05-02-2018, 07:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-02-2018, 07:07 PM by P7_TOM.
Edit Reason: Syntax boy -
)
Fit for purpose?
“(of an institution, facility, etc.) well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.”
P2’s foray into the corporate dustbins has provided some interesting information and an individual could be forgiven for perceiving an O’Sullivan ‘conflict of interest’. On the surface, at first glance, that perception is worthy of discussion. Whether or not that ‘perception’ would withstand serious scrutiny is beyond my remit and qualification. Identifying, concisely, in legal terms, just what that perceived conflict is; of itself, nigh on impossible.
What may be more easily defined is ‘fit for purpose’. Rather than ramble on I will refer you to a talk delivered by The Honourable Murray Gleeson AC Chief Justice of Australia in 1998.
“There are four aspects of judicial status or performance that will form the basis of my remarks. These are independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence.”
Many people, myself included, regard the Senate RRAT committee as the ‘Judges’, the final arbitrator; and yes, that is probably an over simplification – but it will serve my purpose. The notion that an Estimates panel should be independent, impartial, fair and competent is a widely held belief. Particularly with regard to matters aeronautical. For a number of years now, various Senate committees have acknowledged the deeply entrenched ‘problems’ which beset aviation. Many Senators, Ministers and Commissions have tried to correct the ‘problems’ and strike a balance between ‘Safety’ and sanity. The Senate committee’s are seen (rightly or wrongly) as the last court of appeal. Over the last few years, with both Heffernan and Sterle in the chair, much has been done to reveal how deep the ‘problems’ go. Through committee examination the deep, detrimental effects of that poor regulation and flawed industry oversight have been revealed.
When the O’Sullivan era began, it was expected that the committee would continue the good work, slowly, but determinedly, working toward the outcomes an ailing industry demanded.
Many, myself included, are of the opinion that O’Sullivan has done much to thwart that progress. Delays, a dismissive approach combined with an almost hostile approach to legitimate complaint, encompassed within a narrow focus typify the current view of the committee’s recent performances. Hansard clearly defines this; the O’Sullivan dismissal of Griffin at the Cloncury inquiry into aviation provides the quintessential example.
There may be a perception of a conflict of interest which, no doubt, will be endlessly discussed in the pub; but IMO, there it will remain. The more interesting discussion will be on ‘fit for purpose’. Leopards don’t change their spots – not in my jungle they don’t. Considering the approach to aviation matters demonstrated and recorded; the deep background and mind set of the Senator – it would be (IMO) a fair call to ask that he recuse himself for the Chair during Senate inquiry into ‘matters aeronautical’. Just in the interests of publicly perceived “independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence” of course.
“…it’s better in fact to be guilty of manslaughter than of fraud about what is fair and just.”
Handing over. Toot - toot.
“(of an institution, facility, etc.) well equipped or well suited for its designated role or purpose.”
P2’s foray into the corporate dustbins has provided some interesting information and an individual could be forgiven for perceiving an O’Sullivan ‘conflict of interest’. On the surface, at first glance, that perception is worthy of discussion. Whether or not that ‘perception’ would withstand serious scrutiny is beyond my remit and qualification. Identifying, concisely, in legal terms, just what that perceived conflict is; of itself, nigh on impossible.
What may be more easily defined is ‘fit for purpose’. Rather than ramble on I will refer you to a talk delivered by The Honourable Murray Gleeson AC Chief Justice of Australia in 1998.
“There are four aspects of judicial status or performance that will form the basis of my remarks. These are independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence.”
Many people, myself included, regard the Senate RRAT committee as the ‘Judges’, the final arbitrator; and yes, that is probably an over simplification – but it will serve my purpose. The notion that an Estimates panel should be independent, impartial, fair and competent is a widely held belief. Particularly with regard to matters aeronautical. For a number of years now, various Senate committees have acknowledged the deeply entrenched ‘problems’ which beset aviation. Many Senators, Ministers and Commissions have tried to correct the ‘problems’ and strike a balance between ‘Safety’ and sanity. The Senate committee’s are seen (rightly or wrongly) as the last court of appeal. Over the last few years, with both Heffernan and Sterle in the chair, much has been done to reveal how deep the ‘problems’ go. Through committee examination the deep, detrimental effects of that poor regulation and flawed industry oversight have been revealed.
When the O’Sullivan era began, it was expected that the committee would continue the good work, slowly, but determinedly, working toward the outcomes an ailing industry demanded.
Many, myself included, are of the opinion that O’Sullivan has done much to thwart that progress. Delays, a dismissive approach combined with an almost hostile approach to legitimate complaint, encompassed within a narrow focus typify the current view of the committee’s recent performances. Hansard clearly defines this; the O’Sullivan dismissal of Griffin at the Cloncury inquiry into aviation provides the quintessential example.
There may be a perception of a conflict of interest which, no doubt, will be endlessly discussed in the pub; but IMO, there it will remain. The more interesting discussion will be on ‘fit for purpose’. Leopards don’t change their spots – not in my jungle they don’t. Considering the approach to aviation matters demonstrated and recorded; the deep background and mind set of the Senator – it would be (IMO) a fair call to ask that he recuse himself for the Chair during Senate inquiry into ‘matters aeronautical’. Just in the interests of publicly perceived “independence, impartiality, fairness, and competence” of course.
“…it’s better in fact to be guilty of manslaughter than of fraud about what is fair and just.”
Handing over. Toot - toot.