft and its engine. To facilitate this assistance, the ATSB initiated an external investigation under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

A report detailing the examinations and ATSB's findings was provided to CASA, RAAus and the aircraft manufacturer, on 30 May 2016. Enquiries relating to the investigation should be directed to CASA on 131 757.

Figure 1: The engine from Jabiru J160 aircraft, RAAus registration 19-7549
Source: ATSB

Nice to square things away - just saying...

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Gobbledock - 11-21-2016

Never fear. If anything is said that Hoody finds unpalatable he can always 'correct the record' on his little emotional webpage!

Now go put on your smoothest power tie and a Toga Greg, the Senators await you!

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 11-22-2016

Fizzzzzz – pop!

Squibb - No bang. Not too much Huff and very little Puff.

Umpire Barry O’s braces ( you trend setter) were covered over for the opening session; which, IMO, was a pity – I really want a pair and have put them on my Christmas wish- list. (True).

Nice soft session for ATSB; not even a bead of sweat to be seen as the ATSB first XI came in to bat; even the ‘invisible manning’ was on the card, batting at number four but not needed as the opening batsmen patted the nice soft underarm bowling politely to the fieldsman.

Bit difficult to make commentary on a very lack-lustre innings, no spite, absolutely no venom  and the sledging was not even picked up by the wicket microphone. Seems the Hood ‘tabled’ opening gambit satisfied the judges panel; and, as he’s been a good lad, answered his QoN, all was well.  They did drag in the reserve for a bit of practice; Godley of the small goatish beard – a whisp of whiskers on the bottom lip (WTF is that thing) emphasising the week chin – I shall dub him ‘Goatly’ (add to dictionary: def:: waste of time and space, typical of the genre). He did attempt to add support to the claimed ‘independence’ of ATSB; but I would not buy a used car from that man; druther walk.  Aye the notion of an independent ATSB was pushed gently, but repeatedly into the lavender scented air. An ‘independent’ ATSB;  what a ducking wonderful notion. Maybe that’s why the kid gloves were on; the Senate have agreed to support ATSB independence and the invisible Manning is to be the ‘face’ of the brand new ATSB. Deals done behind closed doors? Never; perish the thought - this is Canberra you know.

Was it Cesare (Borgia?) who rightly declined to wear purple, lest the mob think he had empirical aspirations. Hoody and Foley were dripping in it. Interesting ‘team choice’ I thought.

“Purple embodies the balance of red’s stimulation and blue’s calm. This dichotomy can cause unrest or uneasiness unless the undertone is clearly defined, at which point the purple takes on the characteristics of its undertone. With a sense of mystic and royal qualities, purple is a colour often well liked by very creative or eccentric types and is the favourite colour of adolescent girls”.

But then, despite all of that, the genuine Foley spoke about as honestly as anyone sane could about ATSB and the MH 370 search. The Foley batting average credibility remains high, given, I reckon, he’s doing the very best he can, with what he was left with, in difficult circumstances, from an awkward position. Well played Sir.

That’s about it, until I read the ‘Hood’ tabled remarks and watch the replay. I’ll fill in the time finding a pair of ‘U-Beaut’ braces to wear to fancy do’s, BBQ’s and of course the BRB sessions.

Toot – something? Nothing?- duck it – toot.

Get ‘em in Tom, your shout.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-22-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:12 PM)kharon Wrote:  Fizzzzzz – pop!

Squibb - No bang. Not too much Huff and very little Puff.

Umpire Barry O’s braces ( you trend setter) were covered over for the opening session; which, IMO, was a pity – I really want a pair and have put them on my Christmas wish- list. (True).

Nice soft session for ATSB; not even a bead of sweat to be seen as the ATSB first XI came in to bat; even the ‘invisible manning’ was on the card, batting at number four but not needed as the opening batsmen patted the nice soft underarm bowling politely to the fieldsman.

