[Peetwo]

Re Footnote 4.  All true; the short version provided sums up the ‘nub’.  The long version is a small part of a very long horror story in which Wodger and Inutile Lad combined their arcane skills  to create a legal Chimera.

What is not widely known is not only did it take a strongly worded ‘letter’ from the TC holder, the AFM and about an hour of ‘discussion’ before they reluctantly agreed to rephrase, not acquit the NCN.  The original was part of the evidence against Airtex; happily (for CASA) it was part of the 33% of evidence abandoned before Counsel got them ‘in the box’.  

I’ll tell you whole tale over a beer one night – or you can wait until mid January, when I should, with a bit of luck, be able to publish that particular chapter of the Bankstown Chronicles.  

Toot toot.

Edit - 

Wodger's scalps??

Ferryman I know you do not jest...

“Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?”

― William Shakespeare, Hamlet

FYI - 'Essential reading'

Quote:

If the manufacturer and certification authority feel that these protections are necessary for safe operation then why on earth would you switch them off ????

Perhaps some believe, as some CASA FOIs seem to believe, the CARs/CAOs override the certification provisions spelled out quite (at least to me) clearly in the AIM ---- but I guess I know a bit about the problems of deep stalls and certification.

Maybe some FOIs believe they can issue themselves a Reg.308 exemption from the Rules of Aerodynamics and the Law of Gravity.

In fact, if I am guessing identities correctly, Kharon was a Training Captain who refused to accede to the demands of one or more CASA FOIs, who were demanding deactivating the SA 227 SAS system, by pulling the Cb, and pulling the aircraft into a full stall.

And said Kharon obtained a letter from the TC holder absolutely prohibiting what (some) CASA FOIs were demanding.

Maybe this is OpsseverlyabNormal's "disgraceful behavior", not meekly going along with (some) FOI's demands.

A smart and highly experienced pilot refusing to accept the FOI's interpretation of CAO 40.whatever on stalls during training --- and to hell with the AIM ---- and everybody lived, in contrast to the Norwegian crash ---- which can hardly be called an accident.

Shades of D.P.Davies [UK ARB Chief Test Pilots, author of (Mis)Handling the Big Jets] and the Trident losses and fatalities, demanding a Tiger Moth stall in a modern piece of aerodynamics.

There are no new aircraft "accidents", we just keep repeating the same old same old.

Just like FOI's demands to "fail" ( by mixture or turning the fuel off ---- none of this wuzzie zero thrust) in aircraft not certified to survive an engine failure on T/O ----- because their chosen "black letter law" interpretation of the CAOs.

I guess we will just keep killing candidates from time to time.

Tootle pip!!

Enjoy (or not ) MTF..P2

[Kharon]

The inestimable ‘Lead-Sled’ almost hitting the nail on the head.  Fact is, it was much worse than that; the demand was contrary to even CAO 40.1.  It was proposed that the FO’s did the exercise, not required to by law, SOP or common sense especially with the SAS disabled.  Approach to and recovery from, with SAS for captains was completed; but it seems, in the Inutile wisdom, that too was very, very wrong.  Go figure.

The whole thing became more and more risible, to damn near farcical.  There is a lot more  BUT, as I informed Lead-Sled, it is not my tale to tell; not yet.  Patience;

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Peetwo]

Aviation Safety non-partisan?- You bet..  

Signs of the times.

Nicely done Ventus and to the point.  The next big question is ‘why’ have the Senators been unable to get anything changed; both the Fawcett (AWOL) and Xenophon rhetoric should have sent minions scurrying to mend the fences, put the minister on high alert and produced almost immediate results.  Phhuuttt, the balloon collapses, which is a bad enough thing, but since then, things have only become worse.

Look at the latest series of ATSB reports, see any signs of improvement?  Beggared if I do.  What I can discern is a milk and water approach to meat and potato matters.  The recent (in ATSB time scale) events at Melbourne, serious matters in need of ‘deep’ analysis and demanding change.  Did we get anything we paid for; No.  Anything remotely useful; No.  Do we still have to endure Dolan at estimates; Yes.  Can the ATSB troops still do useful reports; Yes; so why are they not?   Since the Pel-Air inquiry no change – pointless exercise?  You bet.

Look over the way into the CASA HQ any major changes there?  McComic departed the fix, but that was a natural event; Terry buggered off before he dropped off the twig, no great surprise there; then eventually we got Skidmore-Twist.  A confused, confounded, captured boy brought in to do a mans job; better men left out of the race and then the great nothing.  Unless you count endless hours spent reconfirming the Forsyth report – remember that?; shelf-ware now, just a view says the master of hot air, gab, party line and sod all else.  More time and more effort achieving SFA.  I will avoid the Skidmore selection of crew, conflict with the board and capture by the establishment.   Avmed remains a total nightmare, time will come when Pooh-Shambollic will be revered as a ‘reformer’; wait and see.  

You can always have a look at the ASA performance, but take your bucket (to vomit in) and your spade (to dig your way out of the mud).  Argh, can’t be bothered even rehashing; at least Staib and Clark departed the fix, which, in anyone’s jungle cannot be a bad thing.

The only positive things to emerge are absolute, categorical proof that the Senate ‘Wet Lettuce Leaf’ exists, and that sound and fury signify Nada.  Gods alone know how much all this wheel spinning has cost the industry and taxpayer; but it is clear how we shall pay for it, with a defunct, derelict industry and in blood and smoking body parts, that’s how.  But no matter, no one will be responsible.  Now that is a fine result, don’t you think?

There is a line which when crossed takes you from being part of the solution to being a part of the problem.  Is there a problem? – you bet.  Can the Senate resolve it?; seems more unlikely as the years roll by.  

Selah.

In November 2008 Albo said in his..Address at opening of CASA’s New Brisbane Office:

"..And, nothing, I repeat nothing, is as important in aviation as safety.."

And more recently we had this on Albo's blinkered, biased 19th century view on Aviation Safety: 

This was in reply to the Truss response to the Forsyth review report & recommendations:

Maybe Albo has had the last laugh because the Forsyth review has now come to nought and his leader Bill Shorten has a similar blinkered, uninformed view that aviation safety only involves Qantas & possibly Virgin??

However that doesn't mean these sorts of issues will not come home to roost for Labor & the Coalition come Election time..

Courtesy Planetalking:

Labor’s sorry record on air safety will bite it over Qantas

Ben Sandilands | Mar 06, 2014 8:48PM |


Inside a Qantas hangar: Qantas supplied photo

Someone should have warned Opposition leader Bill Shorten against playing the Qantas safety card today in Parliamentary Question Time because of the dismal record of his shadow transport spokesperson Anthony Albanese as a former Transport Minister with responsibility for CASA and the ATSB.

Shorten urged the view that the Qantas safety record would be at risk if it was sold to overseas interests if the Coalition succeeded in repealing the foreign ownership restrictions on Qantas shares.

This argument is almost totally without merit, given that Qantas has for a long time had much such work done abroad, although there is evidence that at times Qantas also failed to supervise such work adequately and may on one or more occasions not chosen its maintenance provider wisely, a risk that also applies to sub standard work done in this country.

Not all maintenance repair and overhaul outfits are grade A, here or abroad, and until aircraft became more reliable and their engineering support needs began to fall, Qantas had shrewdly kept as much of this work as possible under its control in Australia.

The law in relation to the responsibilities carried by Qantas and any other Australian airline, whether international or domestic, is blind to borders. No matter where the work is done Qantas senior managers and the board are personally liable for safety standards and outcomes.

It’s a condition of Qantas or its competitors keeping their AOCs.

Which raises the problem of Anthony Albanese as the Minister  responsible for CASA, the safety regulator, and the ATSB, the supposedly independent safety investigator. Albanese is an embarrassment in relation to the on going scandal of the Pel-Air crash investigation, in which he failed to respond, as he had promised, to the detective work done by a Senate committee which found that CASA had withheld from the ATSB an internal document showing it had been so deficient in its oversight of the operator that a preventable accident had occurred.

It further found evidence that implied that the ATSB had complied with pressure from CASA to frame the pilot of the crashed jet with all the responsibility, and failed to consider all of the safety factors, nor even report on them in the form and detail required under international ICAO rules.

The entire Pel-Air scandal shows that CASA was not just incompetent but quite possibly in breach of Commonwealth law in suppressing information relevant to an air crash investigation.

If Shorten is the slightest bit serious about air safety he should acquaint himself with Albanese’s pathetic record in relation to Pel-Air.

The scandal is also a test for the Coalition’s deputy PM and Transport Minister, Warren Truss, who is understood to be making a response to the Senate committee findings before the current parliamentary session ends later this month.

Ominously, Truss has allowed his own initiative, the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which is now underway, to suppress public submissions which are highly critical of  CASA by not publishing them at a single accessible reference point.

While this is in train, the ATSB has commissioned an external international review by Canadian safety officials of its investigative procedures which doesn’t give that panel authority to do anymore than review the ‘documents’ related to the Pel-Air inquiry, rather than seek information directly from the the pilots and passengers who were on board that jet and survived a ditching in the sea at night near Norfolk Island in 2009.

There is a great deal that remains, to be frank, rotten and secretive in the public administration of air safety in this country, and Shorten blundered into an area where it could be that even the Coalition may not have the guts to go.

There are 47 stories on Pel-Air tagged here on Plane Talking.

..&

Sketchy Pel-Air crash investigation raises uncomfortable questions for deputy PM

Ben Sandilands | Jan 22, 2015 12:41PM |

There’s plenty to worry about when it comes to crash investigation in Australia’s aviation industry — not that you’d know it from the minister’s interest in the subject.

