[Peetwo]

FFS Tommy Boy, just when I thought my day/night couldn't get any worse;

"The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has announced that a new Honorary Chair of the Forum has been appointed. Mr Greg Russell was unanimously endorsed by Forum members and brings a  strong background in management, aviation services and knowledge of the agencies involved in the regulation of aviation in Australia".

A unanimous vote? Are you feckin serious? What, has Russell got photos of all those who endorsed him in compromising photos with Angora goats, alter boys and marsupials? Russell rates equal alongside Sir Anus and Staib when it comes to 'piss and wind'. He is the epitome of an Easter egg - crack it open and there is nothing inside!!!

P_666 hangs his head in shame as he laments what a circus full of freaks Australia has become.

Agree Gobbles what a Circus... However if you cast your mind back to 2010-12 on the UP I seem to recall we made many jokes about Albo's Big Top and circus clowns...

Pity really that Paywave Russell has stolen the limelight on the AAAF presser, as it kind of detracts from the real announcement ie 'TAAAF Communique'

So take two, this time from Hitch but minus the Paywave Russell announcement...

 


Former Airservices boss Greg Russell has been appointed Honorary Chairman of The Australian Aviation Associations Forum. (Airservices Australia)


Former Airservices Boss takes over TAAAF Chair
23 Jul 2015

.....TAAAF members also met with CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore in Canberra to discuss aviation safety and regulation, issuing a statement of support for the future of the regulator.

"The Forum strongly supported the new direction of CASA," the statement said, "and especially the new focus from the Board and the DAS on risk management and cost impacts of regulation in accordance with the Government’s red tape reduction principles.

"The Forum encouraged the CASA executive to continue its drive towards improved industry consultation and cooperation and offered whatever assistance and support CASA needed to make this clearly difficult cultural transition."

Among many issues discussed, TAAAF strongly urged CASA to take some immediate actions including:

• Deferring CAO 48.1 on flight and duty times
  
  
• Addressing the new costs imposed on flying schools by CASR Parts 141 and 142
  
  
• Simplifying the controversial Part 61 on licensing
  
  
• Simplifying maintenance requirements for small aircraft
  
  
• Removing high costs such as the need for CASA to access aircraft types already approved by overseas agencies.
  
  

TAAAF is a group of aviation peak bodies that works together to advance the cause of aviation in Australia, in particular to make sure aviation presents a united voice when dealing with the government and regulators.

   
Hmm..don't think that helps, the smirk on PR's face just smacks of trough-swiller :



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

The road to hell is paved with good intention.

One reason for an aphorism, homily or proverb remaining valid, being woven into general everyday use and staying there, for hundreds of years, is an indicator of proven value.  The saying “The road to hell is paved with good intention” has been around a long, long time, and quoted in many languages.  Google and Wiki proved their worth as did the research:-

An earlier saying occurs in Virgil's Aeneid: "facilis descensus Averno (the descent to hell is easy)"

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux who wrote (c. 1150), "L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs" (hell is full of good wishes and desires).

As I read the statement from TAAAF (P2 -above) the saying crept in through the back door and made itself at home.  There are some clever, honest, expert folk in TAAAF and no one could possibly doubt their commitment to turning industry determination for  meaningful change into a reality.  For example; meeting the DAS and issuing a statement of support is a very positive step and provided the CASA boss is prepared to take advantage of the freely offered, expert support then there’s a chance the intention for reform will be carried away from the meeting and raised at the Monday morning prayers.  Whether the DAS can transmogrify that intention into action remains to be seen.  Many before him have tried to penetrate the veil and failed. The notion opens all kinds questions, the foremost being why have previous attempts failed so miserably?  

There is hope though; Jeff Boyd & Co, Minister Truss, Rev. Forsyth, several Senators and many others (even AOPA) want to see the proffered changes effected.  No doubt their intentions are good, however,  the battle between good and evil has raged since the beginning of time, the score about even.

I can, with little trouble accept and even have some faith in the intention at top levels to ‘reform’ the system and the regulator.  But, time is the problem, the need for change is almost nugatory now and in another few years at current rate of attrition there will be no need of it.  

There are many tales told of current ‘policy’ decisions CASA management have fully supported. These are some of the most idiotic, expensive, purblind, operationally useless decisions to ever be heard by experienced operators.  There are equally as many tales where a ‘favourite’ has been gifted commercial advantage and allowed almost free reign, until there is a change in FOI/AWI then the agony begins with changes and NCN out the Wazzoo.  Such is the uncertainty which undermines confidence and investment; well, that and the horrendous costs in wasted time, money and effort.  

These are not my tales to tell; I wish they were.  Change, in timely manner is essential; simple things, like check-list approval (don’t get me started), flight and duty limitation (don’t get me started) and a dozen other small items could be rectified almost at the stroke of pen.  The ‘top tiers’ may all be singing from the same hymn sheet; but down in the weeds, it’s pandemonium, Bedlam style. If I had a magic wand the first thing I would do would be to appoint an appeals committee where a bone of contention could be heard, without fear, favour or cost and be ruled on in a timely manner.  A side benefit would be to clearly see where ‘policy’ and administrative embuggerance hit hardest, use that data to formulate real, meaningful change. It would take a solid twelve month of hard work; but the benefits would be worth every moment and dollar spent. Clear guidelines, based on law, not some whimsy (don't get me started).

As it stands now; I wish them all well and all the unstinting support I can manage, while remembering the directions to Hell’s own gate.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

The Bronny factor??

Thought this article from 'that man' again, might be better represented here - Why? Well IMO
it highlights the potential can of worms underlying the corporate/executive government travel rorts...err arrangements. Which is invariably organised by minions (& signed off on by Mandarins) & could very easily be revealed if required.

Example if the Forsyth review or Executive trough dwellers hose out happens to be further obfuscated & delayed...   

Bronwyn Bishop quits: No mates rates as luxury flies  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 03, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Brad Edwards at Ballina Airport with his Cessna Citation. ‘You could get it done a lot cheaper.’ Source: News Corp Australia
 
Air charter operators say the $6000 taxpayer-funded flight Bronwyn Bishop took as Speaker from Sydney to Nowra on the NSW south coast was up to twice or more the going rate for such a 160km trip.  

The flight, in November, was the second that aviation industry sources told The Australian could have been made for far less cost, the first revealed being a $5227 charter of a helicopter to take Mrs Bishop from Melbourne to Geelong for a Liberal fundraiser. The Geelong charter was with Bendigo, Victoria, company My Jet Aviation, which employs as a lobbyist ­Andrew Gibbs, a close friend of Mrs Bishop and her chief of staff, Damien Jones.

Mr Jones did not respond to questions from The Australian yesterday, but at the weekend he was quoted as saying the Nowra flight, which Mrs Bishop took for another fundraiser, “could well have been” also done through My Jet Aviation, and said it did not involve a corporate jet but a propeller-­driven aircraft.

The principal and chief pilot of Edwards Aviation based in Armidale in NSW, Brad Edwards, who derives his main business from flying politicians on charters in his propeller and light jet aircraft, said $6000 was “very expensive” for such a flight, especially in a propeller aircraft. “You could get it done a lot cheaper,” he said.

Mr Edwards said he could have taken Mrs Bishop and, if she chose, two aides on such a trip in his Beechcraft Baron piston twin-­engine aircraft, to Nowra for $2500.

Even in one of his light corporate jets, a Cessna Citation, Mr ­Edwards said, “$3500 should be able to do it”.

He said the main components of such a charter of the Citation would be a charge of 45 minutes flying time for the jet, coming to $2000, two Sydney landing fees of $500, and $500 for the pilot’s wages.

Mr Edwards and another aviation figure told The Australian the Geelong trip could also have been made for far less money, if through no other means than by chartering a less expensive helicopter.

They noted that the Agusta 109 helicopter understood to have been chartered by Ms Bishop was a $US6 million ($8.2m) top-of-the line piece of machinery, having twin engines and space for several passengers in great comfort.

The managing director of Skypac Aviation based at Sydney’s Bankstown airport, Rick Pegus, who also operates light jet and piston-engine charter aircraft, also said $6000 for a trip from Sydney to Nowra would be well above going market rates.

“If you’re paying $6000 for a piston aircraft, it sounds like it’s come up from Melbourne,” Mr Pegus said.

He said he could have done such a charter for between $3000 and $4000 in his piston aircraft.

Marc De Stoop, who operates a charter service with two Dassault Falcon 20 jets, said he could have operated such a charter from Bankstown, where his operation is based, to Nowra for $7000 to $8000. While this places such a charter in the same price range as Mrs Bishop’s trip, the Falcon is a medium-size jet aircraft of airline size, capable of taking nine passengers.