Bit difficult to make commentary on a very lack-lustre innings, no spite, absolutely no venom  and the sledging was not even picked up by the wicket microphone. Seems the Hood ‘tabled’ opening gambit satisfied the judges panel; and, as he’s been a good lad, answered his QoN, all was well.  They did drag in the reserve for a bit of practice; Godley of the small goatish beard – a whisp of whiskers on the bottom lip (WTF is that thing) emphasising the week chin – I shall dub him ‘Goatly’ (add to dictionary: def:: waste of time and space, typical of the genre). He did attempt to add support to the claimed ‘independence’ of ATSB; but I would not buy a used car from that man; druther walk.  Aye the notion of an independent ATSB was pushed gently, but repeatedly into the lavender scented air. An ‘independent’ ATSB;  what a ducking wonderful notion. Maybe that’s why the kid gloves were on; the Senate have agreed to support ATSB independence and the invisible Manning is to be the ‘face’ of the brand new ATSB. Deals done behind closed doors? Never; perish the thought - this is Canberra you know.

Was it Cesare (Borgia?) who rightly declined to wear purple, lest the mob think he had empirical aspirations. Hoody and Foley were dripping in it. Interesting ‘team choice’ I thought.

“Purple embodies the balance of red’s stimulation and blue’s calm. This dichotomy can cause unrest or uneasiness unless the undertone is clearly defined, at which point the purple takes on the characteristics of its undertone. With a sense of mystic and royal qualities, purple is a colour often well liked by very creative or eccentric types and is the favourite colour of adolescent girls”.

But then, despite all of that, the genuine Foley spoke about as honestly as anyone sane could about ATSB and the MH 370 search. The Foley batting average credibility remains high, given, I reckon, he’s doing the very best he can, with what he was left with, in difficult circumstances, from an awkward position. Well played Sir.

That’s about it, until I read the ‘Hood’ tabled remarks and watch the replay. I’ll fill in the time finding a pair of ‘U-Beaut’ braces to wear to fancy do’s, BBQ’s and of course the BRB sessions.

Toot – something? Nothing?- duck it – toot.

Get ‘em in Tom, your shout.

P7 - edit - Where is the 'Opening statement'? - Hansard has it - I hope.  My throw; need a Shanghai 20 to beat the Sandpit Six -

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - P1_aka_P1 - 11-22-2016

I was fascinated by the Hood hands during the Foley discourse, particularly the thumbs, especially the left thumb. Watch carefully throughout, then consider the Foley hands in the infamous 'Flaperon' photograph. Interesting stuff.

Perhaps the primer – HERE - may assist the beginner, about halfway down. "hands clenched together":-

Quote:Summary.

The thumbs have been used as a sign of power and authority for thousands of years. In Roman times, the thumb held up or down meant life or death to a gladiator. Even without any training, others intuitively decode thumb signals and seem to understand their meaning. You are now in a position not only to decode thumb signs, but to train yourself to use them

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Gobbledock - 11-23-2016

Roman Emperor P1 the 1st said;

"The thumbs have been used as a sign of power and authority for thousands of years. In Roman times, the thumb held up or down meant life or death to a gladiator. Even without any training, others intuitively decode thumb signals and seem to understand their meaning. You are now in a position not only to decode thumb signs, but to train yourself to use them".

Hmm. We are talking about Hoodsters thumbs you know. I believe that if given the chance those masculin thumbs could indeed tell a thousand stories!! Besides the only thumb I like to see is the one I can see through the flight deck window that belongs to the trusty Gingerbeer after he has headsetted my aircraft safely to the pushback disconnect line.

'Safe Pollex for all'

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Kharon - 11-23-2016

Hoody testiculates.

Testiculation – the art of talking of bollocks with hand gestures. Which, on sober reflection, was exactly what Hood was doing during his smug, smart assed finale to the ‘drone’ discussion. In the video segment ‘Sterlo on drones’ after Goatly does his nervous little party piece at 0845 Hoody, fairly aggressively and quickly, steps in with a “perspective” - pure party line – and tries to parallel bird strikes with drone strikes.

Bird strikes do happen and something like a big wedge tail eagle at an average weight of about the 4.5 kg can certainly spoil your day, but birds will, for the most part try to avoid contact – even when ‘hunting’ in the vicinity of an aerodrome, they ain’t stationary; but then flying in ‘wedge tail country’ is a whole other subject (not taught).  Gods alone know how many birds Australia has and how many species there are (Google does). ATSB should know how many bird strikes there are in a year, of those the percentages which occur at different location should be available (city, town, country, rural and GAFA).  Want to bet where most occur; then compare that to 'known' high density drone populations? Nah, didn't think so.