How long can Warren Truss, the deputy PM, leader of the Nationals, and minister responsible for reannouncing Labor highway projects as well as air safety, continue to neglect the aviation part of his portfolio?

Questions about the minister’s capacity to focus and act are made all the more pressing by the extraordinary generosity to political parties by Regional Express Airlines (REX), the owners of the disgraced Pel-Air operation that dropped an air ambulance into the sea near Norfolk Island in 2009. REX’s board include the former Nationals transport minister John Sharp, who is deputy chair of REX and chair of Pel-Air.

In 2012, Australia’s air safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, was in a state of internal turmoil over the direction of its final report in the Pel-Air crash. That turmoil is documented in the peer review of the ATSB’s report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which led to Truss instructing the ATSB in December to reopen that  inquiry.

Consider what was happening in 2012 carefully.

At the end of August 2012 the ATSB produced its final crash report, which failed to mention dozens of  serious deficiencies in the Pel-Air’s Westwind corporate jet division, and overlooked its own failure — as the regulator — to oversee Pel-Air, including serious problems with the airline’s fatigue management and oceanic refueling practices.

However, documents the Australian Electoral Commission recently provided to Karen Casey, the nurse who was seriously injured in the Pel-Air ditching, show that  in the second half of 2012, REX donated $250,000 to Labor, $97,500 to the Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberals.

If REX knows the rationale behind the donations, it isn’t sharing it with the media.

The obvious deficiencies in the ATSB report led in turn to a damning all-party Senate committee inquiry, which, among other things, expressed a lack of confidence in the testimony provided to it by the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.

Both the former Labor minister responsible for transport, Anthony Albanese, and the current missing-in-action minister, Warren Truss, treated the senators with total contempt, refusing to engage in any meaningful way with their concerns, and in the case of Truss, relying on an anodyne nothing-to-see-here response from his own department.

But after Truss ordered the reopening of the Pel-Air inquiry — something he had to do given the incisive criticism of the ATSB by the board’s Canadian counterparts — the ATSB defied him by continuing to display its discredited Pel-Air report on its website.

Worse than that, Truss appears to have drifted off into la-la land by allowing the ATSB to appoint one of its own, Dr Michael Walker, to lead the investigation into its own fiercely denied errors.

The perils of this shabby approach would be obvious to someone who is on the ball.

The minister has also failed to carry out his personal commitment to appoint an additional commissioner with technical aviation experience to the ATSB, or to act on the Senate’s findings against the conduct and integrity of its chief commissioner.

A vague minister and an embarrassing and deeply flawed air accident report. What could possibly go wrong for Australia’s reputation in air safety governance with a combination like this?

MTF..you bet 

Ps In the meantime refer here for some IOS BRB suggested election promo pics.. - The Mandarin

Pps And Albo don't worry mate we've plenty of you pumping the flesh & running away from Channel 7 reporters in the wake of your non-action with the PelAir report.

Fawcett highlights government failure on aviation safety recommendations

August 4, 2013 by australianaviation.com.au

Senator Fawcett - alarmed by government apathy on aviation safety.

Liberal Senator for South Australia David Fawcett has condemned the federal minister responsible for aviation for “failing to respond to the damning findings of the Senate Inquiry into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) which was released on 23 May 2013.”
“Even the announcement of an external review of the ATSB by the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) was not made by the Minister but by the agency in question,” Fawcett added.
“This raises serious concerns about the efficacy of any resulting report unless the Minister ensures that the terms of reference and Australian management of the audit are transparent and independent.”
Senator Fawcett, who chaired the Senate inquiry into aviation accident investigations and is a former Army test pilot, told Australian Aviation in July: “The government is not allowed to simply ignore the report and its 26 recommendations.”
Fawcett called on Minister Albanese to ensure the review of the ATSB has the confidence of the aviation industry and the public by adopting Recommendation 8 of the Senate report.
The Senate recommended that “an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.”
“While the engagement of the Canadian TSB is welcome, the gravity of the issues raised in the Senate report means that the Minister should be overseeing the review with the support of an expert panel rather than the ATSB,” Fawcett said.
“It is critical that this review of the ATSB is allowed to examine all sensitive areas of the ATSB investigation processes as identified in the Senate report including the Canley Vale accident”

[Peetwo]

Somewhat related to my last (above) I noticed in the Department Aviation & Airports Division AQON - that could also be a contender for QOTM - & answer that proves why Mandarins should not be trifled with lightly (or at least not before knowing the answer first.. ):

QON 111 -

Senator Gallacher, Alex asked:

… Senator GALLACHER: Will the federal minister have the capacity to overturn the decision to relocate the Adelaide terminal control unit to Melbourne?

Mr Mrdak: I think that is a matter that we cannot really comment on. The matter is essentially one for the board of the organisation. The minister has been briefed. The minister is certainly very closely engaged with—

Senator GALLACHER: I know that I cannot ask you for an opinion and you will not comment on that, but—

Mr Mrdak: No.

Senator GALLACHER: Can I ask you for a fact. Did a previous minister intervene and overturn the decision?

Mr Mrdak: I am not aware of such a decision.

Senator GALLACHER: You are not aware of it? So this was not overruled in the Howard government?

Mr Mrdak: I would have to go and check—I am sorry, Senator.

Senator GALLACHER: Perhaps you could go and check if there was a case built for relocation and it never happened. That is a fact—that is not—

Mr Mrdak: I am sorry—I just do not want to mislead you. I will obviously take that on notice and check…

Answer:
The Airservices Australia (Airservices) Board decided in its August 2006 Board Meeting not to proceed with integration of the Adelaide, Cairns and Sydney Terminal Control Units into facilities in Brisbane and Melbourne.

To be fair to Sir Gallacher the original question should have been does the Minister have the power to overturn these types of decisions but after that the Mandarin definitely out played him...

[P7_TOM]

On a different tack.

One of real Mandarins – a mandarin’s mandarin showed his dedication, understanding and command of his remit, in style at last estimates. From page four through to 20; Mike Mrdak managed an in-depth Q&A session with Sir Gallacher with great panache, from memory without taking one question on notice. A remarkable demonstration from a master of the game.

Nicely done that man; I wonder what he could make with a crack team on the aviation portfolio’s instead of the rubbish he has to work with now. It’s an interesting question.

Cyber Tim Tam voted by the IOS as a token of respect…Bravo.

[Peetwo]

On a different tack.

One of real Mandarins – a mandarin’s mandarin showed his dedication, understanding and command of his remit, in style at last estimates.  From page four through to 20; Mike Mrdak managed an in-depth Q&A session with Sir Gallacher with great panache, from memory without taking one question on notice.  A remarkable demonstration from a master of the game.

Nicely done that man; I wonder what he could make with a crack team on the aviation portfolio’s instead of the rubbish he has to work with now.  It’s an interesting question.

Cyber Tim Tam voted by the IOS as a token of respect…Bravo.

Ol'Tom I too was taken by that very first passage of play starting here in Hansard:

CHAIR: I now welcome, all the way from Tasmania, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Mr Mike Mrdak, the long-suffering Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and officers of the department. Minister Colbeck or Mr Mrdak, do you want to make an opening statement?


Senator Colbeck: No.

Mr Mrdak : No, I am happy to proceed to questions.

CHAIR: Thank you very much.

Senator WILLIAMS: You might regret that!

Senator GALLACHER: Following the recent ministerial changes, has a charter letter been issued for the ministerial responsibilities in the department? Sorry, Mr Mrdak; I am presuming a charter letter is a definitive outline of the responsibilities. Am I correct in that?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, you are correct: charter letters do set out ministerial responsibilities and also the Prime Minister's priorities for the portfolio in the period ahead. Charter letters have not yet been finalised for the portfolio.

Senator GALLACHER: Does it then follow that we do not know what the responsibilities of the respective ministers are?

Mr Mrdak : Responsibilities have been settled as per the ministerial arrangements, and details have been settled between ministers in relation to responsibilities within the portfolio and across portfolios, but the formal charter letters are yet to be received.

Senator GALLACHER: How will I understand that, then? These are sort of like administrative letters that follow after discussion and agreement—is that what you are saying?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, that is partly the case. The letters will formalise what has already been put in place through the ministerial arrangements, and often the responsibilities are captured in the title of the minister. More importantly, they set the priorities for the period ahead where the government seeks to have ministers prioritise their responsibilities. In the case of our portfolio, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Warren Truss, remains Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development with overall responsibility for the portfolio and also is a member of the cabinet. Minister Fletcher, who has responsibility for territories, local government and major projects—

Senator GALLACHER: I am going to go to the actual question about who does what. We saw this play out in another portfolio in the last week. So, the minister gets sworn in and gets allocated responsibility for a portfolio, which has a description.

Mr Mrdak : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: And then there is a charter letter, which—for want of a better word—demarks the various areas of responsibility and adds in the Prime Minister's policy priorities.

Mr Mrdak : That is correct.

Senator GALLACHER: And that has not occurred?

Mr Mrdak : The final letter has yet to be provided—that is correct.

Senator GALLACHER: If we were to go back to the last election, was that the same scenario?

Mr Mrdak : Yes, it was.

Senator GALLACHER: And how long did it take for the charter letters to be issued?

Mr Mrdak : I think it was a matter of weeks. It was within a couple of weeks of the ministerial arrangements being put in place.

Senator GALLACHER: Are we within weeks, or are we out of weeks?

Mr Mrdak : No, we are in a similar period to previous arrangements.

Senator GALLACHER: Can you indicate the specific divisions or sections within the department which relate to each minister—to Minister Truss.

