A fair question.
“Yes; but what have they achieved?”
A few of us sat about, Estimates had crept into the casual conversation – the usual general stuff, no heat, more of a rumination. Gallacher, Sterle and a couple of others got a mention. General agreement that Gallacher was a good unit, some of his better exchanges with ‘the Department’ were being mentioned. The sheer frustration of dealing with the various departments and the way in which even dogged persistence was turned aside, the endless delays, the waiting for QoN to be answered and the time between a question being asked, the time between the answer to that question and the next opportunity to examine the answer enough to make a stone idol restless. Tough work was a consensus.
“Yes; but what have they achieved?”
PAIN keeps a rough ‘scorecard’ – nothing fancy; some questions are noted, the response to that question noted and the final result of response to Senate Estimates questions noted, as related to an actual ‘result’ (completion) or resolution of the ‘thing’ is noted. On request I dug it out of the archives; and it is a bleak, bare page – for the Committee.
Despite the Senatorial rhetoric, pointed questions, sound and fury – the bureaucrats are ahead by a country mile. The ‘stats’ don’t favour the brave or those who ask the big questions, so it’s a false reading – Fawcett for example has not had a result from one question and changed SFA; same Sterle, same Gallacher in fact they’ve been bowled out for a Duck at every innings. I admire their tenacity and willingness to keep the ship of state on a true course. But seriously, how can an inquiry like Pel-Air for an example be consigned to history without one positive change being visible?
Anyway – it all came down a couple of questions on notice for the Senators to ponder.
1) “Can the minister explain how the NTSB investigating the crash of a B17 in the USA took less than a fortnight to provide the ‘basic’ data, just the plain facts relevant to the event. ATSB in the same amount of time failed to publish the ‘basic’ facts, but managed in less than ten days to blame the whole accident on Angel Flight and pursued that line through to a less than useful conclusion, which still stands today? “
Read the initial B17 accident report; compare it to the AF initial accident report (even watch the TV coverage and Henwood interview) and spot the differences.
2) Can the minister explain why no post mortem examination results are available for the Essendon accident and why Hood announced that it was, most certainly, pilot error almost before the wreck stopped burning?
Results on the scoreboard are all that matter at the final whistle. Handing over…….
Toot - toot.
“Yes; but what have they achieved?”
A few of us sat about, Estimates had crept into the casual conversation – the usual general stuff, no heat, more of a rumination. Gallacher, Sterle and a couple of others got a mention. General agreement that Gallacher was a good unit, some of his better exchanges with ‘the Department’ were being mentioned. The sheer frustration of dealing with the various departments and the way in which even dogged persistence was turned aside, the endless delays, the waiting for QoN to be answered and the time between a question being asked, the time between the answer to that question and the next opportunity to examine the answer enough to make a stone idol restless. Tough work was a consensus.
“Yes; but what have they achieved?”
PAIN keeps a rough ‘scorecard’ – nothing fancy; some questions are noted, the response to that question noted and the final result of response to Senate Estimates questions noted, as related to an actual ‘result’ (completion) or resolution of the ‘thing’ is noted. On request I dug it out of the archives; and it is a bleak, bare page – for the Committee.
Despite the Senatorial rhetoric, pointed questions, sound and fury – the bureaucrats are ahead by a country mile. The ‘stats’ don’t favour the brave or those who ask the big questions, so it’s a false reading – Fawcett for example has not had a result from one question and changed SFA; same Sterle, same Gallacher in fact they’ve been bowled out for a Duck at every innings. I admire their tenacity and willingness to keep the ship of state on a true course. But seriously, how can an inquiry like Pel-Air for an example be consigned to history without one positive change being visible?
Anyway – it all came down a couple of questions on notice for the Senators to ponder.
1) “Can the minister explain how the NTSB investigating the crash of a B17 in the USA took less than a fortnight to provide the ‘basic’ data, just the plain facts relevant to the event. ATSB in the same amount of time failed to publish the ‘basic’ facts, but managed in less than ten days to blame the whole accident on Angel Flight and pursued that line through to a less than useful conclusion, which still stands today? “
Read the initial B17 accident report; compare it to the AF initial accident report (even watch the TV coverage and Henwood interview) and spot the differences.
2) Can the minister explain why no post mortem examination results are available for the Essendon accident and why Hood announced that it was, most certainly, pilot error almost before the wreck stopped burning?
Results on the scoreboard are all that matter at the final whistle. Handing over…….
Toot - toot.