[Gobbledock]

I've always liked the word 'prorogue'. It sounds like some kind of lesion that Beaker woke up with one morning on the tip of his old fella!

"Safe linguistics for all"

[P7_TOM]

“Cancel the golf next week Humphrey”.

“What?”

“Yup, looks like the PM has ignored the politics and decided to run the country”.

“Governance then?”

“Yes, alas the rule of the bureaucrat has been suspended, we may have to work for a living now”.

Well done; MT; Bravo.  A statesman in the making…  .. .

[Peetwo]

Aerial App Phil on Murky's SSP -

Phil Hurst and the AAAA crew have been busy in 2016:

Submissions 2016: 

AAAA Submission State Safety Program Feb 2016
197.75 KB
Download


AAAA Submission Productivity Commission Ag Feb 2016
161.43 KB
Download

AAAA Submission CASR Part 138 Feb 2016
187.47 KB
Download

However the reason for being on Murky's thread was because of the AAA SSP submission which was in response to M&M's DRAFT SSP:

Australia's Draft State Safety Programme (SSP) 2016


The Australian Government's response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review announced the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (the Department), in consultation with the aviation safety agencies, will update Australia's SSP to a forward looking, strategic plan for Australia's aviation safety system.

On 4 December 2015, the Department released an updated draft SSP for aviation industry and public comments. The comment period has now closed.

• Australia's Draft State Safety Programme (SSP) 2016: PDF: 696 KB
  
• Aviation Safety Regulation Review
  
• Australia's current SSP
  

 
What impressed me with this submission was the depth of understanding by Phil Hurst and his crew of the philosophy & principles of an effective State SSP according to ICAO Annex 19 SARP.

In summary, AAAA’s primary concerns are:


 The document does not establish or recognise a partnership with industry that

underpins the program and the effective delivery of aviation safety.


 There is no recognition of consultative or other structures that might provide

industry with a clear role or pathway in assisting government and its agencies in

improving aviation safety or the SSP, or how industry can interact with or make

inputs to APG / AIG etc.


 While AAAA understands the various requirements for ICAO compliance that

drive the content and structure of the SSP, it should also be viewed as a key and

long-lasting document that will help drive domestic aviation policy settings as

well as international compliance.


 There remains a ‘delink’ between the very worthy principles espoused under the

Policy Statement - which AAAA supports - and their non-implementation by

agencies - especially CASA.


 The welcome attempt by the SSP to embed risk management as a key

consideration for regulation is hollow when compared to CASA regulatory

outcomes. AAAA strongly endorses CASA DAS Directive 01/15 - but it is not

being applied to recently introduced, problematic regulations such as CASR Part

61 or CAO 48.1. The CASA approach is still not risk-based and is still not

informed by a coherent classification of operations philosophy that gives the

highest priority to passenger carrying operations.

 In particular, the application of a classification of operations policy that results in a

strong focus on passenger carrying operations, thereby permitting more creative -

even safer - approaches to the regulation of general aviation and private

operations, has not been in place for at least 10 years, and CASA continues to

struggle with the practical implementation of such a policy. Clearer details on

how this is proposed to be turned from a broad policy statement in the SSP into

practical actions by agencies would be welcome.


 There is a ‘delink’ between the Policy Statement regarding ‘active and ongoing

engagement of industry’ and the fact that a number of agencies - ATSB, BITRE

and even the Department have no formal consultative mechanisms with industry,

perhaps other than the Ministerial Aviation Industry Advisory Council and the

more recently formed GA Action Group. In CASA, the SCC remains in

suspension, waiting for a decision on a new mechanism that has been

recommended by an SCC working group on the issue.


 There is a ‘delink’ between the SSP statements regarding the focus on SMS

approach to safety (eg page 13 of the draft), and the ongoing CASA approach to

focusing on mainly ‘compliance’ issues. This combines with CASA’s inability to

construct and implement a classification of operations policy that determines the

resources it expends on aerial work surveillance and audit, for example. In turn,

this results in the SSP describing a system focus that is simply not evident in dayto-

day interactions with CASA field staff.


 There remains a lack of CASA commitment to surrendering power over some

sectors, despite CASA Sector Risk Profiles identifying industry led programs as

making a significant contribution to risk reduction. AAAA programs including

AIMS, the Chief Pilots Course, Standard Operations Manual, Professional Pilot

Program etc are all identified in the SRP as being valuable programs. However,

CASA is struggling with recognition of these programs and is requiring significant

additional resource expenditure by industry before it will recognise programs it

has already accepted as reducing risk. It is ridiculous that AAAA has been

required to submit a formal paper to CASA on the safety benefits of the AIMS

program, arguing that having an SMS is superior to not having an SMS - and even

quoting CASA own words on this issue when they introduced mandatory SMS for

RPT back to them. There is need for a stronger direction to agencies to honour the

pathways identified in the SSP.

And from Appendix 1:

21/ 3.3/CASA - And yet CASA has never assessed its own

regulatory reform program and the complexity of

new regulations such as Part 61 as being a threat to

aviation safety - which they are.


The best that can be said is that despite the disarray

of CASA's regulatory turmoil program, industry

continues to focus on safety, tried and true methods

of safe operation and comprehensive risk

management.


CASA continues to be largely irrelevant to safe

operations, perhaps other than the general

deterrence effect and the occasional action - which

it fails to communicate - against individuals or

certificate holders. In aerial work operations, it

simply does not have current expertise to be

relevant.

24/4.2/CASA It is extraordinary that no mention is made of the

power of CASA supporting and utilising industry

education programs as a delivery mechanism for

relevant safety messages.


Often, CASA has no expertise in highly specialist

areas such as aerial application, and therefore the

best they could do is to partner with AAAA to

support the delivery of safety course and other

training and programs that actually can deliver

relevant information in a highly credible way.

CASA education programs that are poorly

informed, poorly targeted and represent a waste of

money only reinforce the cynicism of industry

towards the relevance of CASA. A good example

was the use of DAMP posters sent to all operators -

regardless of size of operation, number of

employees etc. The fact that CASA is generally

unaware of the existing industry safety programs

and peak body communication channels to

members speaks volumes about the poor

communication strategy CASA pursues.

Well worth a read and if the calibre of other industry responses reflect the AAAA submission then maybe we may actually end with a workable & effective SSP that is fully compliant with the intent of ICAO Annex 19. Although cynically I will be surprised if Murky's crew warmly embrace the AAAA critique...

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

I read Phil's submission from cover to cover.
Bloody well done boys and girls. Top marks.

You know what I like most about the AAAA's work? The submission actually gives me confidence and trust and makes me proud of some of the sectors and elements of our industry. Only an experienced, mature and skilful aviation group could write such an intelligent, well rounded and succinct factual submission! If only the same level of skill existed in CAsA and Government hey?


P. S Phil, is the reason that Mr Chester has such perfect hair because you boys have been putting some crop dusting chemicals in his hairspray?

[Kharon]

Industry v Insanity.

Every time; and, I do mean every time there is an opportunity for industry to participate in in setting a course away from disaster or on the road to recovery it, weighs in.  Willingly, unstintingly and at little or no cost to the government the industry provides expert, considered opinion, provides cost effective solutions and indicates a willingness to assist with effective, sensible reform programs.  Gratis, no charge advice on which a minister could rely and fund, not only saving the Commonwealth millions, but earning even more revenue, not to mention jobs and investment opportunities.

Look at some of the standout submissions, from Pel-Air through Forsyth and on to the latest Productivity Commission; there are some first class, top drawer submissions made which provide empirical evidence of industry ‘expertise’.  The latest from AAAA is an exemplar: sane, balanced, practical, fully supported by membership, totally achievable and capable of ensuring safety and increased productivity – in short; the right solution.

Over the past decade many such documents have been provided by industry; over the past decade almost none of those documents has been put on a table, discussed with the ‘authority’ and implemented.

Over the past decade the government appointed ‘experts’ have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid embracing the expert advice of industry specialists, independent reports, analysis and solution.  Even ministerial directives get short shift.  AMROBA, AOPA, AAAA, Forsyth etc. all get the same treatment, a lot of lip service, enough action to provide credible evidence for the minister to state that ‘something’ is being done; then, after a suitable time period in limbo, good ideas are taken out the back, their throats quietly slit, the carcass buried in the departmental graveyard.  RIP.

We spend millions on the care and feeding of things like CASA who could not, on their best day produce a submission to match the AAAA effort, which was gifted to the nation.  We need to ask why we are squandering a fortune employing non expert dead beats who’s sole purpose in life seems to be playing at policemen, ‘prosecution’ and decimating industry initiative.  This occurs throughout the agencies, ASA, ATSB and CASA; incompetent, non experts running multi million dollar enterprises which ignore expert advice on the very thing which necessitates their existence; i.e. the well being of industry and those who manage it, very well, despite dragging the lead weight of departmental arrogance and ignorance behind it, then having to fund that incubus. But don’t just take my word for it; compare the AAAA submission (which we have for free) to the Chambers report; or, the Pel-Air report (both of which we paid dearly for) on a benefit to industry basis and decide for yourself.

It is insane.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Selah.

PS.  Nicely done Phil, well done indeed.

[Peetwo]

Industry v Insanity - P2 supplemental

Every time; and, I do mean every time there is an opportunity for industry to participate in in setting a course away from disaster or on the road to recovery it, weighs in.  Willingly, unstintingly and at little or no cost to the government the industry provides expert, considered opinion, provides cost effective solutions and indicates a willingness to assist with effective, sensible reform programs.  Gratis, no charge advice on which a minister could rely and fund, not only saving the Commonwealth millions, but earning even more revenue, not to mention jobs and investment opportunities.