   
Luxury flies in retirement...


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Even better - I would have strapped Queen Bronny into an ultralight twin, given her a shoulder massage and/or a Reacharound plus a free packet of Smiths Crisps and a can of diet Coke all for the grand sum of $1390 incl GST.
Hell, for that price we could have even completed a low pass circuit of Excrement House and buzzed smoking Jo as he puffed on a stoogie on a warm garden bench and we could have buzzed Abbott peddling away furious on his seatless bike as he wore his skin tight banana hammock!!

[Peetwo]

The Bronny factor - Part II

Thought this article from 'that man' again, might be better represented here - Why?

Well IMO it highlights the potential can of worms underlying the corporate/executive government travel rorts...err arrangements. Which is invariably organised by minions (& signed off on by Mandarins) & could very easily be revealed if required.

Example if the Forsyth review or Executive trough dwellers hose out happens to be further obfuscated & delayed...  

Bronwyn Bishop quits: No mates rates as luxury flies  
 
Air charter operators say the $6000 taxpayer-funded flight Bronwyn Bishop took as Speaker from Sydney to Nowra on the NSW south coast was up to twice or more the going rate for such a 160km trip.  

The flight, in November, was the second that aviation industry sources told The Australian could have been made for far less cost, the first revealed being a $5227 charter of a helicopter to take Mrs Bishop from Melbourne to Geelong for a Liberal fundraiser. The Geelong charter was with Bendigo, Victoria, company My Jet Aviation, which employs as a lobbyist ­Andrew Gibbs, a close friend of Mrs Bishop and her chief of staff, Damien Jones.

Mr Jones did not respond to questions from The Australian yesterday, but at the weekend he was quoted as saying the Nowra flight, which Mrs Bishop took for another fundraiser, “could well have been” also done through My Jet Aviation, and said it did not involve a corporate jet but a propeller-­driven aircraft.

The principal and chief pilot of Edwards Aviation based in Armidale in NSW, Brad Edwards, who derives his main business from flying politicians on charters in his propeller and light jet aircraft, said $6000 was “very expensive” for such a flight, especially in a propeller aircraft. “You could get it done a lot cheaper,” he said.

Mr Edwards said he could have taken Mrs Bishop and, if she chose, two aides on such a trip in his Beechcraft Baron piston twin-­engine aircraft, to Nowra for $2500.

Even in one of his light corporate jets, a Cessna Citation, Mr ­Edwards said, “$3500 should be able to do it”.

He said the main components of such a charter of the Citation would be a charge of 45 minutes flying time for the jet, coming to $2000, two Sydney landing fees of $500, and $500 for the pilot’s wages.

Mr Edwards and another aviation figure told The Australian the Geelong trip could also have been made for far less money, if through no other means than by chartering a less expensive helicopter.

They noted that the Agusta 109 helicopter understood to have been chartered by Ms Bishop was a $US6 million ($8.2m) top-of-the line piece of machinery, having twin engines and space for several passengers in great comfort.

The managing director of Skypac Aviation based at Sydney’s Bankstown airport, Rick Pegus, who also operates light jet and piston-engine charter aircraft, also said $6000 for a trip from Sydney to Nowra would be well above going market rates.

“If you’re paying $6000 for a piston aircraft, it sounds like it’s come up from Melbourne,” Mr Pegus said.

He said he could have done such a charter for between $3000 and $4000 in his piston aircraft.

Marc De Stoop, who operates a charter service with two Dassault Falcon 20 jets, said he could have operated such a charter from Bankstown, where his operation is based, to Nowra for $7000 to $8000. While this places such a charter in the same price range as Mrs Bishop’s trip, the Falcon is a medium-size jet aircraft of airline size, capable of taking nine passengers.

 

Further to the 'Bronny Factor', there was this today from Anthony Klan in the Oz..

Bronwyn Bishop: aviation company clears the air on lobbyist’s role  

• by: ANTHONY KLAN
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 04, 2015 12:00AM
  

Journalist
Sydney

The aviation company that organised Bronwyn Bishop’s Geelong helicopter flight has moved to distance itself from spokesman and lobbyist Andrew Gibbs.  

In recent weeks, Mr Gibbs has fronted the media on behalf of Bendigo-based MyJet Aviation and stated he worked for the company organising flights for businesspeople and politicians.

Yesterday, MyJet said it had engaged Mr Gibbs to launch its services “within the premium business market for a period of 12 months” but that role “concluded in early February 2015”.

On July 16, The Australian contacted Air Melbourne, the company that conducted Mrs Bishop’s Geelong flight, and was told the flight had been brokered by MyJet Aviation, with Mr Gibbs being provided as the contact person for that company.

The following day, The Australian revealed Mr Gibbs was the founder and sole owner of lobbying firm Primary Policy Partners, whose five clients included MyJet Aviation.

It later emerged he was a close friend of Mrs Bishop’s chief of staff, Damien Jones, and had been best man at Mr Jones’s wedding. Mr Gibbs has strongly rejected suggestions his friendship with Mr Jones led to Mrs Bishop’s chopper flight. On July 17, in reference to MyJet, Mr Gibbs told The Australian: “I have a job to help co-ordinate marketing for my client. MyJet strives to be above reproach on all aspects of our operations.” Last night, he said he “did not represent that I was still working for MyJet” in those discussions. “I was answering questions as to what my involvement was in relation to claims being made by media.”

In its statement, MyJet said it had organised the Geelong chopper flight for Mrs Bishop and an aircraft flight from Sydney to Nowra, which were the only occasions the company had “been the provider to the office of the Speaker”.

    
While we are on AK from the Oz and on a somewhat related topic - remember this?

Rex airline freebies ‘so MPs better informed’  

• by: ANTHONY KLAN
  
• From: The Australian
  
• February 25, 2015 12:00AM
  

Journalist
Sydney


REGIONAL airline Rex yesterday claimed to have given federal ALP and National Party politicians hundreds of free flights — worth more than $130,000 — in a bid to explain why it made $385,000 in disclosed political ­donations in 2012.  

Convening the listed airline’s half-year results yesterday, Rex deputy chairman John Sharp said that the donated flights were for ­“politicians to get out into regional Australia” in order to be “better ­informed”.

“We made these donations ­because we felt the elections were coming in 2013 and we felt it was very important that the federal leaders get out to the bush and ­explain themselves to the bush,” Mr Sharp said.

Separately, Mr Sharp is the ­federal treasurer of the National Party and was a federal transport minister under John Howard before resigning in 1997 after a travel rorts affair, which saw fellow ­ministers David Jull and Peter ­McGauran also forced to resign.

Political donations made by Rex have raised questions after it emerged the relatively small listed company declared $385,700 in political donations in 2012, making it one of the nation’s biggest ­donors that year.

The declared donations inclu­ded gifts of $250,000 to the federal ALP, $95,700 to the federal National Party and $40,000 to the federal Liberal Party.

(The only other political donations the company had ever made was $3486 to the ALP in the year to June 2004.)

Rex reported an after-tax profit of $14.01m for the 2012-13 financial year, and paid no dividends to shareholders. At the time Rex was making those 2012 donations — between July and November — the company was subject to an ­investigation by the ATSB into the 2009 crash of an aircraft operated under its Pel-Air brand off Norfolk Island.

That investigation attracted controversy after it emerged, in August 2012, that the ATSB report had failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air, which had been identified in a ­separate report by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

That revelation sparked a parli­amentary inquiry that reported in December, leading the federal government to call on the ATSB to launch a new probe into the ­accident.

Mr Sharp and Rex chief executive Lim Kim Hai both strenuously denied the donations had been made with the view to seek influence in any way.

“We had no dealings other than proper dealings,” Mr Sharp said.

Mr Sharp said the second draft of the ATSB report into the Norfolk Island crash had been submitted in the first half of 2012, before Rex had made the donations.

When asked why Rex had made the donations, Mr Lim said: “It’s a big country, Australia, and there are a lot of Labor politicians.

“Many didn’t understand the issues that were happening in the industry.”

However, the ultimate recipients of the flights remained unclear, with ALP national secretary George Wright yesterday telling The Australian the flights had been used by party campaigners.

“It’s a contribution to the federal office of the ALP and used for campaigning,” Mr Wright said.

“It is not a contribution to MPs.”

Under parliamentary disclosure rules, MPs must disclose any travel or hospitality received where the value exceeds $300.

Rex has repeatedly declined to comment when asked by The Australian why the donations were made.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon — who was part of a Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air crash — has previously described the Rex donations as “incredibly baffling”.