Mr Mrdak : As I indicated, the Deputy Prime Minister, as the cabinet minister for the portfolio, retains responsibility for the portfolio overall. He retains overall responsibility for the infrastructure investment program, and particularly the transport and regional development aspects of the portfolio. Minister Fletcher, as his title suggests, has responsibility for territories, local government matters and major projects—which is the delivery of the government's investment program, particularly the major commitments to major projects, and also the development of the new infrastructure program going forward. He also has responsibility for the work of Infrastructure Australia. Minister McCormack assists the Deputy Prime Minister in the portfolio and has particular responsibility for a number of our funding programs including Roads to Recovery, Black Spot, Stronger Communities and Stronger Regions...

...& on..& on it goes, really quite impressive photographic memory & understanding of (nearly) all the machinations of the new Turnbull Executive team. Here is the link for the relevant Hansard with video link - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 19/10/2015 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development 

While on the subject of the New PM Turnbull's Executive government & his philosophy on the role of the bureaucracy, the following is an excellent analysis (no offence HarleyD & StevieE ) from the APPS Policy Forum worthy of reading in full .. :

Turnbull and Corbyn: the rise of anti-politicians?

Does the sudden rise to power of two non-traditional politicians highlight voter dissatisfaction with the choices they are being presented at the ballot box?
Charlie Shandil

PHOTO: AAP

October 2015 - Government and governance | Australia, The World

New world politics no longer marries with old world party-led models, and now we’re getting politicians to match the changing times, argues Charlie Shandil.
An issue arises for democracy when one side of the political fence looks much like the other, and the notion of representation becomes diluted because the citizenry feel they are voting for the same person, no matter which party they opt for.

This has been Australia’s story since the initial ousting of Kevin Rudd in 2010, and has caused a significant disconnect between politicians and the citizenry. Recently however, there has been a change in the wind with Malcolm Turnbull, a grammar educated son of a hotel broker, being promoted as Australia’s 29th Prime Minister – a self-proclaimed ‘Prime Minister of the 21st Century’,

Prior to his political career, the Prime Minister was the managing director and then partner at Goldman Sachs, he was proclaimed as virtually inventing the internet in Australia with his role at OzEmail, and he also held a number of senior positions in internet companies such as WebCentral.  However, while the spotlight is on the government, it is also important to mention the 21st century public service. The Treasury Secretary John Fraser, a man worthy of any top job himself, left the public service as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in 1993 to eventually become Chairman and CEO of UBS Global Asset Management. Also, Michael Thawley, formerly Australia’s ambassador to the United States before being appointed as Secretary to the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, was a senior executive at the major United States funds management group, Capital Group. While these two most senior bureaucrats were brought in under the Abbott government, they will now have the opportunity to truly bring in their A-game – a game for the 21st century.

What is being witnessed in this 21st century public administration is a move away from career politicians and public servants, to not just key influencers in their own right, but individuals coming back into the game with the mindset of reform: reforming the perception of politicians, public administrators, and the construct in which they reside. It is with this rise of anti-politicians and anti-bureaucrats that we will start to see a connection between the citizenry and the political construct as it evolves towards a 21st century mindset.

A similar cultural shift away from the norm of politics is occurring in the United Kingdom. Jeremy Corbyn, a son of peace campaigners of the Spanish Civil War and a lifelong socialist activist, has recently been criticised by his fellow Labour folks as incapable of leading the UK Labour Party to victory. However, his anti-austerity cause is finding a receptive audience amongst those searching for an alternative to the current political figureheads.

On 16 August 2015 the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown delivered a speech at the Royal Festival Hall opposing Corbyn and stating that, for the UK Labour Party,
“[T]he best way of realising our high ideals is to show that we have an alternative in government that is credible, that is radical and is electable – is neither a pale imitation of what the Tories offer, nor is it the route to being a party of permanent protest, rather than a party of government”.

The problem with this, however, is that the leadership of former UK Labour Parties have not been an ‘alternative in government’. Rather, they are a supplementary to the current government, or perhaps at best, an extension of. This, however, is not said in partisan banter. If it were the former UK Labour Party in government, one could make the same argument. Thus, the key issue is that no matter which side of politics one opts for, voters end up with much of the same.

At its fundamentals, democratic representation holds three characteristics. First, representation invokes a principle-agent relationship where the representative stands for or acts on behalf of the represented. Second, the representative holds political power which can be exercised responsibly, and where the citizenry has some influence upon how the power is exercised. And third, the citizenry have a right to vote for representatives, thus providing a measure for political equality. However, this approach to standardising democratic representation has not evolved with contemporary democracies, which has led to political institutions becoming disconnected with the citizenry.

According to Dalton (1996), “An essential element of democracy is an involved public”. It is the notion that in order for democracy to function, it requires an active citizenry, where through public deliberation and involvement in politics common goals are defined and implemented. Without public involvement in the process, however, democracy lacks in legitimacy and its ability to carry out its function. Putnam (1995) argues that western countries with voluntary voting have seen a 25 per cent decline in the last thirty years.

Similarly, political membership in the UK has seen a 75 per cent decline, and Biezen et al. (2012) estimate that in the last thirty years France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Ireland have seen a 50 per cent decline in party membership. Similarly, reports on Australian party membership numbers have shown that while in the 1950s ALP and Liberal parties held around 350,000 members, both parties currently have an estimated 50,000 members.

However, while voter turnout and party membership are important issues, the symptom should not be mistaken for the condition. The symptom, in this case, is the active participation in formal politics. While the prevalence of political disengagement is a concern, this issue can be dealt with by surface-level interventions such as compulsory voting or incentive-driven membership.

The condition, however, is the prevalence of an anti-political culture. Contemporary political disaffection is not driven by a sense of apathy towards politics or politicians, but rather by a culture of negativity towards them. In considering the first and second points of representation detailed earlier, anti-politics is driven by the notion that the exercising of power by elected representatives is not representative of the citizenry, which renders representatives incapable of standing for or acting on behalf of the represented.

It is this anti-political culture that Malcolm Turnbull and Jeremy Corbyn are harnessing.

They understand that politics is no longer ideologically driven, but rather led by the issues of the present day. New world politics no longer marries with old party-led models, nor does it map to traditional democratic processes or institutions. The traditional political landscape allows for structured debates between the representative and his citizenry, with the caveat that the representative chooses the topic of debate, where it is held and how it is conducted. Today however, citizen-led activism is anarchistic and endemic, with political debates occurring on multiple platforms, at various times, and on an array of issues, without it being led by any one or group of people from any background or specialisation.

While some in the Australian Liberal Party and UK Labour Party may argue that giving rise to anti-politicians such as Turnbull and Corbyn sits outside the principles of their party-led ideologies, this in fact may be a good thing. By being an “anti-politician”, they are by definition dissatisfied with formalised political parties, and thus provide an alternate option for the citizenry from traditional party-aligned mentality. In a time where the concept of representation no longer adheres to the three principles outlined above, the rise of anti-politicians may reintroduce a rigour in representation long forgotten.

- See more at: http://www.policyforum.net/turnbull-and-...AidWt.dpuf

This bit..

...What is being witnessed in this 21st century public administration is a move away from career politicians and public servants, to not just key influencers in their own right, but individuals coming back into the game with the mindset of reform: reforming the perception of politicians, public administrators, and the construct in which they reside. It is with this rise of anti-politicians and anti-bureaucrats that we will start to see a connection between the citizenry and the political construct as it evolves towards a 21st century mindset...

...I can very much relate to, especially when you consider the 20+year maladministration of aviation safety, under the archaic, early 20th century, big "R" regulation philosophy, still fiercely defended by the Iron Ring & old school aviation aristocracy.

Choc frog 4 Charlie c/o the APPS


MTF..P2    

[Kharon]

The Mrdak Tim Tam.

Not in my wildest dreams.  I venture out for couple of quiet ones with TOM, big darts match coming up (foreign devils) so, to me it all seemed reasonable; few pints, bit of practice, stumps and home for dinner in time to beat the dogs to it.  Fat chance.

TOM ambles (as is his way) to the point – with full knowledge that this :-

Cyber Tim Tam voted by the IOS as a token of respect…Bravo.  

happened when I was ‘down t’ pit’.  Cunning bugger had waited – I needed to Shanghai a 15 to win my next pint; while he was taking his shot “been thinking” says he.  “Oh aye”, say I : “yup,” says he – plunk, plunk, plunk as the arrows find their marks (nearly).  “Mrdak – and the murky Machiavellians” says he.  First of my three darts – spot on – treble 15; “maybe we have misjudged him”; dart two screams off into the wood work, hell I nearly missed the bloody wall. Deep breath – concentrate – shot three must count – ignore.  “What if the three stooges ain’t his pick?”  Dart three lost in space.  The crafty sod smiled, took his shots and won the pints (all fair at the dartboard).  Dutifully, I toddled off and got them in; “Explain” says I.

“Well, the fellah is clearly bright and has many attributes the IOS values”- a look – “you have conceded that point on many occasions”.  Furry muff, I have, the man is very, very good at what he do.  “So what? ” I gruffed.  Intermission – half a dozen fellahin had meanwhile turned up, all thirsty, happy to sit down.  Instant mini BRB gathering.

It was, to say the least an interesting discussion.  Turned out it is all Bill Heffernan’s fault.

CHAIR: I now welcome, all the way from Tasmania, Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck, representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, and Mr Mike Mrdak, the long-suffering Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, and officers of the department. Minister Colbeck or Mr Mrdak, do you want to make an opening statement?