Look at some of the standout submissions, from Pel-Air through Forsyth and on to the latest Productivity Commission; there are some first class, top drawer submissions made which provide empirical evidence of industry ‘expertise’.  The latest from AAAA is an exemplar: sane, balanced, practical, fully supported by membership, totally achievable and capable of ensuring safety and increased productivity – in short; the right solution.

Over the past decade many such documents have been provided by industry; over the past decade almost none of those documents has been put on a table, discussed with the ‘authority’ and implemented.

Over the past decade the government appointed ‘experts’ have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid embracing the expert advice of industry specialists, independent reports, analysis and solution.  Even ministerial directives get short shift.  AMROBA, AOPA, AAAA, Forsyth etc. all get the same treatment, a lot of lip service, enough action to provide credible evidence for the minister to state that ‘something’ is being done; then, after a suitable time period in limbo, good ideas are taken out the back, their throats quietly slit, the carcass buried in the departmental graveyard.  RIP.

We spend millions on the care and feeding of things like CASA who could not, on their best day produce a submission to match the AAAA effort, which was gifted to the nation.  We need to ask why we are squandering a fortune employing non expert dead beats who’s sole purpose in life seems to be playing at policemen, ‘prosecution’ and decimating industry initiative.  This occurs throughout the agencies, ASA, ATSB and CASA; incompetent, non experts running multi million dollar enterprises which ignore expert advice on the very thing which necessitates their existence; i.e. the well being of industry and those who manage it, very well, despite dragging the lead weight of departmental arrogance and ignorance behind it, then having to fund that incubus. But don’t just take my word for it; compare the AAAA submission (which we have for free) to the Chambers report; or, the Pel-Air report (both of which we paid dearly for) on a benefit to industry basis and decide for yourself.

It is insane.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost.
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

Selah.

PS.  Nicely done Phil, well done indeed.

To reinforce the P9 post one only needs look at the following post extract to see that the Department, CASA, ASA & the ATSB have a normalised deficient culture of notifying a difference to ICAO: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Shame-or-fame...12#pid3912

So I decided to do some basic research to see just how 'unique' Australia is as a fellow signatory State to ICAO. The empirical evidence so far is simply staggering.

To begin note my comment from this post - AMROBA on Harmonisation

P2 Comment - Here is a link for the latest list of Australian notified differences - [/url]https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf. Note the AIP SUPP is now four pages of relevant links to individual Annex differences. The reasoning for the change to the SUPP, listed at Para 1.2, is absolute bollocks, this is just another cynical attempt to cover up the embarrassing number (over a 1000) of notified differences to ICAO SARPs

 
 For ease of access I've created our own link - HERE - and for an example the following is a link for the ICAO 'Airworthiness Standards' notified differences - i.e. Annex 8

Okay so when collated, as of 10 Dec 2015, there is now a unbelievable 318 pages of 'notified differences'. My final count on the 'NDs' was at 3116, however because I lost count a number of times.
 
The highest count of an individual annex or volume of an annex was in Annex 10 Volume 4 with 591 and the highest page count was from Annex 14 Volume 2 with 88 pages.

The lowest count for an individual annex is for Annex 12 with zero, which is extremely ironical and speaks volumes because it is one of only a couple of SARPs that does not involve CASA, ASA or the ATSB - well done AMSA

So there you go, empirical proof that our aviation safety regulatory system is a complete and utter basket case when benchmarked against 'global standards'  
Wake up PM, Minister & the CASA board, it is not going to sort itself out.

Of the ICAO SARPs Annex 13 & 19 are integral to the proper implementation and effective administration of a State SSP. However as a further indicator that the Australian aviation safety bureaucracy is merely paying lip-service to the spirit & intent of ICAO, one only needs to review the 'notified differences' for A13 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/...nex_13.pdf -

; & A19 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/...nex_19.pdf .

There is a combined 12 pages and total of 55 NDs for the two Annexes.

However the real cynicism and affront to industry is within the detail. Let me explain, quote from department SSP DRAFT request for industry comment:
 

On 4 December 2015, the Department released an updated draft SSP for aviation industry and public comments. The comment period has now closed.

 
Note the date. Now refer to AIP SUP H104/15 [url=https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf]  The SUP was issued on the 10 Dec 2015 and notified additional differences to at least 2 of the Annexes instrumental to the administration of a State SSP. So are the relevant notified differences, in particular with Annex 19, preempting the DRAFT SSP being implemented without amendment? How can that be possible when industry stakeholders were yet to comment?

The other option is that the NDs for Annex 19 are based on the current and original SSP.

However the current SSP was published in April 2012, how is it then possible to have additional NDs for a supposedly ICAO compliant document that has been in place for more than 4 years? 

Here is hoping that Murky's mob will eventually publish all industry comments on the 4 Dec 2015 DRAFT SSP..


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Re-reading my post above I still shake my head on the layers of bureaucratic obfuscation , spin & bulldust that has been put in place to create the illusion that all's well in the World of aviation in the land Down Under - what a load BOLLOCKS!  

Wonder what the breakdown would be to administer the charade of over 3000+ notified differences to ICAO, not to mention the kickbacks to certain ICAO officials and the many WOFTAM trips to Montreal - FFS!

Anyway to follow on from Dougy's last hoorah on AvBiz:

Observation Deck

25 Feb 2016 - P2 obs - Hmm..strange apparently Dougy is three weeks ahead of himself??

So Airservices’ Rob Walker has got the gig as head of CASA’s new Stakeholder Engagement division and he starts mid-April. That’s a first class appointment with positive implications for industry. Good choice, Mark Skidmore and the CASA board!

Now for the hard work. Industry will expect to see something from Rob pretty quickly, but he’s up for that sort of challenge.

And Shane Carmody will take up his new role as Assistant Secretary at Infrastructure in the first week of April. Another excellent appointment.

Not only are we getting the right people in the right roles, we appear to have a Minister who is on a mission to genuinely engage with industry right across the spectrum. He was quick to accept an invitation from Rex’s John Sharp to meet with a select industry group in an informal scenario earlier this month. And he’s not shy of finding 15 or 30 minutes in his hectic schedule to spend time with individuals and groups who have perspective to offer.

Again, the proof of the pudding is in the action to follow, but this is a very good start.

Ok tin hat donned, ear plugs in, standing by for incoming

In an update to this Paul Phelan has caught up with the news and his take is that the Carmody appointment is a positive thing, via ProAviation..

 
A significant new aviation appointment


Former CASA Deputy CEO Shane Carmody was appointed on April 1 as Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, with what the Department describes as “broad overarching responsibilities in aviation.”


These include Aviation and Airports, the Office of Transport Security, Local Government and Territories and the departments’ Western Sydney Unit which includes infrastructure planning for Badgery’s Creek.


The appointment and its aviation focus have been welcomed by industry identities familiar with Mr Carmody’s previous efforts which included improving CASA’s service delivery and timelines, says an industry observer:


“He brought in a number of changes to CASA administration and I very quickly noticed changes in the time it took to do various tasks. He also put in place a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) which they [CASA] put on their web site and which showed industry how long CASA took for things like pilot licences, AOC amendment approvals, average time to get medicals sorted out – all those things where the industry should be able to see whether CASA is performing acceptably on its general administrative tasks.”


Immediately prior to his current appointment Mr Carmody was Deputy Secretary/Chief Operating Officer (COO) at the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA), a position he held from June 2014. In this role he was responsible for organisational transformation and DVA’s $12bn pa business operations across compensation, rehabilitation and health service delivery.


He has extensive experience at senior levels in the Australian Public Service, from policy formulation to service delivery. His roles have included Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security and Deputy Secretary Strategy in the Department of Defence, Deputy CEO of CASA, and Deputy President of the Repatriation Commission and COO of DVA.


Highlights of Mr Carmody’s APS career to date include direct oversight of the three Defence Intelligence Agencies and the Defence Security Authority, developing and implementing Defence Strategy and International Policy; managing diverse regulatory activities with CASA and driving DVA’s business transformation through cultural change, digitisation and business process reform.


Mr Carmody studied Bahasa Indonesia at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.  He has a BA from the University of Queensland, an MBA from Monash University and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

Gobbles seems to think he is just another filter layer for the Murky Mandarin. Personally I don't know him and therefore I have no opinion on the guy.

Maybe Carmody will be locked away in the pencil cabinet sorting out the next round of notified differences to ICAO, because it certainly sounds like he is at least efficient at shuffling paper -


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of Carmody.....

Carmody as an individual wasn't too bad at CAsA. He did get some things done and he certainly wasn't one of the worst people ever employed by the Regulator.
However my issue is this; under his deputy leadership of CAsA he didn't get the regulatory reform program wrapped up and he didn't or couldn't get rid of people like Dr Voodoo or Farkwitson. While at CAsA he still had no jurisdiction over Pumpkin Head and when Bwuce Bywon left he was overlooked for DAS and Pumpkin Head hired Captain Angry Pants McComic instead.

So my simple question is; just how useful or influential was he then, and just how much more authority or big stick power does he wield today?

I am yet to see any actual, tangible, measurable changes under any of his stewardship. That makes me believe that he is simply playing along with the system to his own career advantage and not really interested or powerful enough to effect any real change. Do we honestly think that he will as the Deputy Pumpkin Head (DPH) go against his boss in any way, shape or form? Nah, I don't think so either. Hence my conclusion that Wingnut is just another high earning spoke in the bureaucratic wheel racking up FF Points and a mighty big bank account and superannuation fund.

"Safe troughs for all"

[Kharon]

Spot on GD; the very idea of Merde’k hiring anyone else, apart from his own pre selected, preferred person is ridiculous.  The Murky Machiavellian team only live to serve one master and it’s a lifetime devotion.  Aye well, government comes and goes – but we’ll always have the MM crew.  Look at the stellar performances from ‘the departments’ best and finest over the past two decades – CASA superb, ATSB immaculate and ASA a resounding success?