Mr Sharp said yesterday that the donations had been in-kind to the political parties in the form of free flights.

Mr Li said the ALP had used about $40,000 of the $250,000 in free flights offered, which was “about 100” flights.

Mr Sharp said he believed that the federal National Party had redeemed the full $95,700 worth of flights offered, while the federal Liberal Party had not used any of the $40,000 worth of flights it was offered.

Mr Li said Rex flights typically were about 55 per cent full, which meant the cost to shareholders of the donations was minimal.

Rex shares closed down 10 per cent yesterday at 98c.

Do you know more? klana@theaustralian.com.au

Ahh what a murky mess Bronny's Choppergate scandal may have lifted the lid on.
Take a look at this story on Minister Truss from the Daily Telegraph yesterday... :

Warren Truss private charter will cost taxpayers thousands  

• by: EXCLUSIVE Geoff Chambers and Daniel Meers
  
• From: The Daily Telegraph
  
• August 03, 2015 12:00AM
  

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss boards a private charter plane at Port Macquarie airport/ Picture: Nathan Edwards Source: News Corp Australia

TAXPAYERS will be slugged thousands of dollars for a private charter flight Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss took after a sod-turning ceremony last week as NSW MPs at the same event boarded a commercial flight.  

The Daily Telegraph can reveal Mr Truss took the private plane from Port Macquarie to Sydney while other politicians flew with Qantas.

Mr Truss, accompanied by an adviser, boarded a Beechcraft Super King Air 200 last Thursday afternoon at the peak of the charter flight scandal that triggered Bronwyn Bishop’s resignation.

The MP had been one of Mrs Bishop’s strongest supporters, describing some critics’ views as “exaggerated”.

“There are some who would take the view that if a member took a bus he was wasting money and should be walking,” he said last week.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/nsw/warren-truss-private-charter-will-cost-taxpayers-thousands/story-fni0cx12-1227467178086?t_product=DailyTelegraph&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
Mr Truss was driven to a special charter plane entrance at Port Macquarie airport by local federal MP David Gillespie. Shortly after he left on the charter plane, Baird government ministers Duncan Gay and Niall Blair were seen boarding a Qantas flight.

BRONWYN BISHOP RESIGNS AS SPEAKER

The Daily Telegraph understands there were no delays on Qantas flights leaving Port Macquarie on Thursday.

Mr Truss had travelled to the state’s mid-north coast — a 385km trip — despite responsibilities as Transport Minister overseeing the MH370 search.

A spokesman for Mr Truss said the Nationals leader “had a series of commitments in the Port Macquarie area”.

“The Hastings River Bridge event was a joint announcement with the NSW government and so its timing needed to be co-ordinated with Mr Gay who also had other engagements on the day,” he said.



Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss boards a private charter plane at Port Macquarie airport / Picture: Nathan Edwards Source: News Corp Australia

“The Deputy PM had an evening commitment at the Boao Forum for Asia in Sydney. This would have been extremely tight for his Boao commitment and the high risk that the Hastings River media conference would go overtime given the high level of interest on that day surrounding both the bridge event and debris found on Reunion Island.

“Accordingly, the DPM’s office booked a charter for the ­return flight.”

The Wide Bay MP has been attacked by Queensland media for using a $21,000 charter flight from Canberra and ­Brisbane to give a post-budget speech at the Conservative Breakfast Club last May.

Sydney-based charter operators can charge up to $3500 per flight hour to hire the propeller planes.

Like the Speaker’s office, Mr Truss is entitled to use charter travel under current parliamentary provisions.

The parts in bold do (I guess) legitimise the Truss charter flight but you have wonder on the wisdom of his minions booking this flight in the shadow of 'Bronny's Choppergate'...

MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

It just stinks more and more by the day doesn't it? Waste of taxpayer money, mates rates, nepotism, ego, snouts in the trough and lobbyists. And you wonder why us Aussies (the pissants in society) have had a f#cking gutful of these parasites?

And as for this bullshit excuse they roll out every time that it is 'within the guidelines' well that may be the case, but the 'guidelines' are bullshit and go against the grain of what is 'morally correct'. The 1% (Politiicans) are allowed to piss our money away, while at the same time the rest of us are going broke as we no longer have any money in our pockets.

Bring on a French Revolution please. I know where some guillotines are!

[Peetwo]

It just stinks more and more by the day doesn't it? Waste of taxpayer money, mates rates, nepotism, ego, snouts in the trough and lobbyists. And you wonder why us Aussies (the pissants in society) have had a f#cking gutful of these parasites?

And as for this bullshit excuse they roll out every time that it is 'within the guidelines' well that may be the case, but the 'guidelines' are bullshit and go against the grain of what is 'morally correct'. The 1% (Politiicans) are allowed to piss our money away, while at the same time the rest of us are going broke as we no longer have any money in our pockets.

Bring on a French Revolution please. I know where some guillotines are!

Totally with you on that sentiment Gobbles, maybe we'll look back on Bronny's 'Choppergate'
and say that the old battle axe did us all a favour...

That 'man again' combining with a Clark Kent lookalike highlights that Bronny's indiscretions a very much the tip of the iceberg and this time it is Shortened crew that are in the spot light...FFS!

Expenses row: Rock trip hits Labor attack dog Tony Burke  

• by: EAN HIGGINS, Jared Owens
  
• August 04, 2015 10:32AM
  

Ean Higgins

Reporter
Sydney

Jared Owens

Reporter
Canberra




Labor frontbencher Tony Burke has come under further pressure over a family holiday to Uluru. Source: AAP

Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has demanded a comprehensive audit of every MPs’ entitlement use over the past five years, claiming “no reasonable member of the community” would back Tony Burke’s claims for family travel to Uluru.  

Mr Wilkie today said he had written to Finance Department secretary Jane Halton to seek an audit of every MPs’ claims since the election of the Gillard government in 2010.

“There seems to be a widespread practice of parliamentarians travelling at the public expense, often with family members, even though any reasonable person would identify their journey as being principally for personal reasons. At best this is deeply unethical, at worst fraudulent,” the Tasmanian MP said.

“The accusations in The Australian newspaper today about Tony Burke taking his family to Uluru is a case in point because no reasonable member of the community would feel that the cost of such a journey should be borne by taxpayers.
Start of sidebar.

Related Coverage

• MoreBurke outclasses Bishop on costs
  

“Former Speaker Bronwyn Bishop’s misuse of entitlements formed a pattern of behaviour prompting me to call on the Federal Police to investigate. If the Finance Department audit is to identify similar patterns of misbehaviour, or egregious individual episodes of misconduct, then I would expect those matters to also be referred to the Federal Police.”

However Bill Shorten today dismissed concerns about Mr Burke’s use of travel entitlements for his family’s holiday to Uluru as “dirt throwing” by the government.

The Opposition Leader this morning said Mr Burke had “clarified this matter”.

“To those Liberals of Mr Abbott, the more that you want to just ruin the reputation of politics instead of dealing with the real issues here, which is that the Prime Minister’s captain’s pick as speaker has turned out to be a resounding disaster. You still don’t get it do you?” Mr Shorten said in Melbourne.

More details of the 2012 Uluru trip show Mr Burke, a key opposition attack dog in the Bronwyn Bishop affair, charged the taxpayer for his family to travel business class at a cost several times that available through regular economy travel packages.

Questions have also been raised over a week-long overseas trip to Europe by Mr Burke, during his time as environment minister, where his expenses averaged $10,000 a day.

Mr Burke made the Uluru trip between April 19 and April 22 that year, during school holidays, in what he says was a trip on government business when he was environment minister and in which he brought members of his family.

Mr Burke has consistently ­attacked Ms Bishop’s taxpayer-funded trips, describing her now fateful trip from Melbourne to Geelong in a helicopter as a ­“disaster”.

Mr Burke’s filing for expenditure on entitlements paid by the Department of Finance between January 1 and June 30, 2012, shows he listed three “Family Traveller” domestic scheduled airfares, each of $2164.12.

The Australian was yesterday able to find return flights available from Sydney to Uluru on Jetstar and Virgin Australia, including a baggage allowance, a few dollars either side of $475.

Mr Burke claimed three nights’ travel allowance at $1497.

Sydney radio station 2GB talk show host Ray Hadley, who raised the Uluru trip and unveiled many new details, told listeners a three-night family package on offer could be had at the Ayers Rock ­Resort for $774.

Mr Burke charged car hire at $463.74, and the total cost of the trip to taxpayers was $12,780.74.

Mr Burke’s list of press releases in April 2012 makes no mention of any official matters related to the Uluru trip.