The ‘long suffering’ bit had started the P7 line of thought, for it was indeed true.  Mrdak sits through every session, with astonishing patience.  Seems the thing that got TOM thinking was the Q&A with Gallacher; Mrdak seamlessly, without notes, mumbles, fumbles, side-line assistance or taking a question on notice, satisfied Gallacher’s questions.  It was well done.  The curly bit in TOMs’ thinking was – “it must drive Mrdak nuts when fools like Beaker, Half-Wit and OST can’t, even with team support, emulate the Mrdak style”.  TOM argues that MM can manage many briefs, a wide range of subjects, all manner of tricky questions and yet the heads of three departments regularly make tits of themselves.  This we have all seen, the ducking, dissemination and the inability to answer questions without embarrassing faux pas and “have to take that on notice”.  TOM’s final nugget was the response to Galacher’s question about taking ASA back into the department and the emphatic “No” response.

Well, it was a good discussion, unresolved.  The Tim Tam award was unchallenged, unanimous; but a key to the TT cupboard was out of the question.  The big questions left unanswered – did MM pick the three stooges? Or, does he just have to work with the material provided? Which leads to an interesting point, does he have to care? – provided the ‘Minister’ is covered, which means piddling on a lot of fires he didn’t start?  

We will never know.  Respect for a craftsman we can manage, but to play Poker or Chess with him, well, that is a whole new world.  Anyway – the BRB verdict; it ain’t personal, he runs the three stooges – for weal or for woe, which puts him in harms way, as a natural target for industry frustration and fury.  Plenty of that to share around.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Isolationism & being left in the wake? -

The true minister for Aviation Murky Mandarin & his isolationism policy -

isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Interesting article from Bloomberg, that should be forwarded to Murky while he plots with Aleck more O&O retrograde steps to the ASRR recommendations... : 

The FAA's downgrade didn't come as a surprise.

Photographer: Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images

Making Southeast Asia's Skies Safer

7 Dec 8, 2015 3:19 AM EST
By Adam Minter

A holiday in Bangkok might seem like just the thing to cure the winter blues. But according to the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, tourists should think twice about flying to Thailand. Last week, the agency downgraded the safety rating for the entire Thai aviation system, placing it among those of a handful of countries -- including Southeast Asian neighbors Bangladesh and Indonesia -- that don’t meet international “minimum safety oversight standards.”

That’s not just bad news for would-be beachgoers. Boeing expects Southeast Asian airlines to account for around 10 percent of all passenger jet purchases between now and 2034, even as the number of air passengers in the region expands 6.5 percent annually. Rising safety concerns threaten both forecasts. Last year, more than 40 percent of fatalities on commercial airliners took place in the region. Indonesia alone has experienced at least one fatal accident that included the loss of a plane every year since 2010.
   
Calculating the extent of Southeast Asia’s air safety problems is difficult, in part because non-fatal accidents appear to be under-reported. In July, a Wall Street Journal analysis found that Asia-Pacific countries had reported only 84 minor safety-related incidents over the last five years of available data, compared with 356 in Europe and 145 in North America. Yet during that same period, there had been 31 fatal crashes involving large passenger jets in Asia, 12 in Europe and 6 in North America.

Such discrepancies hint at broader problems. As the International Civil Aviation Organization, the U.N.’s aviation agency, highlighted in a report earlier this year, more than half of all accidents in the Asia-Pacific region can be blamed on “deficiencies in regulatory oversight” and “deficiencies in safety management.”

These problems appear particularly acute in Southeast Asia, judging by the rash of recent accidents. For example, the notorious loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 can partly be attributed to ambivalent and incompetent air traffic controllers (including an allegedly sleeping supervisor). Systemic maintenance lapses and pilot errors have been cited in the loss of AirAsia Flight 8501 last December.

But the root cause of Southeast Asia’s problems really comes down to success: Demand is outpacing the region's ability to build infrastructure and train personnel. Over the next 20 years, Asia will need tens of thousands of newly trained air traffic controllers and pilots to handle new traffic. The pressure to fill cockpits is already leading to corner-cutting, including at Southeast Asian flight schools that falsify students' training times so as to speed up certification. Making matters worse, the region remains a patchwork of different safety and technical standards and experience levels (especially in air traffic control towers).

It's worth noting that the FAA's downgrade of Thailand was hardly a surprise. Back in March, the ICAO publicly warned that the country lacked sufficient safety oversight in its rapidly growing aviation sector. In response, China, Japan, and South Korea -- all major sources of investment and tourism -- suspended Thai airlines from flying new routes and charters into their countries. (The decision affected 100 charters into Japan alone.) The FAA downgrade could have an equally dramatic impact, prompting codeshare partners of Thai airlines to suspend the arrangements and forcing the hand of European regulators, who will release their own safety audit of the country later this month.

Tony Fernandes, CEO of AirAsia, the region’s dominant budget airline, has publicly expressed concern over the safety problems and has joined calls for greater regional supervision. Indeed, it’s time for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to stop talking about the importance of integration and do something about it. The region needs to start laying the groundwork for a regional aviation safety agency, modeled after the FAA or Europe’s EASA, that would improve and harmonize safety regulations across the region. Over time, that body could evolve into a regionwide air traffic control agency that could oversee Southeast Asia’s increasingly crowded skies. That would be a particular boon to poorer countries, many of whom lack the resources to make key safety upgrades.

In the meantime, ASEAN should be seeking to create a whistle-blower program and above all, to develop and administer a universal training qualification. This last step would ensure that qualified pilots and air traffic controllers can work where they’re needed, not just where they’re trained. Unless the region gets to grips with these challenges quickly, its skies could end up a lot less crowded than current estimates predict.

MTF...P2


 

[Kharon]

Minter – “Calculating the extent of Southeast Asia’s air safety problems is difficult, in part because non-fatal accidents appear to be under-reported. In July, a Wall Street Journal analysis found that Asia-Pacific countries had reported only 84 minor safety-related incidents over the last five years of available data, compared with 356 in Europe and 145 in North America. Yet during that same period, there had been 31 fatal crashes involving large passenger jets in Asia, 12 in Europe and 6 in North America.”

Sound familiar? It should, check the ATSB data base - if you can navigate the wretched thing.

Tick tock.

[Peetwo]

"Buggeration factor"

 Dear Malcolm - One of these please...   

Maybe this is the answer to proper delivery of the Coalition Government Aviation policy, which now includes the agreed implementation of nearly all the Forsyth review recommendations:

A policy delivery unit for innovation, with Ian Watt in charge

---

Many a minister has seen their grand plans undone by undercooked execution — David Cameron has complained about the “buggeration factor” of trying to get things done, while the implementation failures of the pink batts scheme will remain a defining memory of Kevin Rudd’s years.

Implementation, a crucial policy element many complain tends to be ignored by politicians, is experiencing something of a revival of late.

Innovation Minister Christopher Pyne has announced the formation of a policy delivery unit within the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science to see through the realisation of the gamut of policies in the innovation statement. It will be headed up by former secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Watt.

It’s also a second lease on life for a second departmental secretary under Malcolm Turnbull: like Watt (pictured left with former PM Tony Abbott), Martin Parkinson was vanquished from Treasury under Abbott only to be resurrected as the new head of the Prime Minister’s department.

The new unit will be modelled on former British leader Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit. The PMDU, which operated from 2001 until it was abolished by current PM David Cameron in 2010, was designed to monitor progress and bolster capacity to deliver the government’s key commitments.

John Howard created a cabinet implementation unit based on the Blair model, while Rudd appointed a coordinator general to deliver the stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis.

After getting rid of Blair’s PMDU, Cameron later created an implementation unit within the cabinet office to oversee delivery across government, support departmental capability and provide advice on specific implementation issues to those at the top.

Pyne’s version will be narrower in focus than those. He said its “only job is the nuts and bolts of delivering this agenda across the economy” and it will co-ordinate across government departments involved in delivering the innovation statement.

The unit sits under, and supports the work of, the National Innovation and Science Implementation Committee, chaired by Watt. Committee membership comprises deputy secretaries from relevant departments and agencies with direct implementation responsibilities under the National Science and Innovation Agenda.

‘The missing science of delivery’


The original British delivery unit’s decade of existence has led to a growing literature on what former PMDU chief Michael Barber called “the missing science of delivery”. He pinpoints six defining features of the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit model:

1. Set clear priorities with measurable goals;
   
2. Establish a dedicated unit focused on getting those things done;
   
3. Use data and trajectories to drive progress;
   
4. Build routines around those priorities (such as stocktake meetings, or monthly notes to the Prime Minister);
   
5. Help with problem-solving; and
   
6. Persistence — stick with those priorities despite the temptations in government to shift the agenda.
   
   

Politicians tend to think of implementation as being automatic, Barber said while visiting Australia earlier this year — but it’s actually the hardest part. The important thing is planning.

“I often say — this is not a research finding by the way — that getting the policy right is 10% of the task. It’s difficult, but it’s only 10% of the task. Ninety per cent is implementation …

“The problem with bureaucracies is, actually they’re very good at writing plans, they’re more like essays with glossy covers and the occasional number. But they’re not plans in the Eisenhower sense. He realised that plans were actually useless. It’s the planning that is indispensable.” - Read it & weep..

In his book on his learnings from running the delivery unit — How to run a government — Barber makes the case for central implementation units:

“First, a delivery function there can make sure that small amounts of the leader’s time can be applied systematically and routinely to the identified priorities. Second if there is no delivery or implementation function there, then the centre is likely to focus on politics strategy and policy, and not take implementation seriously enough …

“Third, a delivery unit can ensure that all the relevant departments and agencies contribute to achieving a government goal, thus overcoming the lack of collaboration between departments or agencies (the silo effect) that is so strong in most democracies. Fourth, a delivery function can become a centre of expertise on delivery and implementation; it can learn lessons which might apply to several departments or to the entire government machine, which simply can’t be learned otherwise.”