Well, that’s the party line and Wingnut ain’t got the wherewithal to gainsay it.  Nope, he’ll just slot into a comfy niche of do nothing, watching the super tick over between crossword puzzles; alternating between delay and divert meetings, obfuscation planning sessions and Wednesday golf scheduled around long weekends, junkets and 'working lunches'. 

Aye, the old favourite song - 'the working class can kiss my arse' – will be playing in the lift to the top floor; motivation, MM style.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

A departmental point of difference...

Since the announcement two weeks ago that there would be a final Senate Estimates session in this parliament, I have been closely monitoring the RRAT Committee AQON links, for IMO (especially last Estimates) some of the QON deserve answers if we are to respect the Senate Estimates process.

Here are the applicable links, one for Barnaby's crew & one for Dazzling Dazza & Senator Nash's area of remit (i.e. Murky's mob):

Index and Answers to Questions on Notice

• Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
  
• Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
  

     
Now if you click on those links, starting with the Ag boys-n-girls, you will see that both AQON were due on the 01 April. So to begin, both departments exceeded the due by date, however the Ag crew had all their (250 odd) AQON in by 22 April 2016 but the DoIRD have yet to present one singular AQON - WTF?

This may change by the time Murky's mob front up for Estimates late this afternoon but in the mean time it is not a good look for Ministers Nash & Chester -

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Hoodlum to take over from Beaker -

Well here's a turn up for the books, from Binger courtesy of the Oz:

New ATSB chief Greg Hood faces tough choice

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• May 6, 2016 12:00AM
  

Greg Hood, who will be the next ATSB chief. Picture: Roger Lovell

The federal government has appointed former Airservices executive Greg Hood to replace Martin Dolan as the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The appointment will be announced today by Minister for ­Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester, who will grant Mr Hood a five-year term, starting from July 1, 2016, as the chief commissioner of the ATSB.

Mr Hood will replace Mr Dolan, who has been in the media spotlight for the past two years as the head of the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.
As one of his first duties, Mr Hood will have to make the difficult decision whether or not to continue the search for the missing aircraft.

“The way I see it, there is still 15,000sq km to go and it would be remiss of us not to continue being hopeful until that area is searched,” Mr Hood told The Australian. “MH370 and what transpires with the search will be my biggest immediate challenge.

“But any decision to extend, expand or curtail the search will be a very delicate decision to be taken in conjunction with the Australian, Malaysian and Chinese governments.”

In 18 months of searching, submersible vessels equipped with cutting-edge sonar equipment have not been able find any trace of the Boeing 777, which was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers when it disappeared on March 8, 2014.

The search — which has cost Australian taxpayers about $90 million — is expected to cease by the end of June if no fresh evidence is found.

Mr Hood has more than 30 years’ experience in the transport sector, most recently as executive general manager of Air Traffic Control at Airservices Australia.

He previously held several senior management positions in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASE) including executive manager of the Operations Division.

“This appointment will enable the ATSB to continue to perform its vital role as the national transport safety investigator to the high standards expected by Australians,” Mr Chester said.

    
Still absorbing the implications of this appointment, 1st take is that this is actually a very good thing. One thing Hoody definitely knows is where all the shelf-wared skeletons of PelAir cover-up & Airtex/Skymaster (Canleyvale tragedy) are buried...

Time will tell whether he can return 'Reason' & credibility to the ATSB but he definitely is not a Muppet like Dolan with NFI...  



MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Certainly is a change in direction. Beaker knew nothing about aviation, he was just another bureaucrat. But the Hooded one at least has a fair amount of experience under his robust belt (so to speak) and he understands aviations complexities. Third time lucky finally, he missed out on CAsA DAS in lieu of The Screaming Skull and he missed on ASA to Staib. So he has done his time patiently. Let's hope he can return the ATsB back to the old Alan Stray days, our foward a business case for money to adequately fund enough Investigators etc.

With all these  changes I wouldn't mind betting that my source in Montreal is correct - ICAO are sniffing around!

[Peetwo]

I read Phil's submission from cover to cover.
Bloody well done boys and girls. Top marks.

You know what I like most about the AAAA's work? The submission actually gives me confidence and trust and makes me proud of some of the sectors and elements of our industry. Only an experienced, mature and skilful aviation group could write such an intelligent, well rounded and succinct factual submission! If only the same level of skill existed in CAsA and Government hey?

P. S Phil, is the reason that Mr Chester has such perfect hair because you boys have been putting some crop dusting chemicals in his hairspray?

The 'despicable' Dazzling Dazza - In one of the most cynical and sheer bastardry indifferences to the aviation portfolio he oversees, & while swanning around the Tamworth/New England region yesterday, Chester's office released a vomitus media release: 

Updated Aviation State Safety Programme released

Media Release
DC069/2016
06 May 2016

Australia's updated Aviation State Safety Programme was released by the Australian Government today.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Australia has an advanced aviation safety system in place and is one of the safest places to fly in the world.

“Regardless of these strengths, however, even a mature system must look for continuous improvements in response to the growing diversity of the aviation industry,” Mr Chester said.

“It is important we continue to adapt to the challenges of a rapidly changing domestic and international aviation market, including in the area of aviation safety.

“Australia's updated State Safety Programme continues to clearly outline the strong governance framework underpinning Australia's aviation safety system.”

Mr Chester said the programme has been expanded to include challenges facing the system and sets out Australia's short, medium and long-term aviation safety objectives.

“The programme is consistent with the approach to safety management outlined in the International Civil Aviation Organization's Global Aviation Safety Plan and will be reviewed every three years,” Mr Chester said.

“Public and industry submissions received on a draft programme released for comment in December 2015 were also considered before the programme was finalised.”

The programme was developed by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, in consultation with other Government agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, the Department of Defence, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.

The updated Aviation State Safety Programme is available at: infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/safety/ssp/index.aspx

  
Besides the usual Murky Mrdak spin & bollocks at the top about us being up their with other 1st World Nations in aviation safety (bucket please.. ), what really irks me the most is this flippant passing comment..

“Public and industry submissions received on a draft programme released for comment in December 2015 were also considered before the programme was finalised.”

I am yet to read the SSP but I reckon it is a fair bet that the excellent submission from the AAAA's Phil Hurst (above) & comments from the RAAA, as is custom for the Murky crew, will have been totally ignored.

However what is probably worse is that the SSP, which the Forsyth report recommended should be reviewed, was announced while a large body of industry stakeholders (including Phil Hurst) were being preached to by this WOFTAM, waste of space miniscule in Tamworth -

This is totally disrespectful for those sectors of the industry that have a vested interest in their being a properly implemented & functioning State safety program in accordance with ICAO Annex 19.

Cynically I also wonder if the quiet no frills release of Murky's SSP, has something to do with the fact that M&M does not want to draw attention and be questioned on the 3000+ notified differences & some of my further observations mentioned here:

Of the ICAO SARPs Annex 13 & 19 are integral to the proper implementation and effective administration of a State SSP. However as a further indicator that the Australian aviation safety bureaucracy is merely paying lip-service to the spirit & intent of ICAO, one only needs to review the 'notified differences' for A13 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/generatedsupplements/Annex_13.pdf -

; & A19 - http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/generatedsupplements/Annex_19.pdf .

There is a combined 12 pages and total of 55 NDs for the two Annexes.

However the real cynicism and affront to industry is within the detail. Let me explain, quote from department SSP DRAFT request for industry comment:

On 4 December 2015, the Department released an updated draft SSP for aviation industry and public comments. The comment period has now closed.

 

Note the date. Now refer to AIP SUP H104/15 [url=https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s15-h104.pdf]  The SUP was issued on the 10 Dec 2015 and notified additional differences to at least 2 of the Annexes instrumental to the administration of a State SSP. So are the relevant notified differences, in particular with Annex 19, preempting the DRAFT SSP being implemented without amendment? How can that be possible when industry stakeholders were yet to comment?

The other option is that the NDs for Annex 19 are based on the current and original SSP.

However the current SSP was published in April 2012, how is it then possible to have additional NDs for a supposedly ICAO compliant document that has been in place for more than 4 years? 

Here is hoping that Murky's mob will eventually publish all industry comments on the 4 Dec 2015 DRAFT SSP..

The other thing that may have prompted M&M to discretely release the SSP two days before the caretaker government period, is that the SSP was referenced in the released TAAAF Policy. 

4. State Safety Program

The State Safety Program (SSP) for aviation is the primary structure for the Government to deliver its obligations under international aviation conventions.

The current approach of Government excludes industry from ongoing involvement in the SSP, other than through very broad consultation or through various piecemeal consultative mechanisms, often through different agencies.



There is a critical need to establish a stronger government-industry partnership through a fresh approach that recognises the role of industry in supporting and informing Government aviation policy.


The Forum believes that Government should review the structures involved in the State Safety Program and provide mechanisms for improved high-level consultation with industry, including industry representative membership of the key committees.


The Forum is deeply concerned with the ongoing practice of Australia lodging differences to ICAO standards without consultation with industry. This practice must be stopped and a new system of industry consultation implemented through the SSP to ensure any difference lodged has the support of industry and is aligned with Government objectives for the efficient functioning of the Australian aviation regulatory system and international harmonisation.

If this policy (or a version of it) was adopted by the Coalition and they get back into government, it is far easier to say the SSP is done & dusted till next time (3yrs), therefore not requiring adherence to government policy.