On my own account, I’ve never met with a bird that deliberately got in my face – never met any form of airborne threat that was controlled, remotely by some mutt with NFI of closing speed; and, I can’t think of a time where a bird was loitering on the approach or take off without the intention getting out of my path a.s.a.p, (provided they ‘see’ you). Birds don’t loiter – they are on the move – both in random (in transit) and predictable (hunting) patterns – the mathematics of percentage strikes make it a fair bet that unless you operate into a known ‘hazard’ area (LHI tip for example, bloody seagulls) the chances of a contact are fairly remote. Birds don’t hover about airports approach paths at busy city destinations taking pictures or buggering about being funny – they do try very hard not to get hurt and are a damn sight smarter than some uneducated, unaccountable yokel with an Aldi toy showing off.

It is silly to even try and align making the rules and controls for recreational drone operators with  accidental bird strike; totally different animals.  it’s glib, smart arsed and a badly considered approach to what is rapidly becoming a serious, growing threat. No CF for Hoody, demerit points for behaviour unbecoming.  

Tweet tweet.

Addendum: Need to wait for Hansard – but, there was a neat piece of ledgerdemain and fancy, defensive footwork about Hood’s conflict of interest in the Pel-Air debacle, which is worthy of some attention. That, and the invisible manning’s glib excuses for the further delay in releasing ‘that’ report to the public.  MTF.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-23-2016

(11-23-2016, 06:20 AM)kharon Wrote:  Hoody testiculates.

Testiculation – the art of talking of bollocks with hand gestures. Which, on sober reflection, was exactly what Hood was doing during his smug, smart assed finale to the ‘drone’ discussion. In the video segment ‘Sterlo on drones’ after Goatly does his nervous little party piece at 0845 Hoody, fairly aggressively and quickly, steps in with a “perspective” - pure party line – and tries to parallel bird strikes with drone strikes.

Bird strikes do happen and something like a big wedge tail eagle at an average weight of about the 4.5 kg can certainly spoil your day, but birds will, for the most part try to avoid contact – even when ‘hunting’ in the vicinity of an aerodrome, they ain’t stationary; but then flying in ‘wedge tail country’ is a whole other subject (not taught).  Gods alone know how many birds Australia has and how many species there are (Google does). ATSB should know how many bird strikes there are in a year, of those the percentages which occur at different location should be available (city, town, country, rural and GAFA).  Want to bet where most occur; then compare that to 'known' high density drone populations? Nah, didn't think so.

On my own account, I’ve never met with a bird that deliberately got in my face – never met any form of airborne threat that was controlled, remotely by some mutt with NFI of closing speed; and, I can’t think of a time where a bird was loitering on the approach or take off without the intention getting out of my path a.s.a.p, (provided they ‘see’ you). Birds don’t loiter – they are on the move – both in random (in transit) and predictable (hunting) patterns – the mathematics of percentage strikes make it a fair bet that unless you operate into a known ‘hazard’ area (LHI tip for example, bloody seagulls) the chances of a contact are fairly remote. Birds don’t hover about airports approach paths at busy city destinations taking pictures or buggering about being funny – they do try very hard not to get hurt and are a damn sight smarter than some uneducated, unaccountable yokel with an Aldi toy showing off.

It is silly to even try and align making the rules and controls for recreational drone operators with  accidental bird strike; totally different animals.  it’s glib, smart arsed and a badly considered approach to what is rapidly becoming a serious, growing threat. No CF for Hoody, demerit points for behaviour unbecoming.  

Tweet tweet.

Addendum: Need to wait for Hansard – but, there was a neat piece of ledgerdemain and fancy, defensive footwork about Hood’s conflict of interest in the Pel-Air debacle, which is worthy of some attention. That, and the invisible manning’s glib excuses for the further delay in releasing ‘that’ report to the public.  MTF.

Keeping in mind the RRAT Committee UAV inquiry is now under way but to add to the Hoody smug platitudes on drones - this was the last segment where Barry-O was lightly quizzing the Hoodlum on the subject of air safety & drones:


Again like "K" I eagerly await the Hansard because I believe in that very first line Hoodlum has contradicted his subordinate Godley, who basically indicated that until the drone related incident/accident actually occurs there will be no review or research into whether the rule set (CASR Part 101) may or may not be contributory to any currently or future reported drone incidents/accidents.
 
Funny how Godley's ATSB independent view is so contradictory to the World aviation safety view: References - Carmody & the rise of the drones &  Carmody & the rise of the drones Part II - The French connection.