 
In passing the bit in bold is interesting...
"...John Howard created a cabinet implementation unit based on the Blair model, while Rudd appointed a coordinator general to deliver the stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis..."

Q/ Guess who Rudd appointed as coordinator general? - That's right ol'pumpkin head himself, Murky Mandarin..

Quote from DAVID FREDERICKS statement to HIP Royal Commission:

..Appointment of the Co-ordinator General

11 The HIP was announced on 3 February 2009. I do not recall the COAG meeting that occurred on 5 February 2009 but I do have a clear recollection of the appointment of the CoordinatorGeneral.

12 The complexity of the economic stimulus package within the Commonwealth, and with the States, meant that there needed to be some central voice in the Commonwealth to coordinate the program. It needed to be a central voice, and a PMC person was chosen for the role of Coordinator-General. I supported the idea of having a Coordinator-General for the HIP.

13 At the time of discussing the role of a Coordinator-General, I do recall either the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ("Mr Rudd") or Terry Moran {"Mr Moran"), the Secretary of PMC, discussing the situation in Queensland, which had a statutory Coordinator-General, how that was a successful model which had worked and how a Coordinator-General could be useful in the implementation of the HIP.

14 I do not recall any discussions regarding who was going to be appointed as CoordinatorMike Mrdak {"Mr Mrdak") was appointed as Coordinator-General for the HIP.

15 Mr Mrdak's role as I understood it was to be the one central person who was capable of speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth to the States, and to have oversight of on behalf of PMC and ultimately the Prime Minister about the HIP...

Hmm...M&M certainly dodged a bullet with that one...

MTF..P2  

[Peetwo]

isolationism - the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

Interesting article from Bloomberg, that should be forwarded to Murky while he plots with Aleck more O&O retrograde steps to the ASRR recommendations... : 

The FAA's downgrade didn't come as a surprise.

Photographer: Christophe Archambault/AFP/Getty Images

Making Southeast Asia's Skies Safer 

 

Isolationism & being left in the wake? - Part II

Continuing on the liberalisation of the SE Asian Aviation industry:

South East Asia Aviation: What You Need to Know

December 16, 2015 by Guillaume Dupont

The liberalization of ASEAN’s aviation sector will be a major catalyst for the region’s economic growth by 2030 – Liow Tiong Lai, Malaysian Minister of Transport

 
Again we are in very real danger of being locked out of a huge growth market.

Whether this future liberalisation of the ASEAN countries develops to a point of common rules, regulations and enforcement (i.e. a common regional regulator) remains to be seen. They already have some excellent common workable rule sets (NZCAA & Singapore CAAS) readily available and that have been adopted by several nations in SE Asian & Pacific regions. So it is not much of a stretch that a regional overseeing body, along the lines of the EU Commission, could be set up in fairly quick order.

On the subject of the EU Commission, it would seem that despite individual European Country agreements (e.g. France), Australia is not seen as a high priority for the EU (reference from 2015 EU Commission - An Aviation Strategy for Europe):

The Commission:

 

·         Recommends to the Council the issuance of authorisations to negotiate comprehensive EU-level air transport agreements with the following countries and regions: China, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE (United Arab Emirates), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Mexico and Armenia;

 

·         Recommends that the EU negotiates further bilateral aviation safety agreements with important aeronautical manufacturing nations such as China and Japan;

 

·         Proposes to launch new aviation dialogues with important aviation partners such as India;

 

·         Will negotiate effective fair competition provisions in the context of the negotiation of EU comprehensive air transport agreements and consider measures to address unfair practices from third countries and third country operators;

 

·         Proposes to publish interpretative guidelines on the application of Regulation 1008/2008 with respect to the provisions on the ownership and control of EU airlines to bring more legal certainty for investors and airlines alike.

    
And on the subject of broad adoption by EU countries of a common regulatory philosophy & rule set, see links here - Proposal for a revised aviation safety Regulation  

..Safety and consideration for environmental protection are pre-requisites for a competitive aviation sector. With the aviation traffic in Europe predicted to reach 14.4 million flights in 2035 (50% more than in 2012), the Commission's objective is to make sure that the system continues to maintain the current low number of accidents, allowing the EU aviation sector to safely grow in the future and thus to contribute to its competitive edge. For this purpose the present initiative proposes to introduce a risk and performance based approach to safety regulation, close existing safety gaps, and better take into account interdependencies between aviation safety and other technical domains of regulation such as aviation security or environmental protection.

While aviation safety is the principal objective of this proposal, it is not the only one. This proposal must also be seen in the context of the Commission priorities of fostering jobs and growth, developing the internal market and strengthening Europe's role as a global actor. This initiative aims at contributing to a competitive European aviation industry and aeronautical manufacturing which generates high value-jobs and drives technological innovation. It will create an effective regulatory framework for the integration of new business models and emerging technologies. In particular this initiative proposes to create a Union framework for safe integration of unmanned aircraft into the European airspace.

This proposal also responds to the calls from the Member States, industry and airspace users for a more proportionate and flexible approach to safety regulation and to eliminate rules which can stifle entrepreneurship with too prescriptive requirements. It notably proposes to introduce a scalable framework which recognises the differences existing between the various sectors of civil aviation and the risks involved therein. This approach is expected to benefit the whole aviation sector in the Union and will be particularly suited to the needs of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)...

I know it is only rhetoric but you do get the impression they are not empty words.

For those interested the EU SSP: Report: The European Aviation Safety Programme  

Meanwhile in Dunce-unda land we have to listen to the 19th Century platitudes of Oliver Skidmore-Twist, Harf-wit, Beaker and the miniscule, each of whom is being craftily manipulated by the Grand puppet-master Murky Mrdak - UFB!


MTF..P2   

[Peetwo]

The Can'tberra disease -

While the Mandarins, Ministers & Minions recover from the excesses of Xmas and the year that was in the backstabbing, self-serving, self-preserving world of politics, it is worth taking the time in the hols to contemplate what Sandy dubs the 'Canberra disease':

"Recommendation 1. (Copy as reported from Nick Xenophon)

That the Government establish, as a matter of urgency, the role of Inspector‑General of Aviation Safety, with the necessary powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA, the ATSB and other relevant organisations to an appropriate level."

The plot has been lost. The Senator is seriously proposing yet another independent body to oversee the other independent bodies that deal with aviation. This is the Canberra disease, completely illogical. "with....resources and expertise..." The word farcical comes to mind. This extra "independent" costly creature will have no more incentive to cause common sense reform than those extant "Government Business Enterprises" have amply demonstrated.

The only way towards improved governance and any hope of regeneration for General Aviation is for the Parliament to take the lead and be responsible, not try to hide behind this mythical concept of a pure font of impartial wisdom and genius;  The Independent Public Servant (within a GBE).  The Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure must take control. The dishonestly titled GBEs are a failed concept, responsibility lies with the Senators and Members, no amount of sideways shoving can alter the fact.

Latest Finance Dept definition of a GBE:

Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) A GBE is a Commonwealth entity or Commonwealth company that is prescribed by the rules (s8 of the PGPA Act)...

Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) | Department of ...
www.finance.gov.au/resource-management/governance/gbe/

'Government Business Enterprises' seem to be a popular concept of accountability & governance within government agencies. However is the concept, as Sandy suggests, a complete and abject failure; or is it a case that the failure lies within the corporate structure; and/or embedded in the corporate & Mandarin culture itself - i.e. rotting from the head. After all there are many examples of where the GBE concept is a success and notable examples where the more traditional concepts of Departmental governance are also abject failures.

A classic example of which is the Defence Department, whose governance is reliant on a public service chain of command that dates back to the Romans. However in a modern democracy where in the 'public interest' or public accountability & transparency, is seen as far more important to the proper function of the State and to maintaining the 'rule of law', this governance through chain of command, to broach the military & civilian government world, is decidedly outdated.

From Senator David Fawcett 'Additional Comments' to 2012 Senate FADT Inquiry into Defence Procurement:

..I have four key areas of concern, however, that I believe could have been addressed more thoroughly in respect to both scope and depth: Governance; Strategy; Sovereignty; and Industry.

Governance of the Australian Defence organisation (ADO) is dysfunctional. Civil control of the military should occur through the decisions of a well-informed, elected Minister who is connected into the governance processes of the ADO in an ongoing manner analogous to the Board Chair of a publically listed company. This is not currently the case due to the policy of ―one voice‖ to Government and the unintended consequences of two decades of Government initiated measures aimed at reducing costs (well documented by Kinnaird, Mortimer, Black, Rizzo and Coles). Defence procurement does not occur in a vacuum and lasting improvement in this area will require changes to Governance of the whole ADO, the component parts of its system including the nature of their interaction with each other and Executive Government...

   
And from a paper authored by Senator Fawcett and published in the 'Strategist' - Minister, mandarins and the military - it can be seen that DF is fairly enamoured with the concept of governance & accountability through a governing Board:

Is there a better way? Certainly most successful public, not-for-profit, and even private companies seem to think so. Most of them adopt the construct of a governing board. This provides a proven framework for structured engagement between key elected stakeholders (directors) and the executives who have operational control. Through the board, the Chair is able to provide strategic guidance to the organisation, and hold executives to account for performance, and compliance with relevant regulations. The board doesn’t run the organisation on a day-to-day basis, but it has insight into the internal and external environments that shape the CEO’s challenges and decisions. Some private companies also choose to have a board of reference, which provides a structured means of retaining corporate memory, as well as obtaining a broader perspective on current issues and strategic direction...