MTF...P2  


Ps Newsflash: Apparently 2021 could prove to be a significant number for OST     

[Peetwo]

Murky Mandarin & possible dodgy deals with KPMG -

Here we go again -   In what seems to be a common theme surrounding M&M's department & agencies, Sterlo in an abbreviated session with the department is sniffing around yet another possible dodgy deal & perceived conflict of interest issue. 

Continuing on from the bottom of my 'bump in the night' post (with additional Hansard), quoted here:

ASA at Estimates 05/05/16 - Hansard

Hmm...how come everyone else seems to have a copy of the AQON?? 
One other passage of more than passing interest, which I almost missed & on the subject of ASA, trough feeding, conflicts of interest and dodgy deals, occurred between Sterlo & Murky right at the start of the DoIRD session:

...Senator STERLE: Are you able to point us in what areas they are at this stage?

Mr Mrdak : In terms of the department itself, they predominantly range around some specific functions which could be considered for no longer continuing. Some areas that have been identified include the performance of some functions such as the administration of financial assistance to local government and other payment processes, which could be considered for centralisation in other areas of government such as the Department of Finance; and ceasing areas such as the department's performance of activities in maritime regulation, and whether that better sits with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It also indicates areas where government may wish to consider larger structural changes, such as considering the future of Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: How?

Mr Mrdak : Whether the government wishes to consider future options for different governance and ownership arrangements for some of our statutory bodies, including Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: So that could be outsourcing?

Mr Mrdak : It could be or it could be looking at taking it into different ownership structures to what they currently are.

Senator STERLE: What could they be? The reason I am asking is: we all know for Airservices Australia there is no competition, and it is quite a bit of a money earner for the government. Could you shine a light for us on how that could be done in a different way?

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia..

Senator STERLE: So 'functions ceasing' is, as it suggests, 'How can we outsource certain parts of the department or work that is conducted by the department or agencies around the department?' Was there a flipside where there was a study looking at how you could bring stuff back?


Mr Mrdak : That was not an area that the functional efficiency review settled on as one of its 18 areas of action.


Senator STERLE: We will watch that space with some interest. The government is going into caretaker mode in the next couple of days, but is there an indication of when it will respond to that?


Mr Mrdak : I think the indications are it will probably be part of the next midyear financial review or the budget process.


Senator STERLE: Who conducted the review?


Mr Mrdak : The review was undertaken by KPMG and the lead reviewer was Mr Warwick Smith with KPMG.


Senator STERLE: It was only KPMG; no-one else?


Mr Mrdak : That is correct.


Senator STERLE: Is it true that KPMG were paid almost $600,000 for this work?


Mr Mrdak : That is correct. I can get you the final amount, but it is of that order.


Senator STERLE: Yes, please. Does KPMG otherwise provide services to the department?


Mr Mrdak : Yes, it does. KPMG is on our panel of providers for a range of services—professional services and advice.


Senator STERLE: Could I ask you what they are?


Mr Mrdak : They would range across the department. Where we look for advice, either financial or professional advice, in relation to areas such as our infrastructure program or in any of our line divisions where we are looking for professional advice, KPMG is one of the firms that we have on the various departmental panels.


Senator STERLE: I have a list here and I would like to tick off that I have the right information around where KPMG has contracts directly with DIRD under the AusTender website. Is there a diesel supply contract?


Mr Mrdak : That is correct—for our Indian Ocean Territories.


Senator STERLE: Is that at $280,000 a year?


Mr Mrdak : I do not have that in front of me. I can check that.


Senator STERLE: I reckon Mr Murphy might know.


Mr Murphy : In fact, I am looking through my list and I have one for an assurance and compliance program for $125,000, but I cannot find that one, so we will take that on notice.


Senator STERLE: Does anyone have the AusTender website open? I just want to make sure I have the right info. I do not doubt that I do, but I would like to check.

Mr Murphy : What I have in front of me is the consultancy that we have entered into from 1 January this year through to 31 March, so, if this was prior to that, I would not have it.


Senator STERLE: My information is for the calendar year 2015. Would it be hard to get that in front of us just to confirm or deny and set me straight?


Mr Murphy : We will try to do that now.


Senator STERLE: I have in front of me that KPMG have a contract to do with the department's diesel supply contract, at $280,000; a local government territories risk and control mapping contract, at $120,000; assurance and compliance project review 1, at $415,000; comprehensive health services for Norfolk Island, at $183,000; a wider economic benefits project, at $275,000; and the development and implementation of the Norfolk Island multipurpose service contract, at $600,000.


Mr Mrdak : We will check those.


Senator STERLE: Okay, and I will do some quick sums—that is a lot of money. We are getting close to $1½ million, I believe. Anyway, you will check that for me. Are we far from confirming it?


Ms Potter : I am having trouble bringing it up.


Senator STERLE: I think my information would be pretty spot on, so let's go with this.

Mr Mrdak, it is not hypothetical. Would it be fair for me to assume that there is a massive conflict of interest in having an external provider of services to the department review where the department is resourced to deliver government priorities?


Mr Mrdak : No. The government established the functional efficiency reviews to be independent reviews. They certainly did do a very independent analysis of the department and the portfolio. I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in the fact that they are a provider of other services. We selected KPMG on the basis of a tender process. They provided a proposal, which we accepted and contracted, to undertake the efficiency review.


Senator STERLE: We have talked a lot about the 'pub test' since Mrs Bishop's indiscretions. There is a government department engaging KPMG to the tune of $600,000. You stated that part of the review was 'functions ceasing', so this same mob, KPMG, who have the $600,000 to look for where efficiencies could be found in outsourcing, are actually a client of yours to whom you are outsourcing certain parts of the department's work to the tune of $1½ million dollars. It is a bit like banning live cattle exports—if we ask all the processors, of course they are going to want to ban live cattle exports. I find that very conflicted. Senator Heffernan, the chair, might think I am wrong.


CHAIR: No.


Senator STERLE: This is why ask. A number of mobs out there could do the work that KPMG do. If I was the one issuing the contracts, foremost in my mind would be, 'This could look a little stinky.'


Mr Mrdak : I can see the point you are making. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the department has the opportunity to respond to the report and government will make the final decisions, but I do understand the point you are making. As I said, it was a thoroughly independent review and there was no suggestion that the review's recommendations are in any way tailored to future work possibilities for KPMG, in my view.


Senator STERLE: It comes back to questioning from Senator Ludwig at the last round of estimates, which you have answered on notice. Part of the spend on the purchase of publications was for What a Waste: Outsourcing and How It Goes Wrong. The suspicion in me says, 'This is a glowing example of how it can go wrong.' I think you have made my point clear. To me, it certainly does not pass the pub test.


Senator DODSON: I want to know how you have mitigated the risk or ensured probity prevails in this situation.


Mr Mrdak : For the functional efficiency review, we set up a team within the department to provide information and support to the study team. That obviously enabled us to ensure that the data provided to the team was accurate all times. Also, at the end of the day, there were extensive discussions with us in relation to the proposals that the functional efficiency team review was putting forward. So we did look very carefully and provide advice to them on areas that we thought were not going to be workable for outsourcing or for other alternative providers, and that was reflected in the final report that KPMG provided. So we were very scrupulous in ensuring that we were clear to them on areas that we thought were and were not able to be performed by other parties or contractors.


CHAIR: Congratulations on your first question, Senator Dodson.


Senator DODSON: Under your tutelage, Mr Chair.


Senator STERLE: I did the sums and it is close to $1½ million of work for the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development that KPMG currently enjoys. Are you aware that KPMG is on the lobbyist register?


Mr Mrdak : I was not aware that they are on the lobbyist register.


Senator STERLE: You are now.


Mr Murphy : Actually, we are aware of that. There was a question on notice from Senator Ludwig which asked us to state which lobbyists we may have engaged. In answering that question, we identified that KPMG are on the lobbyist register; however, their lobbyists who have been explicitly listed on that register have not been involved in any of the work that we have done with KPMG.


Senator STERLE: I understand, but it is very hard for me to be comfortable about any form of lobbyist. I think I have made my point clear and I would be very interested, once the government, whoever it may be, goes through the $600,000 review of KPMG, to see what comes as suggestions from KPMG. I have no doubt that they may be part of the tendering mob—do you go to tender?


Mr Mrdak : Yes, we do.


Senator STERLE: And is it evenly spread around? Do some companies get more than others?


Mr Mrdak : We generally look at the capacity of the firms bidding for the work. We look at ensuring we get a good panel and a range of firms on the panel that give us expert skills, but we often look at a range of criteria when we award work.


Senator STERLE: Do you have a preferred tenderer's list—is that which call it?—or do you just chuck it all out there and see what comes on each?


Mr Mrdak : It varies on the contract. We have what we call a panel for various skills, be they accounting or project advice and the like. Firms have prequalified, effectively, and given a schedule of rates for those panels, which enables us to go quickly to those panels and target our tenders to those firms that have already demonstrated their skills in particular areas.


Senator STERLE: Okay; I will go to Mr Murphy now. What companies that you outsource to are also registered as lobbyists?


Mr Murphy : None. We have only had interaction with one lobbying firm, or firm that sits on the lobbyists register as lobbying—


Senator STERLE: So, it is only the one? It is only KPMG?


Mr Murphy : The lobbyists register lists individuals who are identified as lobbyists. KPMG have indicated a number of people who are lobbyists who are on the lobbying register; we have had nothing to do with them.


Senator STERLE: But KPMG are on the lobbyists list?


Mr Murphy : Yes.


Senator STERLE: That is what I have asked: can you confirm that.


Mr Murphy : I do not know. With other firms that may do some lobbying and some other, for example, consulting activities—


Senator STERLE: Do you, the department, check the lobbyists list before you issue contracts for outsourcing?


Mr Murphy : Anyone who is on the lobbying register has to indicate that they are a lobbyist, and we do not consider them for other work.