A spokesman for Mr Burke said he had meetings in his capacity as environment minister with members of the Mutitjulu community,

He also met managers and rangers of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta ­National Park, both at park headquarters and around the national park.

“Mr Burke worked with staff ­including the park manager, visitor and tourism services manager, the cultural centre co-ordinator, media officers and senior rangers,” Mr Burke’s spokesman said.

“The cost of flights and the amount payable for accommodation while on official business are determined by the Department of Finance and the Independent ­Remuneration Tribunal, and flights are organised by the travel agent holding the government contract,” he said.

Politicians are entitled to a certain number of family visits while on official government business, the rationale being this provides some family time in busy work schedules.
During the same reporting ­period in 2012, the Finance Department papers show, Mr Burke charged $70,619.59 for a one-week trip in March that year to Switzerland, Britain and France “to attend the OECD environment policy committee ministerial meeting, the Planet Under Pressure Conference and to conduct a series of high-level meetings”.

  
Judging by the general sentiment, in the over 550 comments so far, this subject is not going to drop off the media radar anytime soon, example Bruce from NT...

"...They all have such an obscene sense of entitlement. They get paid well but still resent putting their hands in their wallet to pay for what can often be seen as mere junkies. To expect the taxpayer to pay when they attend a colleague's wedding is outrageous. Not many people would expect their employer to pay travel and accommodation to attend a work colleague's wedding. But the taxpayer is fair-game it seems..."

MTF...P2

 

[thorn bird]

Aww come on Guys, about the only thing propping GA up at the moment is Pollicharter.
Even old tricky Dicky thinks so, he's promoting Bronny to PM for services to the GA industry.

[Peetwo]

It just stinks more and more by the day doesn't it? Waste of taxpayer money, mates rates, nepotism, ego, snouts in the trough and lobbyists. And you wonder why us Aussies (the pissants in society) have had a f#cking gutful of these parasites?

And as for this bullshit excuse they roll out every time that it is 'within the guidelines' well that may be the case, but the 'guidelines' are bullshit and go against the grain of what is 'morally correct'. The 1% (Politiicans) are allowed to piss our money away, while at the same time the rest of us are going broke as we no longer have any money in our pockets.

Bring on a French Revolution please. I know where some guillotines are!

Totally with you on that sentiment Gobbles, maybe we'll look back on Bronny's 'Choppergate' and say that the old battle axe did us all a favour...

Wow just took a gander at Harley D's latest off the Mandarin and suddenly thought maybe I was turning into a bit of a soothsayer like you Gobbles...

Thousands of senior officials swept into expenses review

---

by
Harley Dennett
03.08.2015



Bronwyn Bishop may have the last laugh at the expense of senior public servants she once terrorised over use of taxpayer’s money. The entitlements review announced on the weekend will look at bringing statutory officials into the same system with independent oversight of their travel and personal expenses.

It’s been one rule for public officials and another for politicians, but not for much longer.
Departmental secretaries, heads of federal agencies, commissioners, members of government advisory bodies, judges and other statutory positions have been caught up in the review of parliamentary entitlements, with the committee asked to consider whether they should have the same independent scrutiny and disclosure the public expect for politicians.
David Tune

Former federal Department of Finance secretary David Tune and current Remuneration Tribunal president John Conde will co-chair a committee to develop and propose models for an independent parliamentary entitlements system.

Following the resignation of Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker of the House of Representatives on Sunday, the prime minister’s office released terms of reference so that the system is “more transparent and accountable”.

“The government acknowledges that the ad hoc and piecemeal reforms adopted by successive governments mean the system is complex, ambiguous and out of step with community expectations.”

Add the word “opaque” to that description and that’s exactly what the system was designed to be under the Minchin protocol. The Department of Finance may initiate an investigation into suspected misuse of parliamentary entitlements, but it cannot make those findings public, even if referred to the police.

Transparency has returned to the agenda, but only in reference to the rules and usage, not misuse findings.

John Conde

In development options for independent oversight, the committee will consider:

• Reducing ambiguity in what constitutes official business;
  
• Providing clarity to members of parliament and their staff about their entitlements and how to use them appropriately;
  
• Improving transparency of the rules and entitlements usage;
  
• Acknowledging the role of party business in parliamentary business;
  
• How to deal more effectively with alleged misuse of entitlements; and
  
• How best to support and enable members of parliament to conduct their varied duties within clearly defined rules.
  
  

The committee will be supported by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. It will call for submissions, look for best practice in other jurisdictions and provide a report to the prime minister in the first half of next year.

Statutory officers to get expense scrutiny

Public anger at politicians, and recent media reports surrounding the travel expenses of human rights commissioner Tim Wilson, opened the door for the prime minister to declare that this “is not about one person”.

In the press conference announcing the speaker’s resignation and the entitlements review, Tony Abbott did not mention just how wide the scope would be, nor that it would include every public official subject to Remuneration Tribunal determinations on salary and entitlements.

However, a single line in the terms of reference suggests the practice of statutory officials approving their own expenses without independent scrutiny may be about to end:

“In considering this framework, the committee should also examine whether other senior officials, subject to Remuneration Tribunal determinations on salary and entitlements should also fall under a new independent system.”

That clause captures 148 full-time officials, 67 principle executive offices, and part-time office holders in the thousands at the time of the last annual report from the Remuneration Tribunal, not including judicial branch officials.

On Sunday, Abbott said the public deserve to be “absolutely confident that the taxpayer’s money is not being abused”:

“This committee starts with a blank sheet of paper to provide options on a system that is truly independent.”

Read more at The Mandarin: Corruption of bureaucrats and the case for a federal ICAC

 
I say bring it on, money where your gob is Tony A (pun intended)...

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

P2, I was flabbergasted at the below list of trough dwellers mentioned;

"Departmental secretaries, heads of federal agencies, commissioners, members of government advisory bodies, judges and other statutory positions have been caught up in the review of parliamentary entitlements, with the committee asked to consider whether they should have the same independent scrutiny and disclosure the public expect for politicians"

Christ, no wonder the country is going broke! And I didn't see the IOS, the local house painter, or the poor Council worker that picks up dog pooh from the parks around Bondi beach mentioned in that exclusive list of privileged travel thirsty money rorting piggy wiggy's?
Hmmmm, no shock in that.

[Gobbledock]

The definition of a politician

The definition of a Politician can only be accurately described by George Carlin. This guy is hilarious and we've spent a few evenings on the deck of the Ferry boat enjoying his stand up work. So if you feel like some down time and want a laugh then go view the following clips on Poohtube (But warning - the second video contains the occasional naughty word. Viewer discretion advised, however young kids love such language!);

And;

Gobbles

[thorn bird]

Cant see the inquiry affecting CAsA's trough, they are a corporation doncha know, Guvmint can't interfere with the doings of a corporation, the minuscule said so.

[Peetwo]

Cant see the inquiry affecting CAsA's trough, they are a corporation doncha know, Guvmint can't interfere with the doings of a corporation, the minuscule said so.

I'm not so sure about that thorny, have a look here from my post #1:

 Okay so why is this relevant?? Well recently the miniscule released his SOE to CASA, & in that at bullet point (3) it states:

3.        ensure that CASA, in performing its functions:

(a) acts in accordance with the Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation;

 I wonder then where CASA rated...

 "..One agency was rated at the lowest end, 13 have a “developed” risk management framework, 45 were at the “systematic” level and 64 have “integrated” risk management. The chart rated 32 agencies as “advanced” and just one at the “optimal” level.."

However what I'd really like to know is how CASA - exemplified through the 2300 (at least) page horror reg Part61 - is allowed to seemingly thumb it's nose at the Coalition Government policy of red tape reduction, as outlined & guided by the PM's own Department - OBPR (The PMC Office of Best Practice Regulation)??

This policy was further highlighted as a priority to CASA in the miniscule's SOE. Quote from the Oz article - CASA must consider cost of regulation: Warren Truss :

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will be required to consider the economic and cost impact of regulation as well as implement the Forsyth review in a timely manner as part of a long-awaited statement of expectations sent by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.  

   
& from the SOE:

...10.    work with the Department in the preparation of a new long term funding strategy for CASA to be reflected in the 2016-17 Portfolio Budget Statements to provide ongoing financial stability for CASA and examine opportunities for reducing the costs of regulation to the aviation industry...

...15.    consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes.

 
Maybe the PGPA Act does not give this inquiry the right to scrutinise individual public servant parasites at CASA...   However in the present climate I wouldn't want to bet my left nut that there won't be scrutiny by the likes of Nick Xenophon, the Heff or Sterle coming their way, the escalation of the ASA performance inquiry a case in point...

