Blurred vision.
Perhaps someone could help me out here. Not having the vaguest notion of how things are done in the world of 'big business' questions arise to which I cannot find a satisfactory answers. Well not a straight forward ones anyway.
Why were these ferries not built in Australia? Under our standards and quality scrutiny? We have the steel; we have shipyards, we have a highly skilled workforce; and should any 'problems' emerge, its not too hard to ask the questions directly of the builder and get the issues sorted out.
Why were the benefits to the national economy not factored in? An Australian shipyard employing Australian labour would surely be of value, the profits from the build subject to taxes and a healthy boost to local business would have benefited the local economy. Those benefits were given to off-shore builders and to tackle any sort of 'perceived' or real problems with the build will be a lengthy, expensive business serving to benefit the legal profession alone.– why?
Why is it necessary to utilise a foreign company to manage the Sydney ferry system. Are there no 'home' based outfits capable of running a dozen or so ferries. Once again, maximised profits from minimum input vanish overseas, and any form of legal action becomes not only expensive but difficult to prosecute, should the need arise. I will only mention 'submarines' and 'One Sky' to jog the memory of the perils associated.
There seems to be a long row of circuit breakers between the NSW government and any form of responsibility for the system. It may be unlikely that there will be a major accident; but, already the furious back peddling can be seen in Estimates sessions. Safety agencies throwing up defensive barriers and disclaimers; OTSI a stand out performer: AMSA a reluctant one. The blame game opening set being played now.
These ferries may or may not be outright dangerous; but already any savings made are being burned up in on going repetitive and patch up/ catch up repairs; the risk to travelling public may not be large; but it exists, quantifiable and tangible. Risk mitigation is a cornerstone of safe operation. Murphy's Law - "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time.” Works for me.
Toot – toot..
Perhaps someone could help me out here. Not having the vaguest notion of how things are done in the world of 'big business' questions arise to which I cannot find a satisfactory answers. Well not a straight forward ones anyway.
Why were these ferries not built in Australia? Under our standards and quality scrutiny? We have the steel; we have shipyards, we have a highly skilled workforce; and should any 'problems' emerge, its not too hard to ask the questions directly of the builder and get the issues sorted out.
Why were the benefits to the national economy not factored in? An Australian shipyard employing Australian labour would surely be of value, the profits from the build subject to taxes and a healthy boost to local business would have benefited the local economy. Those benefits were given to off-shore builders and to tackle any sort of 'perceived' or real problems with the build will be a lengthy, expensive business serving to benefit the legal profession alone.– why?
Why is it necessary to utilise a foreign company to manage the Sydney ferry system. Are there no 'home' based outfits capable of running a dozen or so ferries. Once again, maximised profits from minimum input vanish overseas, and any form of legal action becomes not only expensive but difficult to prosecute, should the need arise. I will only mention 'submarines' and 'One Sky' to jog the memory of the perils associated.
There seems to be a long row of circuit breakers between the NSW government and any form of responsibility for the system. It may be unlikely that there will be a major accident; but, already the furious back peddling can be seen in Estimates sessions. Safety agencies throwing up defensive barriers and disclaimers; OTSI a stand out performer: AMSA a reluctant one. The blame game opening set being played now.
These ferries may or may not be outright dangerous; but already any savings made are being burned up in on going repetitive and patch up/ catch up repairs; the risk to travelling public may not be large; but it exists, quantifiable and tangible. Risk mitigation is a cornerstone of safe operation. Murphy's Law - "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong, and at the worst possible time.” Works for me.
Toot – toot..