Senator STERLE: So KPMG is the only outsourcing company—


Mr Murphy : No—individuals. KPMG, if they wanted to use one of their people who was on the lobbying register to provide other services, would have to indicate that they were on the lobbying register.


Senator STERLE: Okay. I understand that. But for work that you, the department, outsource, clearly—and you have led me to believe—there are no other companies who you outsource work to that are also on the lobbyists register.


Mr Murphy : No, I am not saying that. I do not know—for example, the legal firms that we engage to provide legal advice conceivably could have other members of their firms on the lobbying register. I do not know that, because we do not engage them for lobbying purposes.


Senator STERLE: Okay. All right. KPMG has a large chunk of work that they have accessed—they have a big chunk of $600,000 and then nearly $1½ million of ongoing outsourcing. Are there any other companies who you engage or have engaged—where you outsourced—that have had work of a similar or higher value to KPMG?


Mr Mrdak : There would be a range of firms of similar and higher amounts that we contract through a year, yes, Senator. We use a range of professional services firms, particularly in our infrastructure advice work. We do engage other major firms, professional firms, through the year.


Senator STERLE: Okay. Now, that would not be secret list, would it?


Mr Mrdak : No, we would be happy to provide that to you.

Urban developers & Secondary Airports; ASA & OneSKY with Thales/ICCPM; and now KPMG with their snouts in the trough. Where will it stop nobody knows but IMO it is high time there was a Federal anti-corruption body overseeing the trough-feeding pollies & fat-cat bureaucrats.  

Good to see that even with the sad departure of the Heff that Sterlo has absolutely no intention on easing up on keeping the bureaucracy on their toes & honest in Senate Estimates -


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Nice pickup P2;

"Urban developers & Secondary Airports; ASA & OneSKY with Thales/ICCPM; and now KPMG with their snouts in the trough. Where will it stop nobody knows but IMO it is high time there was a Federal anti-corruption body overseeing the trough-feeding pollies & fat-cat bureaucrats".

It would seem that under Mr MrDak there seems to be a lot of interesting shady deals taking place in his department and the departments that he oversights.

The smell of money, mates rates, and pig faeces surrounding some pretty deep troughs is overpowering. Hopefully the more mainstream media and reporters such as 'that man', Bingers or the Klan Man will take a little closer look? 

Oink oink

[Peetwo]

From a post on PP.

Aviation in "caretaker mode"-I guess the Bureaucrats are in charge? 
  
What can possibly go wrong?

 The following came cross my desk this week and I was struck by similarities with our authorities in The Senate, in various reviews and inquiries. It makes one think that nothing short of a Spanish Inquisition will get the truth and transparencies required to effect any change to the malignant regulatory muddle that has decimated a once vibrant industry.

"We’re all used to a certain amount of doublespeak and bureaucratese in government
hearings. That’s as old as forever. But in the last year of listening to testimony from
government officials, there is something different about the boredom and
indifference with which government testifiers skirt, dodge and with hold the truth. They
don’t seem furtive or defensive; they are not in the least afraid. They speak always with
a certain --they are lawyered up--but they have no evident fear of looking evasive. They
really don’t care what you think of them. They’re running the show and if you don’t like
it, too bad. And all this new bureaucratic style on the national level. During Watergate
those hauled in and grilled by Congress were nervous...But commissioners and
department heads now --they really think they’re in charge. They don’t bother to fake
anxiety about public opinion. They care only about personal legal exposure. The do not
fear public wrath.

 Peggy Noonan, “The new Bureaucratic Brazenness,” The Wall Street Journal, October

 4-5, 20014, A13".

Good catch Cranky...

Actually I think it is worth regurgitating in full, such are the striking similarities with our 'law unto themselves' aviation safety bureaucracy...

The New Bureaucratic Brazenness
Official arrogance is the source of public cynicism.

 ENLARGE
 Martin Kozlowski

By
Peggy Noonan

Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 3, 2014 6:51 p.m. ET 648 COMMENTS

We’re all used to a certain amount of doublespeak and bureaucratese in government hearings. That’s as old as forever. But in the past year of listening to testimony from government officials, there is something different about the boredom and indifference with which government testifiers skirt, dodge and withhold the truth. They don’t seem furtive or defensive; they are not in the least afraid. They speak always with a certain carefulness—they are lawyered up—but they have no evident fear of looking evasive.

They really don’t care what you think of them. They’re running the show and if you don’t like it, too bad.

In context with the part in bold, a classic example from the PelAir cover-up inquiry was Beaker's 'shall' or 'should' bollocks with amended versions of Annex 13:

Unfortunately for Beaker Karma can be a bitch and this pathetic episode came back to bite and eventually led to Beaker having to admit that his administration got it wrong and the ATSB would be reinvestigating the ditching of VH-NGA:

However the swagger and arrogant 'don't give a rats' attitude was still evident and I have not seen anywhere that this Muppet has shown any remorse or compassion for the victims of PelAir -

And all this is a new bureaucratic style on the national level. During Watergate those hauled in and grilled by Congress were nervous. In Iran-Contra, Olllie North was in turn stoic, defiant and unafraid to make an appeal to the public. But commissioners and department heads now—they really think they’re in charge. They don’t bother to fake anxiety about public opinion. They care only about personal legal exposure. They do not fear public wrath.

Classic from recent Senate Estimates:

All this became apparent in the past year’s IRS hearings, and was pronounced in Tuesday’s Secret Service hearings.

Julia Pierson,the director, did not seem at all preoccupied with what you thought of her. She was impassive, generally unresponsive and unforthcoming. She didn’t bother to show spirit or fiery commitment. She was the lifeless expression of consultant-guided anti-truth.

No question was answered straight and simple. Everything was convoluted and involved extraneous data, so that listeners couldn’t follow the answer and by the end couldn’t remember the question. I am certain government witnesses do this deliberately—the rounded words, long sentences that collapse, the bureaucratic drone—so reporters will fall asleep and fail to file. An hour in Tuesday I expected the TV camera to slowly slide toward the ceiling, with the screen covered in a cameraman’s drool. “Mistakes were made.” “Our security plan was not properly executed.” Yes, you could say that of a story in which a nut with a knife burst into the White House and ran around the ceremonial rooms. Ms. Pierson neglected to mention in her testimony the story that would break shortly after she finished: Secret Service agents in Atlanta a few weeks before had allowed on to an elevator carrying the president a private security man, who reportedly jumped around taking pictures and was later found to be carrying a gun.

Ms. Pierson resigned after bad reviews of her performance. That’s a tragedy in the sense it’s tragic she wasn’t fired.

But does anybody in the government feel it is necessary to be truthful about anything anymore? Does anyone in the federal government ever think about concepts like “taxpayers” and “citizens” and their “right to know”?

Everything sounds like propaganda. That will happen when government becomes too huge, too present and all-encompassing. Everything almost every level of government says now has the terrible, insincere, lying sound of The Official Line, which no one on the inside, or outside, believes. The other day, during the big Centers for Disease Control news conference on the Dallas Ebola case, a man from one of the health agencies insisted in burly (and somehow self-satisfied) tones that the nation’s health is his group’s No. 1 priority. And I thought, just like a normal person, “No, your No. 1 priority is to forestall a sense of panic. To do that you’ll say what you need to say. Your second priority, connected to the first, is to assert the excellence and competence of the agency with which you are associated. Your third priority is to keep the public safe.”

Classic for that statement was Skidmore's laissez-faire attitude in the CASA segment of last Estimates:

Everyone who spoke was very smooth. “I think ‘handful’ is the right characterization,” said the CDC director to a Wall Street Journal reporter who asked if the sick man had contact with others before he was hospitalized. (That became “up to 100” the next day.)

The officials were relentlessly modern-bureaucratic in their language. They have involved all “stakeholders.”

Was the sick man an American or a foreign national? “The individual was here to visit family.” Oh. The speaker’s tone implied he’ll tell us more down the road if he decides we can handle it.

What about those who traveled on the same plane as the man, and which flight was it? “Ebola is a virus. It’s easy to kill if you wash your hands,” said CDC chiefThomas Frieden.You are only infectious once you are sick, not before.

Ebola will not, all agreed, produce a full-fledged American epidemic. “We are stopping it in its tracks in this country,” Dr. Frieden said.

That may be true. But nobody thinks it because government doctors and professionals said it. Americans do not have confidence in what The Officials tell them anymore.
This is not only because we live in a cynical age. In this case it’s because people know the truth always contains uncomfortable elements, and in the CDC news conference very few uncomfortable elements were allowed.

They say the only thing you have to fear is personal contact, but they shy away from clearly defining personal contact. They suggest it has to do with bodily fluids, so you immediately think of the man sneezing next to you on the train. They do not want to discuss the man sneezing next to you on the train.

They did not want to discuss who the sick man was, his nationality, exactly what flight he came in on. They are good to their global masters! Sorry, just reacting like a normal person. There was a persistent sense the professionals had agreed to be chary with information that might alarm America’s peasants and make them violent.

We are locked in some loop where the public figure knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and the public knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and we all accept what is being said while at the same time everyone sees right through it. The public figure literally says, “Prepare my talking points,” and the public says, “He’s just reading talking points.” It leaves everyone feeling compromised. Public officials gripe they can’t break through the cynicism. They cause the cynicism.
The only people who seem to tell the truth now are the people inside the agencies who become whistleblowers. They call a news organization, get on the phone with a congressman’s staff. That’s basically how the Veterans Affairs and Secret Service scandals broke: Desperate people who couldn’t take the corruption dropped a dime. What does it say about a great nation when its most reliable truth tellers are desperate people?