Talking of current climate & public sentiment in regards to government, bureaucrats and a broken democracy, I caught this excellent article by Stephen Bartos published in the Canberra times:

Our jaded country's lost faith in democracy, and how to fix it


Date August 3, 2015
Stephen Bartos


If voters are to trust public institutions, ministers must to cede control to independent agencies and open themselves to scrutiny.

Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott, right, at the wedding of Greg and Sophie Mirabella, for which Bishop and other politicians requested payment to travel to. Photo: Rebecca Hallas

• The Public Sector Informant: latest issue
  
  

The system of democratic government is in trouble. Current stories about campaign donations and politicians' use of travel entitlements, while important, are the recent public airing of only one aspect of Australians' fundamental questioning of our version of the Western democratic project.

For more than a decade, the Lowy Institute has conducted annual polls of Australian attitudes to issues of national importance. In 2014, only about 60 per cent of Australians, and only 42 per cent of those aged 18 to 29 years, agreed with the statement "democracy is preferable to any other kind of government". That is 58 per cent, well over half, who effectively disagreed with democracy.

The result was slightly better in the recent 2015 Lowy poll: 65 per cent of the voting age population, and 49 per cent of young people, now say democracy is preferable.
Advertisement

Note that although they had a slightly more positive view, still fewer than half of young people surveyed preferred democracy. Just over a quarter agreed that "it doesn't matter what kind of government we have". The results attracted less attention than the 2015 security and foreign policy findings (admittedly "slightly better than last year but still of concern" is not a great headline). However, they confirmed the long-term trend: a significant number of Australians, and a majority of young people, now have little faith in our democracy. There is further corroborative evidence in the increased number of young people who either fail to enrol to vote or vote informal.

This kind of disillusionment can see young people disengage from key public policy issues. When that happens, it becomes harder for governments and public services to develop and deliver good policies; and then when policies fail due to lack of engagement, it leads to further disillusionment – a vicious cycle.

What can be done to break that cycle? In response to recent events, there have been calls for improved transparency in political donations and tighter controls on politicians' use of travel and other entitlements. When politicians stretch the rules, it reinforces the general impression that they are untrustworthy, even where they are acting within the letter of the regulations. A concept called selective attention is at work today (if I tell you there are a lot of red cars on the roads these days, you will suddenly see far more of them; there aren't really more but you're now paying attention, whereas you overlooked them before). The public is primed to notice reports of misuse of entitlements, and each new instance further confirms a negative impression about politicians. Changes to the system, such as fewer and more straightforward allowances, or even no special allowances at all, would help break the selective attention focus. It was done a few years ago with what were then seen as overgenerous parliamentary superannuation arrangements.

This kind of systemic improvement would be helpful in its own right but is far from a complete answer to the loss of faith in democracy. The issue is broader than the actions of a few politicians. Federal Labor MP Andrew Leigh does not buy the argument that there has been a decline in Australians' trust and regard for politicians. He's right. Australia's healthy disrespect for politicians has not moved much over time. For generations, Australian satirists have lampooned politicians. The Australian union/folk song Bump me into parliament (the refrain notes the tendency of politicians to abandon humble origins) dates from about 1915. Polls in our own era show the level of trust in politicians is and remains at a low base; it is not in sharp decline.

The broader problem is that trust in institutions of democratic society has declined, here and globally. There is plenty of speculation but little empirical evidence on the contributing factors in Australia. Internationally, there are clear pointers, in work by the World Bank and others, that factors such as transparency, effectiveness and lack of corruption are important to maintaining trust in government. A well-performing public sector is crucial. In Australia as elsewhere, the public service is one of the key institutions of a democratic society.

The way in which political and public service institutions interact in the Australian system of government is complex and continually evolving. At times, the separation between the two comes into question (for example, in the opposition's call last week for the Finance Department to hand the investigation of Speaker Bronwyn Bishop's travel spending to the federal police). The core departments of the public service work directly to ministers, and always have. However, when, as at present, there is lower trust in democratic institutions, they are more likely to be questioned or even accused of bias.

One effective way to increase trust in the system is therefore to make greater use of independent, arm's-length bodies to contribute to public policy and implementation. We already see this in practice. If, for instance, a minister wants scientific advice to be credible and persuasive, he or she is far more likely to turn to the CSIRO as an arm's-length body with a strong reputation than to use one of the public service's in-house science units. The Productivity Commission is an authoritative voice on the policy issues it considers because it is one step removed from direct ministerial control. Parliamentary budget offices, as I noted last month, can play a useful role in providing reliable policy costings. At state level, bodies like independent pricing and review tribunals (as in NSW) have become key regulators, as have bodies at Commonwealth level such as the Australian Energy Regulator and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

In Britain, public confidence in Treasury budget forecasts fell to such a low ebb that, in 2010, an independent Office of Budget Responsibility was created, according to its website, to provide independent and authoritative analysis of Britain's public finances. It has succeeded in restoring a level of trust in its official forecasts.

A further characteristic of most independent agencies is that they have a higher level of transparency – that is, their work is published and open to public scrutiny – than do departments. The Australian Public Service became more and more transparent over the 1970s (freedom of information, administrative review), 1980s (publication of forward estimates, evaluations and performance information) and 1990s (the Charter of Budget Honesty). For reasons too numerous to explore here (including pressures of the media cycle, absurd levels of risk aversion, overuse of "security" to avoid scrutiny), transparency has declined over the past two decades. Low transparency has obvious implications for trust in democracy: if the public cannot see how decisions are being made and what is going on inside government, it is less likely to trust it.

The Commonwealth still lacks the ultimate assurance of trust provided in other jurisdictions by independent commissions against corruption. There is no evidence that there either is, or is not, widespread corruption: without an independent body, it is impossible to say. The oft-heard claim that federal public servants are inherently less corruptible than those in other jurisdictions is naive: it presumes human morality differs depending on employment status. The only way the Commonwealth would be able to determine whether it had a corruption problem would be to establish an independent scrutiny agency with powers not only to examine complaints (as does the Ombudsman) but to conduct investigations.

If the public service were to be organised to a greater extent into independent, arm's-length bodies, there would be some loss of direct ministerial control – a necessary trade-off for greater trust. It is not the only option. There are other ways the public service could enhance trust:

• Open itself up to greater transparency in the policy process (currently strongly resisted in Australia, even though it appears to work in, say, New Zealand or Scotland).
  
• Engage with the public and young people through social media (one of the approaches suggested by Alex Oliver, who runs the Lowy poll, in a Senate lecture last year: "Are Australians disenchanted with democracy?") – noting that engagement means listening as well as lecturing.
  
• Produce meaningful information on performance in real time, online, and respond quickly when this provokes a reaction.
  
  

Politicians are aware of the disenchantment problem. It is unclear whether the message has filtered through to the public service. The messages are mixed at present. In principle, there has been a commitment to greater transparency but, when politically sensitive matters are raised, it can be quickly abandoned. Better information on performance has been promised but is yet to be delivered. There have been trials in some parts of the APS of what is termed co-design and co-production (designing what services will be delivered and how, in collaboration with service recipients; delivering the services through and with the affected people or communities). They were shelved once it dawned on high-level management in the departments concerned that genuine co-design meant not just consulting but actually changing policy and delivery in light of other people's views. While individual public servants involved were genuinely committed, the culture of risk aversion from the top defeated them.

While ideally the APS itself should be more open, transparent, engaged and flexible, this may require considerable cultural and organisational change to achieve in the short term.

In the meantime, trusted independent bodies – within the public sector but at a distance from ministers – can provide government with opportunities to re-engage with Australians and restore trust in democracy.

Stephen Bartos is a former senior public servant and was the NSW parliamentary budget officer for the 2015 election.

This bit..
"..There are other ways the public service could enhance trust:

• Open itself up to greater transparency in the policy process (currently strongly resisted in Australia, even though it appears to work in, say, New Zealand or Scotland)..."
  

Simply not going to happen while we have dinosaurs like Truss & Abbott still living in the 19th century...FCOL..

MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

 Excellent article by Stevie E off the Mandarin...

Jane Halton: worry less, the axe is falling on internal red tape

---

by
Stephen Easton
14.08.2015


Finance secretary Jane Halton says federal mandarins will soon strike against internal red tape. But she thinks public servants need to stop imagining obligations that don’t exist, too.

The Department of Finance will soon begin cutting out internal red tape that constrains federal agencies, but it also wants public servants to stop making up compliance obligations that don’t actually exist.

“One of the things I’m constantly astounded by when it comes to red tape is how people make things up,” Finance secretary Jane Halton said today, following a lunchtime lecture on federal public sector reforms at Parliament House.

