Chair O'Obfuscation pleads ignorance on perceived COI on matters aviation -
Via 'that man' in the Oz today:
Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA cont/-
On chasing tales and washing spots
Don’t pay the Ferryman.
But why stop there (i.e MH370)?
"..Senator O’Sullivan said his shareholding in APCM was a legacy of a claims-adjustment investigation business dealing with aviation accidents that he had run up until about 2008..."
Isn't the potential for many at least 'perceived conflict of interests' when you consider the clients that sit on both sides of the fence of aviation accident investigations and insurance claims/cases?
For example let's use the case of QF 72...
From ETB travel news:
So have these QF 72 compensation cases been settled?
And what about the perceived incestuous relationship between the LNP/National Party and PelAir. The parent company Rex just so happens to have a former National party leader John Sharp as one of its Directors. Plus PelAir are apparently still arguing the toss with some of the victims claims for compensation? Yet BO did not recuse himself from any committee Estimates deliberations on the PelAir MKII cover-up report?
PelAir disconnections: Of guilty consciences; &/or legacies?
Hmm....standby for incoming me thinks -
MTF...P2
Via 'that man' in the Oz today:
Quote: Senator denies MH370 conflict of interestFinally the lid may have been lifted and someone maybe paying attention to what AP has noted for quite some time, references:
Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan has admitted he failed to declare he was part-owner of a company which for three years after Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 went down sought business from plaintiff law firms including those representing MH370 victims’ families.
- The Australian
- 12:00AM May 29, 2018
- EAN HIGGINS
Reporter
Sydney
@EanHiggins
But the Queensland senator insists he never knew the company was created in 2014, had no involvement with it, and records show it never traded and obtained no clients.
While there is no suggestion of a conflict of interest, Senator O’Sullivan chairs the Senate’s rural and regional affairs and transport legislation committee, some of whose members last week grilled the Australian Transport Safety Bureau over its failed underwater search for MH370.
Labor senator Murray Watt said, “Senator O’Sullivan must say why he failed to declare this interest to the Senate”, and Centre Alliance senator Rex Patrick, who is a member of the committee, said Senator O’Sullivan should also make a statement to its members.
MH370 disappeared in the southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board, having deviated 40 minutes into its scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with its radar transponder off and radio contact broken.
Senator O’Sullivan yesterday said that after inquiries from The Australian, he had determined one of his family companies had had a 50 per cent shareholding in Asia Pacific Claims Management, which was registered on the Australian Business Register from September 2014 to November 2017.
APCM’s website, which was still operating last week but appeared to be down yesterday, said “we have assisted in all types of aviation accidents”.
Under a heading “current cases” it lists MH370 and Air PNG 1600, and has a photograph of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 with the caption “Flight 370”.
The website says: “We specialise in providing independent advice and assistance to individuals, estates and corporations affected by aviation accidents around the world where civil litigation and claims for compensation are involved.”
Senator O’Sullivan said his shareholding in APCM was a legacy of a claims-adjustment investigation business dealing with aviation accidents that he had run up until about 2008.
When he was running for preselection in 2013, he said, his accountants started separating his financial interests in 30 companies.
Chair O'Obfuscation top-cover for ATSB & CASA cont/-
On chasing tales and washing spots
Don’t pay the Ferryman.
But why stop there (i.e MH370)?
"..Senator O’Sullivan said his shareholding in APCM was a legacy of a claims-adjustment investigation business dealing with aviation accidents that he had run up until about 2008..."
Isn't the potential for many at least 'perceived conflict of interests' when you consider the clients that sit on both sides of the fence of aviation accident investigations and insurance claims/cases?
For example let's use the case of QF 72...
From ETB travel news:
Quote:Wisner Law Firm deployed agents from Asia Pacific Claims Management (APCM) to recruit 15 of the 38 Singaporeans who were on board recently joined the group made up of approximately 100 passengers, Today Online reported.
Last month the pilot flying the plane also joined the action group.
APCM Director Barry O’Sullivan said people are not aware that they are able to seek compensation without physical injury.
Read more at http://australia.etbtravelnews.global/101864/action-group-on-qantas-qf72-expands-worldwide/
So have these QF 72 compensation cases been settled?
And what about the perceived incestuous relationship between the LNP/National Party and PelAir. The parent company Rex just so happens to have a former National party leader John Sharp as one of its Directors. Plus PelAir are apparently still arguing the toss with some of the victims claims for compensation? Yet BO did not recuse himself from any committee Estimates deliberations on the PelAir MKII cover-up report?
PelAir disconnections: Of guilty consciences; &/or legacies?
Quote:As many on here would be aware back in February certain PAIN members - which included P7, KC and DJ - attended a private RRAT committee meeting that was supposedly meant to be an opportunity for PAIN to brief the Senators on our assessment/opinion/review of the 500+page, multi-million dollar costed Pelair MKII Final report. History will now show that the requested Senate RRAT committee briefing was in fact hi-jacked by none other than the Chair Barry O'Obfuscation....
However it was also pointed out to me that in the course of the hijacked briefing KC mentioned several times the deficiencies in both the Montreal convention and the uniquely deficient regulations surrounding air ambulance operations in Australia. Yet never at anytime did the Chair indicate he had invaluable prior professional exposure to international aviation insurance law in this area??
Hmm....standby for incoming me thinks -
MTF...P2