Quote:Joseph Wheeler - The Senate inquiry now taking submissions will go a long way to finding out why Australia has become the outsider in terms of regulating this size and class of drone. Then, the nearly 2000 “commercial operators” who have emerged since September 29 (up from about 700 at that date) will come to learn the laws that let them to fly without aeronautical knowledge and the development “airmanship” will likely be restruck in coming months and years, to allow a return to practical legislation in this field.


At a time when the rest of the world is unified on the wisdom of regulatory drones controls, the “red tape” reduction of saving operators $1400 in application fees in Australia will no doubt head the way of the dinosaur as practical common sense returns.

It can’t come soon enough..."

I guess one positive to come out of the comments from the ATSB 'research' Guru Godley is that he has in affect already answered the NX written QON:

Quote:Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

 Somehow I get the feeling that NX already knew the answer -


MTF...P2

Ps It should be remembered that the CASA safety case for the amended CASR Part 101 is based on a research paper compiled by an individual who was sponsored by CASA:

Quote:Drone deaf and bone idle.

Has anyone actually sat down and read; I mean really read the 2013 ‘model’ on which CASA based their rule set – 101.  I find the ‘101’ descriptor amusing; for indeed it is.  I expect I could rattle on about this ‘model’, produce logical argument and drag out the many flaws; those which would add fuel to the Senators little pyre. But not today. The Senators have people of wit and intelligence on tap – what I will do is give them a starter for 10 points; two paragraphs; to pick the bones out of.

Quote: Wrote:This report presents the findings of a study carried out by Alexander Radi M.Sc.during a four months research internship at CASA (Canberra). The aim of the study is to provide the Standards Development branch at CASA with an assessment of injury severity from the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground.

Quote: Wrote:Of particular interest are combinations of RPA mass and impact velocity which cause non-severe injuries.

Due to the complex geometry of the RPA and the non-trivial biomechanics of the human body, major simplifications and assumptions had to be made during the adaptation of the BC. The current model ignores the collision dynamics and the RPA material’s frangibility and elasticity, making its predictions over-restrictive.

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-24-2016

(11-23-2016, 08:48 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(11-23-2016, 06:20 AM)kharon Wrote:  Hoody testiculates.

Testiculation – the art of talking of bollocks with hand gestures. Which, on sober reflection, was exactly what Hood was doing during his smug, smart assed finale to the ‘drone’ discussion. In the video segment ‘Sterlo on drones’ after Goatly does his nervous little party piece at 0845 Hoody, fairly aggressively and quickly, steps in with a “perspective” - pure party line – and tries to parallel bird strikes with drone strikes.

Bird strikes do happen and something like a big wedge tail eagle at an average weight of about the 4.5 kg can certainly spoil your day, but birds will, for the most part try to avoid contact – even when ‘hunting’ in the vicinity of an aerodrome, they ain’t stationary; but then flying in ‘wedge tail country’ is a whole other subject (not taught).  Gods alone know how many birds Australia has and how many species there are (Google does). ATSB should know how many bird strikes there are in a year, of those the percentages which occur at different location should be available (city, town, country, rural and GAFA).  Want to bet where most occur; then compare that to 'known' high density drone populations? Nah, didn't think so.

On my own account, I’ve never met with a bird that deliberately got in my face – never met any form of airborne threat that was controlled, remotely by some mutt with NFI of closing speed; and, I can’t think of a time where a bird was loitering on the approach or take off without the intention getting out of my path a.s.a.p, (provided they ‘see’ you). Birds don’t loiter – they are on the move – both in random (in transit) and predictable (hunting) patterns – the mathematics of percentage strikes make it a fair bet that unless you operate into a known ‘hazard’ area (LHI tip for example, bloody seagulls) the chances of a contact are fairly remote. Birds don’t hover about airports approach paths at busy city destinations taking pictures or buggering about being funny – they do try very hard not to get hurt and are a damn sight smarter than some uneducated, unaccountable yokel with an Aldi toy showing off.

It is silly to even try and align making the rules and controls for recreational drone operators with  accidental bird strike; totally different animals.  it’s glib, smart arsed and a badly considered approach to what is rapidly becoming a serious, growing threat. No CF for Hoody, demerit points for behaviour unbecoming.  

Tweet tweet.