“So people decide that there is a particular requirement, a compliance requirement, which appears nowhere in any chief executive instructions or any piece of legislation, and then it becomes a matter of holy writ that you have to do something this particular way.”

“So whilst we are going to do things about the rules, and the red tape in the rules, [this is] one of the messages I’m giving my colleagues. And in fact I’m talking about this in my department, because I have found a number of examples of this in my department.”

The internal red tape reduction drive is just one small part of the massive reform process prompted by the new Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, which was the focus of Halton’s lecture.

“And we can sweep away a lot of that misunderstanding as well as [genuine] red tape, I would hope, in this exercise,” she said. “Because there have been steps taken over the last few years which should make it easier for people to transact government business in a thoroughly proper and accountable way without going through unnecessary administrative overhead and hoops.”

“So we’ll go to the actual red tape, and then I’m asking other people to go to the made up and mythical red tape while we’re at it.”

She said a review of the internal red tape burden on government agencies being conducted by former senior public servant Barbara Belcher was nearing completion.
A sub-committee of the Secretaries’ Board called the Secretaries’ Committee on Transformation, chaired by Halton, recently viewed a draft of Belcher’s review.

“Barbara has found a huge number of things which my department does, as much as other people do, but there are things right across the internal workings of government which she has identified as opportunities to sweep away red tape,” said Halton.

“So that discussion was of: ‘Have we got it right? Have we missed things? Are there issues? Is any of this wrong? And it was a very good meeting, and I’m very hopeful that she will be in a position to finalise that report in the near future.”

The Finance boss was responding to a question from Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen, who’s up next in the Senate’s Occasional Lecture Series on September 25. He said the compliance burden was particularly heavy on small agencies like his own.

Burdens on small agencies

Halton’s host, Senate clerk Rosemary Laing, took the opportunity to ask a question of her own about the disproportionate burden on small agencies, but from the application of efficiency dividends:

“I would just be interested in your thoughts, philosophically, on how a concept like the efficiency dividend, which bedevils small agencies like mine, sits with those principles in the PGPA act?”

Halton replied that she had “personally railed against it, to assorted ministers and various other people”.

“There is a conversation to be had about how we make investment choices and certainly there is a more sophisticated discussion to be had about what mechanisms we can use to get resources to reinvest in activity,” she said.

Inside Finance, there is a debate going on about what other mechanisms might replace the notorious blunt instrument, according to Halton, which suggests it may finally be nearing the time when it is put out to pasture.

“So I think you raise an important point,” she said to Laing.

“It’s something we’re very conscious of and certainly something we have been discussing. I don’t have the answer to that yet, I’m sorry.

“And you make a point rightly about the impact on small agencies. I would observe that both sides of politics, when they get in government, have acknowledged on a number of occasions the particular challenge of small agencies, because obviously if you’re running a very small agency, your capacity to even invest is quite constrained.

“So [I am] very aware of the problem and I think we need to continue to have that discussion. Any views you’ve got would be extremely welcome.”

Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example...
MTF..P2
 

[Gobbledock]

Thinking thinking thinking.......

Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS  -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example...

Right then you lot, it's settled. We shall request a clean sweep of the board (literally) and swap the aviation dross in political power for the agriculture boys in political power! At least if we get the agriculture lads over here they will have something in common with Pumpkin Heads team - Pumpkin heads group know nothing about aviation, so the agriculture lads will be ok in that regard, and Pumpkin Heads group are used to leaving a trail of shite behind them, well the agriculture lads are used to shite and fertilisers etc, so no problem! Plus the added bonus is that we already have an Ag pilot group, so we can demand that Ag Phil be promoted to Chief Mandarin!! That will set the cat among the pigeons, fun times indeed!!!

"Safe swaps for all"

[Peetwo]

Thinking thinking thinking.......

Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS  -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example...

Right then you lot, it's settled. We shall request a clean sweep of the board (literally) and swap the aviation dross in political power for the agriculture boys in political power! At least if we get the agriculture lads over here they will have something in common with Pumpkin Heads team - Pumpkin heads group know nothing about aviation, so the agriculture lads will be ok in that regard, and Pumpkin Heads group are used to leaving a trail of shite behind them, well the agriculture lads are used to shite and fertilisers etc, so no problem! Plus the added bonus is that we already have an Ag pilot group, so we can demand that Ag Phil be promoted to Chief Mandarin!! That will set the cat among the pigeons, fun times indeed!!!

"Safe swaps for all"

Q/ Is M&Ms Dept the most inefficient, non-compliant to Govt policy, Federal Govt Department??

Actually Gobbles, IMO Barnaby's Department is just one in a list of medium size departments (like DoIRD), that show efficiencies light years ahead of M&M and the murky, trough dwelling, agencies he oversees.

Besides the glossy, weasel-worded & expertly PC'ed Annual Reports, by design the Senate Estimates is the only real time/snapshot exposure the public & MSM get, that enables the average punter to review the performance of these Department Mandarins & their minions.

Therefore the QON & how/why/when they are answered goes directly to the probity, efficiency, transparency & performance of individual departments & ultimately their Mandarins.

So for a point of comparison here are the links for individual Senate Legislative Committees that deal with all the accountable Government Departments:

Reports, hearing transcripts and answers to questions on notice
(including information from previous estimates hearings)

• Community Affairs
  
• Economics
  
• Education and Employment
  
• Environment and Communications
  
• Finance and Public Administration
  
• Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
  
• Legal and Constitutional Affairs
  
• Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
  

 
  OK so let us use the 'Community Affairs' committee as an example. First click on the CA link and then go down the Estimates page and click on the last budget estimates:

Answers to questions on notice, additional information and transcripts

2015-16 Estimates

• Budget—1-5 June 2015
  

Next we'll pick a Department QONs link, in this case we'll pick the Social Services portfolio:

Questions on notice - index and answers, additional information tabled documents

• Social Services Portfolio
  
• Health Portfolio
  
• Human Services Portfolio
  

  
You will see that the Social Services, despite a huge list of QON, have managed to answer all the questions pretty much on or before the due date - 24 July 2015.

Ok then we go to M&Ms department -

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Questions on notice index: (PDF 805 KB)


Answers are due 10 July 2015.

Answers to Questions on Notice - ???--zilch, nothing, nada--???

 
Okay I have been through the whole list (& besides one or two exceptions of individual department agencies dragging their feet on AQON) & the only department not to have made an attempt at getting the AQON in on time, or indeed even made a start on answering the QON, is M&Ms department.

Also we all know that this is not an isolated aberration and that normally M&M will blame this on the Minister:

 

With Albanese as Minister that may well have been true - especially when stalling on responding to the PelAir report - but recent evidence has this Minister wanting to be proactive & reformist in light of the recommendations in the Forsyth review which he commissioned. So I call bollocks to that normally trotted out excuse by M&M...

Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms perview, of non-compliance with Government Policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency & accountability to the public/taxpayers. 

Examples -

1) Airservices Australia - Senate ASA Performance Inquiry
2) CASA - Lack of timely response to address all of the Forsyth review recommendations, tackling the toxic culture within etc. - Mythical Reform.     
3) ATSB - The Minister issued a new SOE to the bureau back in April - that was also part of a response to the Forsyth report - & despite being finally published on the ATSB website, the commissioners & executive management are still yet to respond in the 'Statement of Intent' - SMH    


MTF...you bet P2

[Kharon]

P2 - "Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms purview, of non-compliance with Government policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency and accountability to the public/taxpayers."

Great research again from the guru; the points made all valid.  Under the DoIT ASA, ATSB and CASA have become a law unto themselves.  Look at CASA, massive funding, huge cast and crew, an independent self perpetuating monster which is devouring industry with scant regard for consequence.  But it’s the breath-taking arrogance which beggars the imagination; reports, instructions, directives all ignored or diluted; court and tribunal rule flouted, even parliamentary privilege beaten by artful dodging.  Even the purblind Minister must see the writing on the wall.

The impenetrable top cover provided by the Murky Machiavellian department is only the first line of defence; each department has a board with systems in place to protect the top trough; each department has a head with systems in place to protect that species; then there are the various sub-department heads with their own special brand of wriggle room, obfuscation and weasel word writers.  A bloody merry-go-round, a smorgasbord of untrammelled power and unlimited funds; all to protect and enhance the mystique of air safety.

Proof, screams the audience: look to the AQoN game and Estimates; all there, empirical, substantive and plain as day.  No matter parts 61 and 91 will ensure absolute air safety, we’ll all be detained at her Majesties pleasure for turning up to work with our boot laces tied the wrong way.