Sometimes it looks as if everyone in public life is in showbiz, only showbiz with impermeable employee protections. Lois Lernerof IRS fame planted the question, told the lie, took the Fifth, lost the emails and stonewalled. Her punishment for all this was a $100,000-a-year pension for the rest of her life. Imagine how frightened she was. I wonder what the Secret Service head’s pension will be?

A nation can’t continue to be vibrant and healthy when the government controls more and more, and yet no one trusts a thing the government says. It’s hard to keep going that way. - Ain't that the ducking truth -

   

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

The New Bureaucratic Brazenness
Official arrogance is the source of public cynicism.

 ENLARGE
 Martin Kozlowski

By
Peggy Noonan

Wall Street Journal
Updated Oct. 3, 2014 6:51 p.m. ET 648 COMMENTS

We’re all used to a certain amount of doublespeak and bureaucratese in government hearings. That’s as old as forever. But in the past year of listening to testimony from government officials, there is something different about the boredom and indifference with which government testifiers skirt, dodge and withhold the truth. They don’t seem furtive or defensive; they are not in the least afraid. They speak always with a certain carefulness—they are lawyered up—but they have no evident fear of looking evasive.

They really don’t care what you think of them. They’re running the show and if you don’t like it, too bad.

In context with the part in bold, a classic example from the PelAir cover-up inquiry was Beaker's 'shall' or 'should' bollocks with amended versions of Annex 13:

Unfortunately for Beaker Karma can be a bitch and this pathetic episode came back to bite and eventually led to Beaker having to admit that his administration got it wrong and the ATSB would be reinvestigating the ditching of VH-NGA:

However the swagger and arrogant 'don't give a rats' attitude was still evident and I have not seen anywhere that this Muppet has shown any remorse or compassion for the victims of PelAir -

And all this is a new bureaucratic style on the national level. During Watergate those hauled in and grilled by Congress were nervous. In Iran-Contra, Olllie North was in turn stoic, defiant and unafraid to make an appeal to the public. But commissioners and department heads now—they really think they’re in charge. They don’t bother to fake anxiety about public opinion. They care only about personal legal exposure. They do not fear public wrath.

Classic from recent Senate Estimates:

All this became apparent in the past year’s IRS hearings, and was pronounced in Tuesday’s Secret Service hearings.

Julia Pierson,the director, did not seem at all preoccupied with what you thought of her. She was impassive, generally unresponsive and unforthcoming. She didn’t bother to show spirit or fiery commitment. She was the lifeless expression of consultant-guided anti-truth.

No question was answered straight and simple. Everything was convoluted and involved extraneous data, so that listeners couldn’t follow the answer and by the end couldn’t remember the question. I am certain government witnesses do this deliberately—the rounded words, long sentences that collapse, the bureaucratic drone—so reporters will fall asleep and fail to file. An hour in Tuesday I expected the TV camera to slowly slide toward the ceiling, with the screen covered in a cameraman’s drool. “Mistakes were made.” “Our security plan was not properly executed.” Yes, you could say that of a story in which a nut with a knife burst into the White House and ran around the ceremonial rooms. Ms. Pierson neglected to mention in her testimony the story that would break shortly after she finished: Secret Service agents in Atlanta a few weeks before had allowed on to an elevator carrying the president a private security man, who reportedly jumped around taking pictures and was later found to be carrying a gun.

Ms. Pierson resigned after bad reviews of her performance. That’s a tragedy in the sense it’s tragic she wasn’t fired.

But does anybody in the government feel it is necessary to be truthful about anything anymore? Does anyone in the federal government ever think about concepts like “taxpayers” and “citizens” and their “right to know”?

Everything sounds like propaganda. That will happen when government becomes too huge, too present and all-encompassing. Everything almost every level of government says now has the terrible, insincere, lying sound of The Official Line, which no one on the inside, or outside, believes. The other day, during the big Centers for Disease Control news conference on the Dallas Ebola case, a man from one of the health agencies insisted in burly (and somehow self-satisfied) tones that the nation’s health is his group’s No. 1 priority. And I thought, just like a normal person, “No, your No. 1 priority is to forestall a sense of panic. To do that you’ll say what you need to say. Your second priority, connected to the first, is to assert the excellence and competence of the agency with which you are associated. Your third priority is to keep the public safe.”

Classic for that statement was Skidmore's laissez-faire attitude in the CASA segment of last Estimates:

Everyone who spoke was very smooth. “I think ‘handful’ is the right characterization,” said the CDC director to a Wall Street Journal reporter who asked if the sick man had contact with others before he was hospitalized. (That became “up to 100” the next day.)

The officials were relentlessly modern-bureaucratic in their language. They have involved all “stakeholders.”

Was the sick man an American or a foreign national? “The individual was here to visit family.” Oh. The speaker’s tone implied he’ll tell us more down the road if he decides we can handle it.

What about those who traveled on the same plane as the man, and which flight was it? “Ebola is a virus. It’s easy to kill if you wash your hands,” said CDC chiefThomas Frieden.You are only infectious once you are sick, not before.

Ebola will not, all agreed, produce a full-fledged American epidemic. “We are stopping it in its tracks in this country,” Dr. Frieden said.

That may be true. But nobody thinks it because government doctors and professionals said it. Americans do not have confidence in what The Officials tell them anymore.
This is not only because we live in a cynical age. In this case it’s because people know the truth always contains uncomfortable elements, and in the CDC news conference very few uncomfortable elements were allowed.

They say the only thing you have to fear is personal contact, but they shy away from clearly defining personal contact. They suggest it has to do with bodily fluids, so you immediately think of the man sneezing next to you on the train. They do not want to discuss the man sneezing next to you on the train.

They did not want to discuss who the sick man was, his nationality, exactly what flight he came in on. They are good to their global masters! Sorry, just reacting like a normal person. There was a persistent sense the professionals had agreed to be chary with information that might alarm America’s peasants and make them violent.

We are locked in some loop where the public figure knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and the public knows what he must pronounce to achieve his agenda, and we all accept what is being said while at the same time everyone sees right through it. The public figure literally says, “Prepare my talking points,” and the public says, “He’s just reading talking points.” It leaves everyone feeling compromised. Public officials gripe they can’t break through the cynicism. They cause the cynicism.
The only people who seem to tell the truth now are the people inside the agencies who become whistleblowers. They call a news organization, get on the phone with a congressman’s staff. That’s basically how the Veterans Affairs and Secret Service scandals broke: Desperate people who couldn’t take the corruption dropped a dime. What does it say about a great nation when its most reliable truth tellers are desperate people?

Sometimes it looks as if everyone in public life is in showbiz, only showbiz with impermeable employee protections. Lois Lernerof IRS fame planted the question, told the lie, took the Fifth, lost the emails and stonewalled. Her punishment for all this was a $100,000-a-year pension for the rest of her life. Imagine how frightened she was. I wonder what the Secret Service head’s pension will be?

A nation can’t continue to be vibrant and healthy when the government controls more and more, and yet no one trusts a thing the government says. It’s hard to keep going that way. - Ain't that the ducking truth -

   

Continued from off the UP -  

Lead Balloon - That's because they're now part of 'the protected'.

Here's a fine example of the government spending taxpayer's money in the public interest. The 'protected' sending out a warning. Don't ever embarrass the Pollie Protection Service - sorry - the Australian Public Service:
Quote:

Fraud investigator wrote helpful guide, found himself in court

An expert public service fraud investigator who published a helpful guide to government departments was charged with disclosing sensitive information, despite basing the book entirely on publicly available content.

The bizarre case came before Magistrate Peter Dingwall for sentencing on Thursday, and he had no hesitation in making a non-conviction order for the long-serving senior public servant.

"This is one of the clearest cases for [a non-conviction order] that I've seen in my 26 years being here," Mr Dingwall said.

The man had considerable experience in fraud investigation, studying it at length, working in the private sector and in government departments and at the Fair Work Ombudsman.

He had also served the community significantly in other ways. He was with the State Emergency Service during its response to the Thredbo landslide, and has spent 11 years in the Rural Fire Service.

The book, Australian Public Service Fraud Investigation, was written with the aim of recording his considerable experience and helping government departments prevent and investigate fraud.

He used information from his employment, but the entirety of the book's contents were based on publicly available information.

Strangely, he was charged and prosecuted for using a government database to help format and distil the material for the book.

His barrister Ken Archer said the allegations against his client were effectively that he breached intellectual property of the department.

"Your Honour will see from the documents that they are documents that are essentially, in my respectful submission, distilled from publicly available documents," he said.

The book sold 27 copies, before the department issued an objection.

The public servant immediately stopped publishing, and then cooperated fully with police.

"He did not commit the offence believing that it was wrong to have done so," Mr Archer said.

He was then charged with disclosing sensitive Commonwealth information, which carries a two-year maximum penalty.

The proceedings forced him to resign from his job, and he has had to seek psychological counselling and medication due to the stress.

The Commonwealth prosecution argued that the man should be convicted, saying it was necessary to deter others in the community from acting in the same way.

The prosecutor did not dispute the defendant's excellent character, but said that was common for public servants.

He conceded there was no harm flowing from the book to the department, but said the offence was not trivial.

Mr Dingwall rejected the prosecution's push for a conviction, finding it was a case that warranted a non-conviction order.

"The defendant was entirely motivated to pass on what he learnt in his extensive study to others who may benefit from it," Mr Dingwall said.

"In my view, the criminality is very low indeed."

&..

aroa - Those at the trough know only too well the way things work.
As they have said...' Ministers and pollies come and go...we go on forever.'

Case . Minister Truss, his ASRR He's gone. Its gone. Job done.

Public servants, my arsk...Self servants.

&..