...In the Australian context, a Defence Board wouldn’t replace the role of the NSCC. The Board would provide a structured, regular forum for the Minister to engage with, and be informed by, a range of voices within Defence. It would enable him to be a more effective decision maker when dealing with the Department, and speak with more confidence and authority in NSCC when advocating for the Department...

DF does add that certain 'made to suit' tweaks would necessarily need to be added for the concept to work successfully, one of those would include the Minister being the Chair of the Board:

..For the Board concept to be effective in Australia, we’d need to redefine the roles of some senior appointments. This would include empowering the Service Chiefs to have command and control over all the resources they need to do their job—a pre-requisite for accountability to the Minister as Chair of the Board. A consequence of the increased control for the Service Chiefs would be a corresponding decrease in the number of groups within the Defence Organisation. This would be balanced by making the Secretary responsible for overseeing compliance both with strategic guidance and with policies relevant to achieving best-practice in non-operational matters across the three services. The Minister would then be in a position to make informed decisions on what should be done, to hold Service Chiefs accountable for subsequent outcomes, and to judge their efficacy in the task. Where exigencies require changes, trade-offs or exceptions to guidance, the Board provides a framework for these issues and the related flow-on effects to be assessed, debated and implementation coordinated.


The structured framework of the Board would also provide some degree of quality assurance for the taxpayer when the personalities, interests, or competence of the Chief of Defence Force (CDF), Secretary and Minister did not align as well as we might hope or expect. To return the rotting fish analogy, the Defence Board and the associated changes in senior roles would see the head of the organisation model the approach that must be adopted at all levels within Defence: informed decisions by accountable individuals.

The Defence Board in and of itself would not be a silver bullet to address the oft-lamented failures in the Defence Organisation. It is, however, the right place to start fixing the rot—at the heady interface of Minister, Mandarins and Military... 

So maybe the GBE concept as an ideology is not at fault but it is the internal accountability/structure (i.e. Minister, to Mandarin, to Board, & to agency) that may need to be tweaked.

The authors of Submission 160 of the Forsyth Review (ASRR) were also enamoured with the Board concept and suggest that it should be expanded to include the ATSB:


&..from pg 2:


&..for possible suggestions for tweaking the CASA Board chain of command & accountability (see bottom of paragraph 2, ref pg3-4):



{P2 comment: The separation of powers issue IMO (& many others) is a fundamental flaw with the structure of CASA; and is the single most influential factor in why industry stakeholders have such a profound fear & distrust with the big "R" regulator. This issue needs to be urgently addressed before any meaningful reform of CASA can occur} 


&..finally for Sandy's benefit Prof Middleton & Mr Horton believe the Board concept - tweaked for CASA & added to the ATSB corporate structure - would make Senator Xenophon's call for a Inspector General, to oversee CASA & the ATSB, redundant once properly implemented:



All good food for thought & discussion on the first sleepy Sunday ramble of the year...



MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Well this will conflict with Murky Mandarin's take on former ADF personnel as the perfect Minions...

EXCLUSIVE: Military men and women can be a bad fit in the public service and might want to consider employment elsewhere, according to some Defence bureaucrats.

Oh but Murky, & the former Minister for Bad Teeth, think they're just so perfect for the job:

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..  

But apparently that is not a common thought (fortunately) held by most Mandarins:

Keep ex-Defence out of public service, bureaucrats plead

---

EXCLUSIVE: Military men and women can be a bad fit in the public service and might want to consider employment elsewhere, according to some Defence bureaucrats.

Department of Defence analysis, produced last year and seen by The Mandarin, raises concerns that cultural differences between Navy, Army, Air Force and Defence APS can be a structural source of workplace bullying, mistreatment of women and other unacceptable behaviour. Problematic ADF members working as public servants or contractors are causing cultural friction even after shedding the uniform.

The same report — as The Mandarin exclusively revealed on Monday — suggested officers are sceptical of cultural change within the ADF, despite the efforts of senior brass to rid the ranks of sexism. A staff survey reported anecdotes from anonymous members complaining male bosses undermine efforts by not enforcing standards, enforcing them inconsistently and even through inauthentic body language.

Tribalism, the analysis noted, was a notable source of behaviour problems in integrated “joint” environments, supported by the frequency with which respondents to Defence’s unacceptable behaviour surveys blamed the cultures of other services for conflicts and mistreatment.

The challenges of a divided workforce manifested in ongoing inequalities in pay, accountability and “toleration of aggression”.

Tribalism against public servants has rankled the APS in Defence, spilling out into surveys Defence has undertaken as part of its culture change efforts. It included calls for ex-ADF members to be encouraged to seek work elsewhere instead of returning as APS or contractors.

What public servants think of ADF colleagues

“If they are no longer required for military duties, train them to look elsewhere for a career rather than engage non-commissioned mentalities into APS senior middle management.”

“There is a general culture of disdain for anyone how is not ADF, and particularly anyone who challenges attitudes and behaviours of the ADF. What makes this even worse is that too many ex-ADF people are in senior positions in the [Australian Defence Organisation] and they participate in and perpetuate this disdainful culture.”

“Most contractors are ex-ADF who have left the ADF as their personal attitudes and values no longer fit in with Defence values. Unfortunately they continue to work in the Defence workplace for private vendors and continue to display unacceptable behaviour that was not tolerated while they were in the ADF.”

“Some of them have no women in their Army or Navy culture in the past and don’t know how to react appropriately. These same ex warrant officers or officers have a strong esprit de corps and do not take easily to civilians who they work with unless they are in a supporting minor role. Defence is partly to blame as it recruits heavily from ex-military.”

Sometimes I wonder how much easier it would be if old pumpkin head was someone else's Mandarin - FFS!


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The Mandarin's dilemma - Airports & Aviation security

From off the Senate Estimates thread:

Senate Inquiry: Airport & aviation security - What's the delay?

From Jamie Freed AFR article - Australian government should put domestic airport security in its sights:

In December 2014, a Senate inquiry into airport and aviation security was started to help determine if further measures were needed to enhance airport security and the safety of the travelling public, after a report by Seven Network found there had been 282 security breaches at Australian airports between January 2012 and April 2014. However, the initial reporting date for the inquiry of April 2015 has been postponed several times and is scheduled now for May 19, more than a year after submissions and testimony were given.

In the fast-moving world of aviation security, much of the information presented to the inquiry is now dated. But, notably, an Australian Federal Police submission did raise concerns that although it is an offence to use a false identity on a domestic flight, police have no authority to demand identification until after the event or unless another offence is being committed...

...If Australia wants to close gaps in its domestic airport security it is important the report by the inquiry examining such issues does not continue to be postponed.

Airport and aviation security

I would suggest that this inquiry for whatever reason has placed the Department, the Minister & the Committee in somewhat of a dilemma - I wonder why?

While in this inquiry I confess to having missed some excellent evidence given at the one and only public hearing from the RAAA, so in an effort to redeem myself (& maybe provide a clue to where the dilemma may lie), here is most of the Hansard from the RAAA session:

EAVES, Mr Stuart, General Manager Safety, Security and Quality Assurance, Regional Aviation Association of Australia TYRRELL, Mr Paul, Chief Executive Officer, Regional Aviation Association of Australia

[11:19]

The following article, courtesy of Fairfax media, goes along way IMO to highlighting the probable quandary that M&M and his shady mates find themselves in:

Anti-terrorism funding questioned

Date January 16, 2016

• (29)
  
• Read later
  

Paul Malone
Canberra Times columnist
Canberrans leave flowers in front of the Embassy of France following the terrorist attack in Paris in November 2015. Photo: Jeffrey Chan

Chasing Ghosts – The Policing of Terrorism by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, Oxford University Press

It takes some guts to write a book questioning the funding of anti-terrorist activities when at any moment a terrorist bomb could kill dozens of people.

But that's what academics John Mueller and Mark Stewart have done in producing Chasing Ghosts, a book that documents actual attacks in the United States and asks whether the trillion dollars spent since 2001 to counter the problem can be justified.

In Australia, a Senate committee is currently looking at the question of whether airport and aviation security in this country is adequate. As always, the terms of reference carry the implication that more money should be spent. Among other things, they ask whether further measures ought to be taken to enhance airport security and the safety of the travelling public. The committee is not asked whether we're getting value for money from our spending, or whether there are negative consequences from the measures we are taking. If it were to look at such matters, the committee might find it worthwhile examining an earlier paper by Mueller and Stewart, which found that the expensive body scanners airports are wont to use are of questionable value.

The committee might also consider whether the security check delays we all experience cause short-hop travellers, such as those going from Canberra to Sydney, to drive rather than fly, thus increasing their chances of being killed.

The US political scientist, Mueller, and the Australian civil engineer, Stewart, are most interested in these difficult probability questions. They document the Islamic terrorism plots targeting the United States since September 11, 2001, and the growth in the counter-terrorism industry. They then apply cost/benefit and risk analysis to see if the authorities are getting it right.

Contrary to popular opinion, governments do place a value on human life. They do it all the time in their funding of fire or flood mitigation, or whether or not to remove a level crossing, improve a dangerous road, build a stronger bridge, increase the number of security personnel at railway stations, or allocate more police to respond to incidents of domestic violence.

After September 11 the fear of terrorism generated a huge response in the United States. By 2009 some 1074 US federal government organisations and almost 2000 private companies were devoted to tackling the problem.

Similarly in Australia, there was a massive boost in the funding of counter-terrorism and intelligence agencies.