Addendum: Need to wait for Hansard – but, there was a neat piece of ledgerdemain and fancy, defensive footwork about Hood’s conflict of interest in the Pel-Air debacle, which is worthy of some attention. That, and the invisible manning’s glib excuses for the further delay in releasing ‘that’ report to the public.  MTF.

Keeping in mind the RRAT Committee UAV inquiry is now under way but to add to the Hoody smug platitudes on drones - this was the last segment where Barry-O was lightly quizzing the Hoodlum on the subject of air safety & drones:

Again like "K" I eagerly await the Hansard because I believe in that very first line Hoodlum has contradicted his subordinate Godley, who basically indicated that until the drone related incident/accident actually occurs there will be no review or research into whether the rule set (CASR Part 101) may or may not be contributory to any currently or future reported drone incidents/accidents.
 
Funny how Godley's ATSB independent view is so contradictory to the World aviation safety view: References - Carmody & the rise of the drones &  Carmody & the rise of the drones Part II - The French connection.

Quote:Joseph Wheeler - The Senate inquiry now taking submissions will go a long way to finding out why Australia has become the outsider in terms of regulating this size and class of drone. Then, the nearly 2000 “commercial operators” who have emerged since September 29 (up from about 700 at that date) will come to learn the laws that let them to fly without aeronautical knowledge and the development “airmanship” will likely be restruck in coming months and years, to allow a return to practical legislation in this field.

At a time when the rest of the world is unified on the wisdom of regulatory drones controls, the “red tape” reduction of saving operators $1400 in application fees in Australia will no doubt head the way of the dinosaur as practical common sense returns.

It can’t come soon enough..."

I guess one positive to come out of the comments from the ATSB 'research' Guru Godley is that he has in affect already answered the NX written QON:

Quote:Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

 Somehow I get the feeling that NX already knew the answer -


MTF...P2

Ps It should be remembered that the CASA safety case for the amended CASR Part 101 is based on a research paper compiled by an individual who was sponsored by CASA:

Quote:Drone deaf and bone idle.

Has anyone actually sat down and read; I mean really read the 2013 ‘model’ on which CASA based their rule set – 101.  I find the ‘101’ descriptor amusing; for indeed it is.  I expect I could rattle on about this ‘model’, produce logical argument and drag out the many flaws; those which would add fuel to the Senators little pyre. But not today. The Senators have people of wit and intelligence on tap – what I will do is give them a starter for 10 points; two paragraphs; to pick the bones out of.

Quote: Wrote:This report presents the findings of a study carried out by Alexander Radi M.Sc.during a four months research internship at CASA (Canberra). The aim of the study is to provide the Standards Development branch at CASA with an assessment of injury severity from the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground.

Quote: Wrote:Of particular interest are combinations of RPA mass and impact velocity which cause non-severe injuries.

Due to the complex geometry of the RPA and the non-trivial biomechanics of the human body, major simplifications and assumptions had to be made during the adaptation of the BC. The current model ignores the collision dynamics and the RPA material’s frangibility and elasticity, making its predictions over-restrictive.

Wingnut's arrogant view on drones -

With all of the above in mind it is worth noting Wingnut's (the acting CASA DAS) view on the current rule set on the governance of drones...    


Courtesy FF:

Quote:RPAS (AKA Drones)

• The CASR Part 101 changes that commenced on 29 September 2016 will reduce the regulatory burden for low risk unmanned aircraft operations and facilitate growth and innovation in the sector. P2 since when does CASA give a rat's about industry's regulatory burden...
  
• This is a proactive step and frankly, a great amendment. It provides direct savings to affected individual businesses as a result of the amended regulations are estimated to be more than $5,000.
  
• RPAS operators will still need to comply with the strict operating restrictions which dictate where an RPAS can be operated, the maximum height of operations, that they be operated within visual line of sight only and that they not be operated near people, property or aircraft. The rules remain unchanged with this amendment.
  
• The clear safety benefit of this amendment is that now more operators who were previously operating in a non-compliant manner are readily subscribing to the regulatory system and the much simpler notification requirements (very similar to the Canadian system). Between the time the capability to report sub 2kg operations became available¾29 September 2016, and Wednesday this week¾over 1 350 notifications from sub 2kg operators have been received by CASA.
  
• By bringing more operators under the regulatory system, CASA is able to more effectively educate and inform operators of their safety responsibilities.
  