FCOL Minister WAKE UP and turn Boyd and Forsyth loose; give them the tools, they’ll get it sorted.  Lead, follow or get out the bloody way.

There mini rant over – feel much better now.  Nice work P2, Tim Tam quality.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

P2 - "Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms purview, of non-compliance with Government policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency and accountability to the public/taxpayers."

..Under the DoIT ASA, ATSB and CASA have become a law unto themselves.  Look at CASA, massive funding, huge cast and crew, an independent self perpetuating monster which is devouring industry with scant regard for consequence.  But it’s the breath-taking arrogance which beggars the imagination; reports, instructions, directives all ignored or diluted; court and tribunal rule flouted, even parliamentary privilege beaten by artful dodging.  Even the purblind Minister must see the writing on the wall.

The impenetrable top cover provided by the Murky Machiavellian department is only the first line of defence; each department has a board with systems in place to protect the top trough; each department has a head with systems in place to protect that species; then there are the various sub-department heads with their own special brand of wriggle room, obfuscation and weasel word writers.  A bloody merry-go-round, a smorgasbord of untrammelled power and unlimited funds; all to protect and enhance the mystique of air safety.

Proof, screams the audience: look to the AQoN game and Estimates; all there, empirical, substantive and plain as day.  No matter parts 61 and 91 will ensure absolute air safety, we’ll all be detained at her Majesties pleasure for turning up to work with our boot laces tied the wrong way.

FCOL Minister WAKE UP and turn Boyd and Forsyth loose; give them the tools, they’ll get it sorted.  Lead, follow or get out the bloody way...

BARA - Please explain!

Update: Is M&Ms Dept the most inefficient, non-compliant to Govt policy, Federal Govt Department?

Well not much to tell in the fairyland world of fat cat Aviation Mandarins & their minions. Still no AQONs (see here) but there has been a mad flurry of activity with the release of several corporate plans (the ATSB one was particularly puerile- see my Off with the fairies post- bucket  please Aunty Pru ).

This CP bollocks is  presumably in the lead up to October's glossy annual wascily, wabbit, weasel weports; which as we know is simply another smokescreen for the inept, obfuscating, miscreant behaviour of the individual agencies and M&Ms overseeing dept for the last year...

However maybe..just maybe all this annual bureaucratic Bullocks might possibly start to unravel when it comes to the severely under siege ASA (see here & here). Why?- Well because it would seem the heavy weight Airlines are now weighing into the fray and asking a few pertinent questions of their own...

Courtesy the Oz:

Justify price levels, airlines tell Airservices Australia  

• by: Steve Creedy
  
• From: The Australian
  
• September 04, 2015 12:00AM
  

Aviation Editor
Sydney





Airlines want amendments to the Airservices proposal. Source: News Corp Australia

Major airlines have called for greater accountability by Air­services Australia as part of changes to the air navigation provider’s long-term pricing plan, ahead of the plan’s submission to the competition watchdog.  

The Board of Airlines Representatives of Australia is seeking amendments to make the Airservices proposal, which sets pricing for air navigation and other services for five years from July, “more amenable” to support from its member airlines.

The changes include scrutiny by an independent third party to assess Airservices’ operating and spending efficiency.

In a submission lodged this week and obtained by The Australian, BARA calls for greater ­accountability over the delivery of services for the prices paid by international airlines as well as better justification of efficient ­operating and capital costs.

It also wants a solution to its longstanding objection to the cross-subsidisation of regional airports by carriers who use only major metropolitan airports.

“This is the first time BARA has laid out its full scope of ­concerns, and more importantly, described how the arrangements need to evolve and improve to ­develop an acceptable service ­delivery and pricing agreement for the international airlines,’’ BARA executive director Barry Abrams said.

“It’s now really up to Air­services.

“They can seek to negotiate with the airlines to improve ­matters or lodge directly with the ACCC, knowing the current ­proposal is not acceptable to us.’’

The group believes Airservices’ 2106 pricing proposal effectively rolls forward the existing pricing agreement negotiated in 2011.

The latest plan increases prices by an average of 3.3 per cent per year to fund air navigation and fire fighting services, with a 5.3 per cent increase in the first year that includes unexpected expenditure over the past three years.

The company says it has provided real price reductions of 20 per cent since its first long-term pricing agreement in 2005.

While conceding the new proposal contains forecast costs, ­activity volumes and “some high-level descriptions of outcomes”, BARA’s submission was critical that it contained no binding commitments on anticipated service commitments to airlines.

It said this was particularly problematic given the proposed expenditures associated with the OneSKY project to merge the civilian and military air traffic control systems. OneSKY is expected to cost $600 million to set up and $1.5 billion over its lifetime.

It questioned a lack of information on supplier costs, the controversy over executive pay at the organisation, the growth in employee numbers and union wage increases of 4 per cent, compared to a 1.5 per cent average for the commonwealth public service.
“BARA notes how since this time external bodies — including the Commission of Audit, the Productivity Commission, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, and the Harper review — have raised concerns over the efficiency of Airservices’ capital investment program, operating efficiency and pricing structures,’’ the submission says. “

These issues are not new and formed part of the ACCC’s assessment of Airservices in 2011.

“As such, BARA had expected the 2016 pricing proposal would have contained a framework that directly responded to issues raised by external bodies.’’

The submission argued a link between price increases and the delivery of services to airlines should include an agreed checklist of tangible and measurable “deliverables’’, particularly when it came to the OneSKY project.

“Annual price increases for en route and terminal navigation services (with an option for ‘smoothed’ price paths) should depend on meeting agreed deliverables,’’ it says.

The airlines also want recent OneSKY procurement issues raised during a senate committee hearing this month to be clarified. Senators claimed the project had been compromised by “incestuous” and “dodgy” family and corporate alleged conflicts of interest, although Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss’s office has said the Minister was satisfied the project was being managed appropriately.

 
Hmm...next week's Senate Inquiry hearing could be very interesting indeed??


MTF...P2
      

[Gobbledock]

Although QF made a miraculous turn around in profits in the past year (nice financial accounting boys),surely the airlines must be mighty pissed off watching ASA profits take in around $600 million to a $billion annually while airlines struggle to earn a buck? Then you have shite like TASWAM wasting precious money and delivering a not-so-stellar safety net? Now we have the $billion Consultants delight OneSky that will soak up more airline profits, not to mention airline and airport charges and tax money that contribute to the living, breathing, steaming entities called CAsA and ATsB.

Yep, taxpayer money and airline profits pissed away mercilessly into the wind while unaccountable government and bureaucratic wankers sip fine wine and eat caviar during international trips to exotic locations! You wonder how much more society will take off this shit??

Tick tock

[Peetwo]

Trough feeders, international fraud, kickbacks & Mandarins?


Sometimes 'Old Man Time' can play some masterful tricks & treats, here is a perfect example.

On the Truss shame thread the Ferryman had an excellent Sundy Ramble question - The power behind the throne. - with the subjects of interest being M&M & Doc Hoodoo Voodoo...

..Careful research and tracking through many events invariably finds both men involved; always in control, one way or another.  It leads to the notion that the iron ring is attached to the solid bulwark of the real power and influence behind the thrones. And begs the question – just who really runs the puppet show?  No brainer in my opinion, proving it; aye well, that’s the challenge ain’t it.  Will Truss meet it? – another no brainer...

  
And then last night we had a very damning story on the 'other' Aunty news that gave me pause to reflect on some parallel universe zingers - think Pumpkin, Hoodoo, Skulls & ICAO... :

Leading lawyers call for overhaul of Australia's foreign bribery laws

By the National Reporting Team's James Thomas

Updated yesterday at 3:34pmSun 6 Sep 2015, 3:34pm


Photo: The Government spent $23.4 million investigating the AWB scandal, which resulted in no criminal prosecutions. (Will Ockenden: ABC Rural)

The world's leading lawyers have questioned the ability of the Australian Federal Police to investigate serious corporate crime and called for a new "dedicated agency" to have responsibility for complex financial cases, including foreign bribery.

In a damning submission to the Senate, the International Bar Association (IBA) described Australia's foreign bribery laws as ineffective and our record of enforcement "woeful".

"We have had 15 years of foreign bribery laws in Australia," wrote Robert Wyld, author of the submission.

He said in that time there had been 28 investigations, although 21 of those were dropped and only two were criminal prosecutions.

"The system is not working. Unless people go to jail, unless people see imprisonment as the real ultimate penalty, there will be no behavioural change," Mr Wyld said.