CoodaShooda - I was talking to a public sectorite (note...not servant) yesterday when she mentioned that a particular decision had been made by the Acting Chief Executive of her department.

Having known the incumbent Chief Executive for nearly 40 years and not being aware that someone else was acting in his place, I asked the obvious question "Who's the acting CE?".

Her answer? "I can't tell you that!" - and she was serious.

(It took me five minutes to find its a chap I've only known for thirty years. Our next conversation will be interesting. )

I've been in the interesting position of being able to watch the establishment and growth of a new government and public service and then to mourn its creeping demise after the administrators changed its name from Public Service to Public Sector. It has long lost touch with the community it was established to serve and is a law unto itself.

& finally..

Lead Balloon - It is disturbing to watch the fabric of government slowly weakening and fraying. The SES (Senior Executive Service) should be renamed the PPS (politician protection service). They effectively work for the advisers and Chiefs of Staff in the various Ministers' offices - increasingly, just political hacks and wannabes.

The politicians' interest is now conflated for the public interest.

Most everyone below the PPS level is so afraid of doing something "unpopular" that they've lost touch with reality (e.g. your friend who was afraid to nominate the acting CE, as if it were some kind of state secret) or just keep their heads down for fear of being noticed.

Utopia and Hollowmen are documentaries.

MTF...

[P7_TOM]

You have to ask yourself if a great number of politicians, of any stripe, are not just becoming glove puppets for the mandarins. Seriously, look and listen to Cash – semi illiterate reading of whatever the ‘crats decide need to be said. It’s OK, I suppose if whoever is doing the ‘reading’ can articulate the words and get the emphasis on the ‘right’ words, then at least we could all be lulled into a sense of believing that the words were those of the speaker, not the ‘crat sitting behind. But as it stands, the back room boys may as well hire in a computer generated word and phrase speaker – like the ATIS thingamajig to speak the words. Then we could save a motza – just cut out the expensive mouthpiece.

Can you imagine the KPI bonus for removing the expense of having a parliament. 1984?

[Peetwo]

Evil Archbishop of GA purgatory -

Don't know what it is that Dr Jonathon Aleck has against the GA industry but one day when someone does the forensics on why the industry became extinct in Australia (while the rest of the World was having a renaissance of recovery in GA), they would find that all roads lead to Rome and the black Archbishop held the keys to GA purgatory :  

In 60 moves. 

Pawn to Rook 9.  Check mate.



Forget it P2; reform that is.  You will always have the pleasure of witnessing one of the greatest PR jobs in history though.  It is quite CASA’s best work to date.  The incredibly strong, well armed, booby trapped wall cannot be breached.  Even if it were, there are so many escape routes back to the next layer of protection that even if industry ever managed to gain a foot hold, the edifice would remain unscathed.

The Skidmore missive reflects this and the duplicity of which CASA are capable.  Behind the scenes, the minister and department are fed a story line ‘all’s well’, which they believe.  Meanwhile additional defences are being reinforced against the Forsyth review, which is almost a forgotten whisper, the CVD pilot matter, the ADSB matter, the Part 61 matter and the CAO 48.1 matter, which are all baited distractions to cover the lack of reform of the regulator.  There is no intention, none whatsoever within CASA to take a backward step on all or any of these aberrations.   Skidmore fully supports this, said so publicly, on the record.  I mean, Forsyth was just ‘an opinion’; CVD case wins can be appealed; the list goes on and on.  

I’ll say it again, just so there is no misunderstanding.  The sub structure underpinning the Skidmore duplicity has not, nor will not change.  The team below the top layer of window dressing is as venal, useless, unqualified and dishonest now as it ever was.  Their ‘team leader’ promoted to an almost untouchable level. The only ‘improvement’ you will see now increase in ‘prosecution’ rates; the AAAT is out as the venue of choice, court is now the preferred platform.  And, why not? Reverse onus, strict liability, increase in costs to defend, unlimited budget to prosecute; the CDPP to use as a cost saving instrument.  All in the name of ‘safety’, naturally.

The world and it’s wife knows who is the whispering voice behind the throne, the ventriloquist; the only thing that changes is the Dummy used to deliver the twisted logic and clear directions on how to reach Perdition – (a small hamlet, three miles South of Hell’s gate, see either Minnie, GD or myself to buy a one way ticket; there is no return service).

"Importantly, it will build stronger and more effective internal relationships ..."

Aye, but who has captured whom?  Exemptions anyone? They are free but you need to sing the little song printed on the back, OK.  There you go minister, another happy convert.  

Toot toot.

To carry on the theme of the evil Archbishop, the mystique of aviation safety whisperer, the root of all evil, the man who is always behind the scenes tweaking the strings of the former & current puppet Kings (DAS/CEO), yes that man who speak with a forked weasel-worded, legalese tongue - one Jonathon Aleck, from about 1 minute please take note of the following:

Senator STERLE: Right. And do I assume—which is always deadly—that VARA would have known from that very day that by 4 February 2016 they had to have the ADSB?

Mr Skidmore : Again, I cannot say what VARA was doing at the time, to say whether they knew exactly that. All I can say is that the legislation was put in place, and they should know.

Senator BULLOCK: Didn't you notify operations?

Senator STERLE: Don't you just say, 'Hey, you lot, if you haven't got this we're going to come and whack you on the head?' Don't you do that?

Mr Skidmore : We provide the information and we educate people regarding the legislation.

Senator STERLE: So when you educate them do you put out an email saying, 'Da-da! It's here. If you haven't got it by then we're going to get you'?

Mr Skidmore : I was not there in the time frame. I am not sure exactly what the process was that was followed.

Senator STERLE: That is what I am asking. There are a few familiar faces around the table who were. This is what I am trying to find out. We have this every time with CASA, I tell you. You know the pea? You know when you just move those pots around? We should just get rid of the pots. Does anyone know? How do you know what happens? Dr Aleck, you have been around a long time...

QON in isolation?

Strangely, even though the question on notice was previously asked of Skidmore and therefore should have made the question of JA null & void, a QON was registered (& answered with the obligatory 'refer to' reply), not in amongst the other associated QON but almost as an after thought, tacked onto the end of the CASA AQON:

QON 173

Senator Sterle, Glenn asked:

Dr Aleck: What I will tell you is that in the normal course, when a regulation is made, it has an effective date in it. When that regulation is published then anyone who knows of the regulation—it is incumbent upon an operator to be aware of it—knows what is the effective date. But I will add that our process has always been that when we are introducing new legislation—generally well before the legislation is made, let alone when it comes into effect—there is a campaign to make sure that those who are going to be affected by it are made aware of it. We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility. I should be very surprised if a major operator were unaware of the fact that a particular regulation that will affect their operations comes into effect on a certain date. What I cannot tell you offhand is what that date was.

Senator STERLE: Okay. But someone will be able to find out.

Dr Aleck: I am sure that is so, yes.

Answer:

See response to 163.

 
Ok and the response to 163:

Answer:

As indicated on page 120 of the Committee Hansard, CASA published the ADS-B booklet on its website and distributed it to industry in November 2012. The relevant Civil Aviation Order 20.18 Amendment Instrument 2012 (No.1) was signed on 16 August 2012.

This bit from Dr A IMO almost encapsulates the true (evil) underlying intent of the Iron ring puppet-master...

"..We can put it out there. We can hold events and we can put it on the website. But whether it gets into somebody's brain or not ultimately is their responsibility..."

In other words dare to question the Civil Aviation Safety big A-authority you will suffer the consequences...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Murky Mandarin & possible dodgy deals with KPMG -

Here we go again -   In what seems to be a common theme surrounding M&M's department & agencies, Sterlo in an abbreviated session with the department is sniffing around yet another possible dodgy deal & perceived conflict of interest issue. 

Continuing on from the bottom of my 'bump in the night' post (with additional Hansard), quoted here:

ASA at Estimates 05/05/16 - Hansard

Hmm...how come everyone else seems to have a copy of the AQON?? 
One other passage of more than passing interest, which I almost missed & on the subject of ASA, trough feeding, conflicts of interest and dodgy deals, occurred between Sterlo & Murky right at the start of the DoIRD session:

...Senator STERLE: Are you able to point us in what areas they are at this stage?

Mr Mrdak : In terms of the department itself, they predominantly range around some specific functions which could be considered for no longer continuing. Some areas that have been identified include the performance of some functions such as the administration of financial assistance to local government and other payment processes, which could be considered for centralisation in other areas of government such as the Department of Finance; and ceasing areas such as the department's performance of activities in maritime regulation, and whether that better sits with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. It also indicates areas where government may wish to consider larger structural changes, such as considering the future of Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: How?

Mr Mrdak : Whether the government wishes to consider future options for different governance and ownership arrangements for some of our statutory bodies, including Airservices Australia.

Senator STERLE: So that could be outsourcing?

Mr Mrdak : It could be or it could be looking at taking it into different ownership structures to what they currently are.

Senator STERLE: What could they be? The reason I am asking is: we all know for Airservices Australia there is no competition, and it is quite a bit of a money earner for the government. Could you shine a light for us on how that could be done in a different way?

Mr Mrdak : The Functional and Efficiency Review did look at international examples of where governments have placed their air traffic control provider—air services provider—in different governance structures, particularly the United Kingdom and Canada, where they have been placed in either part-private ownership or a not-for-profit government body. They were models that were looked at in the scope. The Functional and Efficiency Review recommended that we consider further options for the future of Airservices Australia..

Senator STERLE: So 'functions ceasing' is, as it suggests, 'How can we outsource certain parts of the department or work that is conducted by the department or agencies around the department?' Was there a flipside where there was a study looking at how you could bring stuff back?


Mr Mrdak : That was not an area that the functional efficiency review settled on as one of its 18 areas of action.