But as Mueller and Stewart point out, the question is not, "Are we safer as a result?" but "How much are we willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low?"

You might at this point react with horror at the claim that the probabilities are extremely low. But the authors do the calculation and present the figures. They say the chance of an American being killed by a terrorist is one in 4 million and that, outside of war zones, the number of people killed annually by terrorists worldwide is only a few hundred. (This book was finalised before the November 2015 Paris attacks which killed 130 people, the downing of the Russian airliner, the latest Turkish bombings and this week's Jakarta terrorist attack.)

After examining terrorism cases in the United States, they also make the interesting observation that contrary to popular opinion, (and even some supposedly expert opinion), terrorists are not evil geniuses, or particularly clever or crafty. In actual trials and cases, the words typically used to describe the perpetrators are: incompetent, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant, inadequate, unorganised, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational and foolish. And in just about all the cases where the FBI had an operative infiltrate the plot the terrorists were gullible.

Polls show that 34 per cent of Americans believe in ghosts and that the number increases to 49 per cent if the question is expanded to: "Do you believe in ghosts or that the spirits of dead people can come back in certain situations?"

The authors get their title from the massive terrorist "ghost-chasing" operation the FBI is engaged in.  US government agencies follow up 5000 terrorist tips a day. Of those that have at least some basis, the vast majority lead only to trivial or at most aspirational activities.

If you believe in ghosts, but have never seen one, the authors say that there are two possible explanations: one, you're not looking hard enough; or two the ghosts are diabolically clever at hiding. 

Another possibility is that they don't exist.

Terrorists clearly do exist, but in what numbers and with what impact domestically?
Since 9/11, according to the authors, the total number of people killed by terrorists in the United States is 19, or two a year. Some might argue that the number is low because of counter-terrorism measures. But defenders of the increased spending would have to explain why there were so few attacks in the West in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, before the enhanced homeland security measure were put in place.

It should be made clear that Mueller and Stewart are not suggesting that nothing should be spent on counter-terrorism. They're looking for the optimal level, and they calculate, for example, that FBI counter-terrorism funding should be of the order of $1.2 billion, or about the same amount as in 2003, rather than the $3 billion it was in 2014.

Massive amounts of data are now collected, with the National Security Agency leading the charge. Privacy is one concern, but there is also the question of effectiveness.

NSA representatives have claimed that their data has helped disrupt terrorist threats. But when pressed for details they have provided few concrete examples.

Not only that, there is a danger that too much data can swamp investigators, with one FBI agent challenging the NSA, "You know how much time it takes to chase 99 pieces of bullshit?"  

The lay reader might find some of the calculations and tables difficult to follow, while accepting that they are essential to the case being presented. There is also some repetition of examples and argument, but overall this book makes a major contribution to rational debate and the development of intelligent policy.

"..Every politician should read it.." - Yeah like that's going to happen; we're talking about the 'MYSTIQUE' again so good luck with that -

 
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Part I - Degrees of separation through delegation

The following video segment (besides being highly entertaining in parts), from the 08 February RRAT Senate Estimates, IMO highlights perfectly the problem with Governments (for purely political reasons), delegating governance & oversight, mostly through tick-n-flick processes to the bureaucrats... :

The lead up to that segment can be viewed in Hansard - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 08/02/2016 - Estimates - INFRASTRUCTURE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PORTFOLIO - Infrastructure Australia.

The segment starts from here:

Senator CONROY: I wanted to talk around some issues around the MV Portland licence. Has the department prepared guidance for the minister's delegate that is designed to assist in how he or she should have regard to the object of the act in deciding application for a temporary licence under section 34(2)(f)?


Mr Sutton : We do not have any explicit documentation in that regard, but it is certainly a key factor that we take into account when assessing temporary licence applications.

Senator CONROY: Who is the minister's delegate in this case?

Mr Sutton : Formally, the delegate can be an SES officer in STP division, the executive director and the deputy secretary. It is generally the general manager of the Maritime and Shipping Branch, which makes decisions as the delegate.

Senator CONROY: You used the word 'generally'. Is that the person who made the decision around the MV Portland licence issue? If I was to say to please bring that gentleman to the desk, would you say yes, but it was not him?

Ms Zielke : The delegates for the coastal trading scheme are actually in front of you at the moment.

Senator CONROY: Mr Sutton managed to explain all of that without actually saying it is him. Were you the person?

Mr Sutton : They do change, but I can confirm that it was me that signed off on the temporary licence on 27 October.

Senator CONROY: Did you prepare any advice for yourself?
Mr Sutton : No.

Senator CONROY: What weighting would objects 3(a) to (d) be given, for example, in circumstances where the minister's delegate knows that the decision to grant a temporary licence will result in a general licenced vessel being withdrawn permanently from the Australian coast? I have those subclauses here.

Mr Sutton : Section 34 sets out the requirements of the act for when decisions are made on temporary licence applications. Key factors that are at play relate to—

Senator CONROY: Section 34 does not override the objects of the act, right? Nothing overrides the objects of the act.

Mr Sutton : No. In fact, section 34(2)(f) explicitly says that the object of the act is one of the factors that is taken into account in making a decision on a temporary licence. Key factors which are taken into account in all temporary licence applications are whether there has been a notice in response to the application and whether there have been written comments received from third parties in relation to an application. In relation to the application that you are talking about, there was neither a notice in response received or comments received from interested third parties...     

The conundrum of delegation through an Act of Parliament & the accompanying regulations, MOS etc. is one that is a common criticism of the Civil Aviation Act. The many cases of embuggerance through a CASA delegate or officer (FOI/AWI) are well documented and has been a major factor for the critical distrust of CASA by numerous industry stakeholders.

There is also another element/concern with governments delegating their responsibility for governance to bureaucrats and that is in the area of accountability. Again we have another recent example where this is visible.

The following is copied from page 48 of the recently released ATSB Supp Estimates AQON - 08ATSB.pdf:



Maybe it is my personal prejudice but if I was the Minister responsible I am damn sure I would not want Dolan as my delegate, signing off on my behalf with a multi-million dollar contract -



MTF...P2  
 

 

[Peetwo]

M&M: One of the finest leaders..in the public service -

From off the AFR a piece by Verona Burgess that summarises the rise, & rise of our Murky Mandarin and gives an insight into how his Department will now function under 2 ministers & a junior minister..

All quiet on public service front despite ministerial changes


  Mike Mrdak: one of the finest leaders and managers in the public service. Glenn Hunt

by Verona Burgess
Despite the latest round of ministerial musical chairs, the Australian Public Service has avoided further upheavals by way of machinery-of-government changes.

The schedule of amendments to the Administrative Arrangements Order[AAO] of last Thursday[FEB18], when the second Turnbull ministry was sworn in, shows only two minor changes to functions.

The AAO, signed off by the Governor-General, Peter Cosgrove, is effectively the road map of government, listing every area of responsibility and act of parliament under the department that administers it.

This time the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet[PM&C] has taken population policy from Environment and gets a new responsibility for "national policy on cities", which presumably means we will get one soon(ish). Or not, depending on when the election is held.

Stability in the public service is long overdue whether it is a double-dissolution held in July or a conventional election in October after the all-important grand final football season.
To say the bureaucracy has been suffering from extreme change fatigue for nearly 10 years is an understatement, and we're not just talking about the multiple prime ministers and ministers.

There have been many administrative permutations and combinations.
As well as splits and mergers of portfolio departments there is also the "smaller government" policy led by Finance Minister Mathias Cormann that has seen dozens of small bodies rolled into larger ones or abolished since the 2013 election.

Cost of change
All such changes are exhausting. They suck up work, time, money and emotional energy – even if they have ultimately saved costs that have since been spent elsewhere.
Now Turnbull's need to give the Nationals party an extra seat at the cabinet table has resulted in deputy Nats leader Fiona Nash and her colleague Darren Chester sharing the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio.

Chester is Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; Nash is Minister for Regional Development and also Rural Health (her previous position) and Regional Communications, thus crossing into the Health and Communications portfolios. The junior minister is still Paul Fletcher, whose brief is Major Projects, Territories and Local Government.

Previously there were three ministers but Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss was the only cabinet minister, for Infrastructure and Regional Development. The junior was Fletcher, as he still is; Michael McCormack was assistant minister to the Deputy Prime Minister (now assistant minister for Defence).

Hands up those who remember that in John Howard's time there was simply a Department of Transport and Regional Services.

The now former Nationals party leader Warren Truss even served as the senior minister there from July, 2005 to September, 2006.

In October 2007, when Kevin 07 swept in, it became the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government under one cabinet minister, Anthony Albanese.

Mike Mrdak, previously a deputy in Transport and Regional Services who had done a stint as deputy secretary in PM&C, became secretary of the renamed department in July 2009.

Gillard's arrival
Then along came Julia Gillard, who split it in September 2010, creating the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, run by Mrdak, and the short-lived Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, run by Glenys Beauchamp, which gave Simon Crean, who was also arts minister, a seat in cabinet.

Under Labor, junior minister Warren Snowdon had indigenous, rural and regional health during much of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

Next, along came Tony Abbott. He abolished the Regional Australia department after the 2013 election, rolling it back into what is now Infrastructure and Regional Development.
Beauchamp moved to the then also renamed and restructured Department of Industry (it became Industry and Science last year).

Mrdak, who was reappointed secretary for a further three years on July 1, 2014, is still secretary of Infrastructure and Regional Development whose corporate structure and culture is capable of absorbing whatever ministerial arrangements are thrown at it.

He is one of the finest leaders and managers in the public service.