While acknowledging the 2014 improvements of the AFP's Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre, Mr Wyld, who is co-chair of the IBA's Anti-Corruption Committee, described Australia as a "reactive country, sensitive to external criticism and forced to budget better resources only when it must".

The Australian Wheat Board became embroiled in a kickback scandal more than 10 years ago which saw $300 million funnelled through to the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Federal Government spent $23.4 million investigating the scandal, which resulted in no criminal prosecutions.

If you want your company to pay bribes, just set up a subsidiary and ensure whatever structure you use is isolated.
Robert Wyld

By way of contrast in the United States, BHP paid $US25 million to settle bribery charges for offering junkets to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for 176 officials that, it was alleged, could help them.

The AFP launched an investigation in 2013 but Mr Wyld said it went nowhere.
"BHP has not been prosecuted for that conduct in Australia," he said.
Unlike the US, Australia has no liability on parent companies for the conduct of subsidiaries or intermediaries.

"If you want your company to pay bribes, just set up a subsidiary and ensure whatever structure you use is isolated, in terms of effective management from the parent company," Mr Wyld said.

The 2015 Deloitte Bribery and Corruption Survey found 23 per cent of Australian organisations with offshore operations are not concerned about the risks arising from non-compliance with bribery laws.

About 77 per cent have also never conducted a bribery risk assessment.

Experts call for banning of facilitation payments

The IBA wants to see civil and criminal penalties for corruption and foreign bribery increased and the banning of so-called facilitation payments — small amounts of cash handed to officials to get things done which are presently legal under Australian foreign bribery law.

"They are bribes. They are small amounts but they are still bribes," said Transparency International's executive director Mike Ahrens.

If facilitation payments were banned, it would make it much more difficult to operate in Africa.
Bill Turner, Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group

Mr Ahrens is campaigning to rid facilitation payments as a defence under our foreign bribery laws — a position the UK government has adopted and one which is supported by the massive miner Woodside.

But there are some that insist facilitation payments are not bribes but a necessary part of doing business in some countries.

"If facilitation payments were banned, it would make it much more difficult to operate in Africa", said the Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group's Bill Turner.

"A policeman will pull you up at a roadblock, you wind the window down and he will poke an AK-47 through the window.

"It is a little bit difficult to argue the case about not being able to make a facilitation payment under such circumstances."

World Bank estimated corruption cost $US1 trillion annually

Mr Wyld said that such payments are nothing more than "grease payments".

"That is not a facilitation payment, that is a worker who is being extorted," he said.

"That would be a justifiable and reasonable thing to do and the person would have the defence of making a payment under duress."

But otherwise, Mr Wyld said facilitation payments were nothing more than "small bribes".
"How can you be half-pregnant? You don't half pay a bribe," he said.

"[The banning of these payments in the UK] has not put United Kingdom companies out of business, they are still operating in the markets where Bill's clients work," he added.
The World Bank estimated in 2005 that corruption cost $US1 trillion annually.

With figures like that, the OECD's CleanGovBiz report argued: "It is not only a question of ethics; we simply cannot afford such waste."

The Senate Economics Reference Committee's inquiry into foreign bribery laws is yet to conduct hearings and is due to report its findings on July 1 next year.

 
Here we go from the mothballed thread - McComic in Montreal:

Did Australia mislead ICAO over the Pel-Air crash?
 
Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking - the best of all tendentious bloggers asks one of the many big questions.   It beggars belief that after the unholy mess McComic left behind in Australia; the only support group for his ICAO appointment is the Department of murky Machiavellian land deals, manipulation, influence peddling and obfuscation.  
 
I will reiterate, the Senate Pel-Air inquiry only exposed the tip of a very ugly, sinister ice berg.  The DoIT, under Merdek running both the CASA and ATSB top dogs has successfully smothered and minimised the impact not only the damning FAA audits of CASA, the Senate inquiry recommendation, the Ministerial review recommendations and the Canadian TSBC peer review recommendations, but have also managed to beat off a once furious, hostile industry with endless delays, meaningless promises and no bloody action whatsoever.  This all before the multitude of Coronial recommendations which have been fobbed off with 'promised changes or simply ignored are examined; or, the disgraceful ATSB reports into fatal accidents.  Let's just not mention the non reporting of loss of separation incidents or non publication of Safety Recommendations, Mildura or Air North; etc. etc. etc....
 
The human face of the incredible damage whether inflicted by designed intent or as happenstance provides a long list of those persons or companies who have been sacrificed to meet those predetermined outcomes, requested or required, under the McComic rule of 'black letter law', extruded by the mile, cut off as needed and welded to suit. 
 
The faithfully and caringly tended Senate Inquiry thread on the unspeakable Pprune carries the whole ugly story and would have brought these future revelations to the aviation world, had it not been pre-emptively shut down.  Boring they said (1, 600, 000 views); well, we can now let the world decide exactly how boring it was.   I suggest the doyens of the ICAO do their homework before allowing the McComic to plonk his fat bottom on one of their plush seats and embarrass them all further.  Seriously – start – at page 1 and don't speak until you have read the entire disgusting saga.   –HERE - Off you go...Shoo little mice..
 
The sketchy track record of playing fast and loose with ICAO protocols is not mentioned, that's all of' em.  Australia has over 1600, registered differences which, rather cleverly, make it 'technically' compliant with ICAO, while thumbing it's nose and laughing up it's sleeve.   Then there is the demonstrated complete disregard for ICAO Annex 13 and the allegations of breaches of the Transport Safety Acts to be accounted for, either proven of eliminated.
 
IMO: Not only is the Australian public been defrauded, the politicians bluffed and ill advised but the breathtaking arrogance with which the Iron Ring takes the Mickey Bliss out the world at large while being paid handsomely for doing it, simply beggars belief. 
 
No children, not cynical, just well researched, experienced and very disappointed, that I must, as an Australian hang my head in shame.  Shamed that this industry has allowed it 'self be so so gulled and beaten into a passive, Pavlovian response of accepting what the bullies, the ignorant and the despicable dole out.
 
No doubt there will be more on this, but meanwhile, if you love a really juicy scandal; and, want to enjoy this one: get your homework done.
 
Selah. 

 
Fortunately that M&M scheme - like the FIFA World Cup bid - come to nought:

Somewhere far..far..away but not far from this Star Chamber...

 

...in some Australian taxpayer funded ***** hotel McComic is cleared for take off:

 

Finally a return to Reason in the world of aviation safety has occurred and called BOLLOCKS to Murky & the former Minister for Bad Teeth & No Aviation's glowing endorsements of McComic.. :

Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:20): ...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed. When Mr McCormick had advised me of the decision, I remember speaking to Prime Minister Gillard and informing her of what was about to occur—because, by definition, you cannot make a decision that an airline is unsafe and then say, 'we will ground them in a couple of days' time'. What it meant by definition was that people got stranded. There was a real-world impact on the travelling public, particularly given the nature of Tiger; and on many families who were able to travel by air for the first time, because it was a budget airline. That was a courageous decision by John McCormick.

 
From Reuters out of Toronto:

U.N. aviation agency names Chinese veteran as secretary general


TORONTO (Reuters) - The United Nations aviation body's governing council elected Fang Liu, a veteran of China's aviation authority, as its new secretary general on Wednesday, the first woman to hold the position in the agency's 70-year history.

Liu, who has worked at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2007, is director of its Bureau of Administration and Services. She ran against candidates from Australia, India and the United Arab Emirates.

Liu will start her three-year term on Aug. 1, replacing Raymond Benjamin of France.

ICAO's Secretary General oversees the Montreal-based agency's secretariat, acting as its chief executive officer, and reports to its 36-member governing council which is currently led by Nigeria's Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu.

From 1987 to 2007, Liu held a series of positions at the Civil Aviation Administration of China's international affairs department, which works with ICAO.

The agency is under pressure to improve safety in the airline industry after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the downing of another Malaysian airliner in Ukraine last year.

At a major safety conference last month ICAO member states endorsed a plan to track aircraft flying outside radar, and a proposal to build a website where states can share information about risks to planes in conflict zones.

The agency is not a regulator, but its standards typically become regulatory requirements in its 191 member states.

(Reporting by Allison Martell; Editing by Diane Craft)

 
Wise move ICAO..  

MTF...

Ps Q/ In light of some of the disturbing findings in the latest MH370 interim investigation report I wonder how long it will be before a full blown ICAO USOAP safety audit is conducted in Malaysia?

Hmm..I'd still be curious to know how much the Murky instigated failed bid actually cost and how much it is currently costing us to keep the ICAO USOAP, FAA audit crew from knocking on the Murky Mandarin's door??

Period of interest:

   
MTF...P2

Ps Oh Nancy 'where out thou'??