• However, as you might expect and in common with other regulatory proposals, again the positions are polarised. Some existing RPAS operators (and other interested parties) have raised concerns over the latest amendments, claiming that it will increase safety risk because not all commercial operations will need to be licensed or certified by CASA. Frankly, I consider this to be a nonsense-given the free availability of recreational drones-but the issue must be dealt with. P2 - The arrogance of this statement IMO beggars belief.
  
• Also, one Senator has recently moved a disallowance motion for the below 2kg amendment, which has been deferred until late November.
  
• Nevertheless, to address the concerns raised, Minister Chester has announced a review of aviation safety regulation in relation to the operation of remotely piloted aircraft systems.  This review will be undertaken by CASA in early 2017 and will examine the regulations governing RPAS regulation in Australia, looking closely at aviation safety enhancements.
  
• Finally, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, just last week, moved that an RPAS inquiry be undertaken and reported by 27 April 2017. Of course, we welcome the opportunity for CASA to participate in this inquiry and tell the real story. Let’s hope the number has grown to 5000 by then! P2 - Again the sheer arrogance of this statement is UDB, but then again what would we expect from yet another of M&M's favoured minions...
  
• With all this happening in the background, let me be clear that amended regulations still apply until the outcomes of any disallowance process are known
  

 
MTF...P2

---

RE: Senate Estimates - 2016. - Peetwo - 11-25-2016

(11-22-2016, 06:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(11-22-2016, 06:12 PM)kharon Wrote:  Fizzzzzz – pop!

Squibb - No bang. Not too much Huff and very little Puff.

Umpire Barry O’s braces ( you trend setter) were covered over for the opening session; which, IMO, was a pity – I really want a pair and have put them on my Christmas wish- list. (True).

Nice soft session for ATSB; not even a bead of sweat to be seen as the ATSB first XI came in to bat; even the ‘invisible manning’ was on the card, batting at number four but not needed as the opening batsmen patted the nice soft underarm bowling politely to the fieldsman.

Bit difficult to make commentary on a very lack-lustre innings, no spite, absolutely no venom  and the sledging was not even picked up by the wicket microphone. Seems the Hood ‘tabled’ opening gambit satisfied the judges panel; and, as he’s been a good lad, answered his QoN, all was well.  They did drag in the reserve for a bit of practice; Godley of the small goatish beard – a whisp of whiskers on the bottom lip (WTF is that thing) emphasising the week chin – I shall dub him ‘Goatly’ (add to dictionary: def:: waste of time and space, typical of the genre). He did attempt to add support to the claimed ‘independence’ of ATSB; but I would not buy a used car from that man; druther walk.  Aye the notion of an independent ATSB was pushed gently, but repeatedly into the lavender scented air. An ‘independent’ ATSB;  what a ducking wonderful notion. Maybe that’s why the kid gloves were on; the Senate have agreed to support ATSB independence and the invisible Manning is to be the ‘face’ of the brand new ATSB. Deals done behind closed doors? Never; perish the thought - this is Canberra you know.

Was it Cesare (Borgia?) who rightly declined to wear purple, lest the mob think he had empirical aspirations. Hoody and Foley were dripping in it. Interesting ‘team choice’ I thought.

“Purple embodies the balance of red’s stimulation and blue’s calm. This dichotomy can cause unrest or uneasiness unless the undertone is clearly defined, at which point the purple takes on the characteristics of its undertone. With a sense of mystic and royal qualities, purple is a colour often well liked by very creative or eccentric types and is the favourite colour of adolescent girls”.

But then, despite all of that, the genuine Foley spoke about as honestly as anyone sane could about ATSB and the MH 370 search. The Foley batting average credibility remains high, given, I reckon, he’s doing the very best he can, with what he was left with, in difficult circumstances, from an awkward position. Well played Sir.

That’s about it, until I read the ‘Hood’ tabled remarks and watch the replay. I’ll fill in the time finding a pair of ‘U-Beaut’ braces to wear to fancy do’s, BBQ’s and of course the BRB sessions.

Toot – something? Nothing?- duck it – toot.

Get ‘em in Tom, your shout.

P7 - edit - Where is the 'Opening statement'? - Hansard has it - I hope.  My throw; need a Shanghai 20 to beat the Sandpit Six -

Still waiting on Hoody's opening statement to be tabled but we do now have the Hansard:
 Australian Transport Safety Bureau


MTF...P2

---