A highly positive capability review of the former Infrastructure and Transport department, conducted in 2014, not only identified him as such but found weaknesses in just two of 10 areas, none serious – one of the best results of all agency reviews.
At June 30 last year the remerged department had 1200 staff.

Lucky to have escaped split
It has eight divisions: corporate services; infrastructure investment; surface transport policy; policy and research; the office of transport security; aviation and airports; local government and territories; and the Western Sydney unit.

The wider portfolio contains eight agencies with critical responsibilities: Airservices Australia; the Australian Maritime Safety Authority; the Australian Transport Safety Bureau; the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; the National Capital Authority; the National Transport Commission; Infrastructure Australia; and the Inspector of Transport Security.

This portfolio, which covers nearly $7.5 billion of government expenditure this year, touches just about every Australian citizen and handles many serial controversies such as the second Sydney airport, every bunfight over funding for major roads and other infrastructure, and the perennial issue of aviation safety, to name just three.

It is lucky to have escaped another split. 

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

The Kiwis are putting us to shame yet again - From the revelation from Alliance Airlines MD Scott McMillan in Flight Global International - see HERE - that his company is considering transferring to the less burdened regulatory regime of the Kiwis for their next AOC, we now get another example of how NZed is streaks ahead in promoting Aviation/Aerospace businesses & development.

By Binger, courtesy the Oz: 

New incentives needed to drive aerospace race

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• March 4, 2016 12:00AM
  

Australia is lagging in the aerospace race.

The Australian government needs to reform tax incentives, reduce insurance and liability requirements and boost private sector participation if it is to pump blood into the nation’s anaemic space industry, according to aerospace experts.

The government has kicked off a review into its decades-old Space Activities Act that sets the regulatory framework for companies wishing to explore commercial ­opportunities in space.

The review forms an important plank in the federal government’s innovation agenda and has been established to spark a boom in the local space industry.

The 10-month long review will examine whether federal laws, which were originally introduced in 1998, are holding back research and private investment in space technologies.

“The Space Activities Act is now almost 18 years old. It was legislated at a time when there was interest in Australia developing a commercial launch service provider industry, and was premised on that underlying goal. Thus far at least, that has not eventuated,” said Steven Freeland, a space law expert based at Western Sydney University, who is conducting the review.

“In the meantime, and even more so over the past five years, space-related technology has moved forward at an extremely rapid rate.

“The nature of this ‘new space’ technology is such that it opens up significant opportunities for new participants in space activities, in a broad variety of ways.”

Mr Freeland said one of the ways to open up opportunity in the space industry was to ensure that the regulatory framework did not hinder the development and implementation of new programs and participants in the sector.

“Any legislative framework in this area will need to find the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, the need for Australia to properly and appropriately protect itself from liability issues and comply with its international obligations, while, on the other, supporting the development and implementation of real opportunities for innovation and commercial activities,” he said.

The evidence of Australia’s anaemic support for space programs is as clear as it is damning. In 2008, the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Economics produced a report called Lost in Space? Setting a New Direction for Australia’s Space Science and Industry Sector, which found Australia was the only OECD nation to lack a space agency.

Even New Zealand, which has a population of four million people, one million tourists and more than 30 million sheep, has developed a space industry that is bigger that Australia’s.

Rocket Lab — a US company that is developing low-cost launch vehicles in New Zealand — is one example of how Australia’s trans-Tasman neighbours are tearing ahead with commercial space plans.

The company’s founder and chief executive, Peter Beck, said the New Zealand government, with its light regulatory touch and generous tax breaks to new companies, had got it right when ­encouraging entrepreneurs to ­embrace the opportunity of commercial space.

“I’m always dubious when governments try to stimulate an industry into action. It needs to happen organically,” Mr Beck told The Australian.

“It’s like your mother taking you to piano lessons and telling you this is what you will learn. But unless you really want to learn piano, you will give it up.

“Australia needs to decide what type of space industry it is trying to create. Is it commercial space industry or is it a government space industry, what is it?”

Aerospace experts like Jason Held — who is the chief executive of space control software company Saber Astronautics — said one of the main problems with Australia’s outdated Space Activities Act was that it was written when launch vehicles were designed to carry bus-sized satellites into orbit.

But in the past 10 years miniaturisation of complex IT systems, cheap manufacturing processes such as 3D printing and other cost improvements meant the investments once required to launch satellites into space numbered in the low millions of dollars instead of the hundreds of millions.

For this reason Mr Held believes Australia’s space industry should be anchored around the production, manufacture, launch and control of pint-sized satellites known as smallsats and nanosats.

“The conditions in the space industry are changing. The space industry is in disruption and in a way which is favourable to Australia,” he said.

But many impediments remain.

One of the most cost prohibitive is the legal requirement for any company wanting to launch an object into space, regardless of its size, to insure it for a minimum of $750 million.

“The government needs to reduce the insurance requirement for CubeSats which often costs almost as much as the satellite itself,” Mr Held said.

Stakeholders have been invited to make written submissions to the review.
It is open until April 30.

“This is an important opportunity for the space sector and broader industries to participate in an important legislative review process,” Mr Freeland said

  
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

NZ vs AUSfucate

Vey interesting article and an even more interesting comparison between NZ and AUSfucate. I like this bit;

"The company’s founder and chief executive, Peter Beck, said the New Zealand government, with its light regulatory touch and generous tax breaks to new companies, had got it right"

The Kiwi's are switched on. Workable regs, not too heavy, but enough to provide a safe framework. Kudos. This in turn stimulates business as those businesses aren't strangled and they can actually turn a quid.
But oh no, not Australia, the murky mandarin and his method of madness would make sure that the opposite is in place, no incentives will be offered, no red tape removed, a swag of bully boy Space FOI's employed, topped off by Space Dr Voodoo spitting out thousands of pages of regulatory bollocks that achieves nothing substantial.

Good article Bingers, keep up the good work son. Nice catch P2.

P.S The dimwitted dame who wrote that glowing pony pooh article about Murky, praising him as some kind of God of the public service really has her head stuck in the sand or up something else. Pumpkin Head has done billions of dollars damage to our country in the past two decades.

"Safe space activity for all"

[thorn bird]

"the murky mandarin and his method of madness would make sure that the opposite is in place, no incentives will be offered, no red tape removed, a swag of bully boy Space FOI's employed, topped off by Space Dr Voodoo spitting out thousands of pages of regulatory bollocks that achieves nothing substantial."

AWWW Now steady on GD, thats not entirely correct!!

Milestones in Murkies career:

Sale of Airports.

Ensured primary airports became a tax free cash cow for Australia's premier Ethical Bank.
14 years @ a billion a year, no tax??? what a nice little earner!!

Primary airports voted amongst the worst in the world,certainly the most expensive.

Aviation infrastructure at third world standards. To the detriment of aviation Safety.

Safety the last consideration over profits, enshrined in the monopolies he created.

Secondary airports, Ensured billionaire Development sharks could completely circumvent the "Airports Act", "environment act" State government stamp duty, local government rates!! 

What a nice little earner!!

Ensured secondary airports are viewed as surplus to requirements by politicians and besides general aviation is made up of a very few wealthy people hell bent on killing themselves and half the population of Australia to enjoy their hobby.
Just a bunch of criminals we haven't caught yet.

CAsA.

Facilitated the employment of without doubt the most destructive DAS ever to grace the annuls of Australian aviation history.To the detriment to aviation safety.

Facilitated the production of the perhaps the worst, most amateurish gobbledegook masquerading as regulatory reform in not only Australia's history, but the history of the world. To the detriment of aviation safety.

Facilitated the actions of incompetent, unqualified sociopaths in malfecient actions against aviation interests. To the detriment of aviation safety.

Facilitated the development within CAsA of an Unjust culture to the detriment of aviation Safety.

Air Services Australia.

Well I mean what could you say???  are we are looking at an event that will dwarf the 'Sea Sprite" debacle? I have this feeling in my bones.

Need I go on?? and on? and on??

One bright spot. Alliance it would seem is the first with the courage to put their middle finger in CAsA's face. 

Of course CAsA at all costs cannot allow them to slip across the Tasman. The lawyers must be salivating at the potential $$$ that could be coming their way, I hope Alliance can maintain the fight, if they win expect a flood across the Tasman to sane workable regulations.

Oh please please god!!

[Peetwo]

Mandarin Memo - All leave is now cancelled

A basic explanation (from the Senate website) to what occurred yesterday in the life and times of the 44th Parliament..

A new session of Parliament


On 21 March 2016, on advice from the Prime Minster, the Governor-General issued a proclamation under section 5 of the Constitution:

• proroguing the Parliament from 5pm on 15 April 2016, and
  
• appointing 9.30 am on 18 April as the day and time for the Parliament to meet for a new session.
  
  

This will be the second session of the 44th Parliament, and will be opened by the Governor-General in accordance with standing orders 1(2) and 2.
 
To prorogue Parliament means to bring an end to a session without necessarily dissolving the House of Representatives or both Houses. It has the effect of terminating the list of business before either House. In 1993 the Government restored the practice, not followed since the 1920s, of proroguing the Parliament before dissolving the House of Representatives for the purpose of a general election. The last time the Parliament was prorogued other than for a general election was in 1977.
 
The Senate’s standing orders provide for the work of its committees to continue despite any prorogation of the Parliament.
 
Further reading:

• Documents relating to the prorogation of the Parliament on 15 April 2016
  
• Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, chapter 7
  

Hmm..wonder if that means all QON & Estimates business has now officially been compressed at least 1 week
Bit unsettling when all the Mandarins and their Minions have booked up golf at the Royal Canberra from now until beyond the next financial year - oh, how my heart bleeds   
MTF...P2