Senator STERLE: We will watch that space with some interest. The government is going into caretaker mode in the next couple of days, but is there an indication of when it will respond to that?

Urban developers & Secondary Airports; ASA & OneSKY with Thales/ICCPM; and now KPMG with their snouts in the trough. Where will it stop nobody knows but IMO it is high time there was a Federal anti-corruption body overseeing the trough-feeding pollies & fat-cat bureaucrats.  

Good to see that even with the sad departure of the Heff that Sterlo has absolutely no intention on easing up on keeping the bureaucracy on their toes & honest in Senate Estimates -

On the KPMG front it would appear they have their snouts firmly entrenched in more than a couple of other government fed troughs...

Courtesy the other Aunty... :

NSW council mergers: Court action over access to internal government documents
By Nick Dole
Updated Wed at 7:13pmWed 1 Jun 2016, 7:13pm

Lawyers for several New South Wales councils fighting forced mergers have alleged independent consultants engaged by the State Government were "doing the Government's bidding".

Key points:

• Local councils seek access to internal government documents
  
• Government documents suggest lack of independence by consultants, court hears
  
• Government barrister described request as an "abuse"
  

The forced mergers are under scrutiny in the Land and Environment Court.

Barrister for Strathfield Council, Tim Robertson SC, told the court that new documents suggested a "lack of independence" on behalf of consultancy firm KPMG.

"Rather than being an independent advisor to government, KPMG was intimately involved ... in order to do the Government's bidding," he said.

A document authored by KPMG for the Government, entitled Options Analysis – Local Government Reform, dated July 2015, suggests the firm was helping the Government build the case for council mergers.

"[Office of Local Government] has commissioned KPMG to support development of a robust evidence base to support the NSW Government's Fit for the Future agenda," the document said.

Greens MP David Shoebridge, who obtained the document, said it showed KPMG's review of the Government's modelled savings was not independent.

"KPMG were doing the modelling and came up with the initial savings and then they marked their own homework," Mr Shoebridge said.

During question time, Opposition Leader Luke Foley questioned the Premier Mike Baird about earlier statements that KPMG had performed independent analysis.

"What on earth was independent about the process?" he asked.

Mr Baird responded by accusing the Opposition of blocking reform.

Councils want to 'trawl through records' to find case

The councils have sought access to a range of government documents in the hope of finding evidence to support their claim.

They included departmental briefing notes and records of the meetings at which Local Government Minister Paul Toole was present.

The Government's barrister, Neil Williams SC, described the request as an "abuse".
He said the councils were "seeking to trawl through extensive records in the hope of finding a case".

However, Justice Tim Moore refused the Government's request to have the issue set aside and will consider the councils' request.

A spokesman for Mr Toole said analysis by IPART, Ernst and Young and KPMG all reached the same conclusion about the benefits of council reform.

"Each merger proposal was the result of careful consideration of all the evidence, of which KPMG's analysis and modelling was just one part," he said.

"KPMG's analysis and modelling of the merger proposals is entirely contained within documents that are publicly available."

Mr Baird has previously said he makes no apology for following the boundaries commission consultation process.

"Clearly councils have taken that opportunity in some instances to undertake legal action, that's their right to do it, I don't think they're doing the right thing by their ratepayers," he said.

"We will continue to push ahead, obviously we're listening every step of the way but what we're determined to do is the right thing by the ratepayers."

Council merger 'process flawed' critics say

Save our Strathfield spokeswoman Nella Hall hailed Justice Moore's ruling a victory.
"Finally, we can see a bit of justice coming through. It has showed that the delegates [process] is flawed," she said.

"The process is flawed and it gives us an opportunity to ensure that the process is done right, and done with transparency and democracy, because that has not happened."

On Tuesday, the Land and Environment Court halted the forced merger between Sydney councils Strathfield, Burwood and Canada Bay due to legal flaws in a report from a State Government appointed delegate.

Strathfield Council has decided to push on with the challenge to the forced merger in the Land and Environment Court.

Mosman, Hunters Hill, North Sydney and Lane Cove councils were also due in court on Wednesday.

The State Government created 19 new councils under its forced amalgamation program earlier this month, reducing 152 councils to 112 and sacking hundreds of councillors, and appointing administrators in their place.

The Government originally proposed to create 35 councils but said earlier this month it had delayed its decisions on nine of them because the councils involved had launched legal action.

&..from the Daily Telegraph:

State Government forced to give up KPMG merger documents to the NSW Land and Environment Court
June 2, 2016 1:12pm
Ian PatersonNorth Shore Times



Premier Mike Baird faces protesters against council amalgamations at Manly Beach. Picture: Braden Fastier.

THE STATE Government will be forced to hand over closely guarded documents relating to KPMG’s role in preparing and analysing council mergers.

Lawyers representing several councils — including Mosman, North Sydney and Lane Cove — have questioned the independence of KPMG during proceedings in the NSW Land and Environment Court as they sought to obtain various documents including Cabinet files and departmental briefing notes.

KPMG issued a statement this morning refuting any suggestions they did not act independently during their analysis of council amalgamations and said they used assumptions from previously published reports.

“Further to yesterday’s court proceedings, KPMG strongly denies any issue of independence in its work for the NSW Government regarding council mergers,” a KPMG spokesman said.

“KPMG has been involved in council merger processes in NSW and other jurisdictions. As a result of our expertise in this area we were engaged by the NSW Government, through robust and competitive processes, to assist in a number of aspects related to the council amalgamation process.

“In December 2015 the merger impacts and analysis report (prepared by KPMG) concluded that there is likely to be a net financial benefit following a merger of the councils under consideration. 

“The analysis was prepared using assumptions, which were made publicly available, to estimate the potential financial impacts of the mergers proposed by government. KPMG had previously analysed merger options, predominantly based on options proposed through the Sansom review — the findings of this work were consistent with other independent findings including those of IPART.

The result means Willoughby Council’s potential amalgamation partners could be embroiled in a protracted legal challenge.

The barrister representing Mosman Council, Tim Robertson SC, said a central part of their case had always been establishing the “lack of independence of KPMG”.

“The public and the delegate were being misled by the State Government over the independence of KPMG,” Mr Robertson said in court.

Premier Mike Baird and Local Government Minister Paul Toole during the announcement that 19 new councils would be created throughout the state. Picture: AAP Image/Stefanie Menezes.

“The documents that they have could prove the engagement (of KPMG) was not independent.

“KPMG was intimately involved in the formulation of proposals and the report had been done in order to do the government’s bidding.”

State Government barrister Neil Williams, SC, described the notice to produce as an “abuse” of the court process and urged Justice Timothy Moore to throw out the notice.

“They do not have a forensically specific ground for issuing a notice to produce,” Mr Williams said in court.

Lawyers representing Mosman, North Sydney, Lane Cove, Hunters Hill and Strathfield councils, have requested to view documents which include contracts signed by the State Government with KPMG, proposals prepared by KPMG for the government and any notes relating to the KPMG report.

The State Government’s proposed three-way merger between North Sydney, Willoughby and Mosman councils. Supplied.
They also requested to view all files and notes presented to the Minister for Local Government as well as all cabinet files relating to KPMG and the mergers and all departmental briefing notes given or seen by the Minister.

Justice Moore agreed to accept the notice to produce but ruled the documents requested would be handed over to the court first.

The judge will then review the documents before deciding, in consultation with the respective legal teams, whether there is sufficient public interests grounds to justify withholding them from the council’s legal team.

Mr Williams said it could take a week or up to a month for the government to produce the notes.

The hearing in the NSW LEC continues.

What is the report?

■ The KPMG report, prepared at a cost of $400,000, has been used to support the Baird Government’s amalgamation agenda

Why do the councils want the documents?

■ They say the documents will show the report was compromised and the independence of KPMG would be called into question.

■ This would make the government’s justification for merging councils invalid.

Kind of makes you wonder about the veracity of the statement from M&M??

Senator STERLE: ...Mr Mrdak, it is not hypothetical. Would it be fair for me to assume that there is a massive conflict of interest in having an external provider of services to the department review where the department is resourced to deliver government priorities?

Mr Mrdak : No. The government established the functional efficiency reviews to be independent reviews. They certainly did do a very independent analysis of the department and the portfolio. I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in the fact that they are a provider of other services. We selected KPMG on the basis of a tender process. They provided a proposal, which we accepted and contracted, to undertake the efficiency review.

&..

Senator STERLE: We have talked a lot about the 'pub test' since Mrs Bishop's indiscretions. There is a government department engaging KPMG to the tune of $600,000. You stated that part of the review was 'functions ceasing', so this same mob, KPMG, who have the $600,000 to look for where efficiencies could be found in outsourcing, are actually a client of yours to whom you are outsourcing certain parts of the department's work to the tune of $1½ million dollars. It is a bit like banning live cattle exports—if we ask all the processors, of course they are going to want to ban live cattle exports. I find that very conflicted. Senator Heffernan, the chair, might think I am wrong.



CHAIR: No.


Senator STERLE: This is why ask. A number of mobs out there could do the work that KPMG do. If I was the one issuing the contracts, foremost in my mind would be, 'This could look a little stinky.'

Mr Mrdak : I can see the point you are making. Ultimately, at the end of the day, the department has the opportunity to respond to the report and government will make the final decisions, but I do understand the point you are making. As I said, it was a thoroughly independent review and there was no suggestion that the review's recommendations are in any way tailored to future work possibilities for KPMG, in my view.

Someone as efficient, astute & reportedly competent as Mike Mrdak and he wants us to believe he wasn't aware of the potential perception of 'conflict of interest' in his department's dealings and the 'independence' issues with the NSW government dealings with KPMG - yeah right 'BOLLOCKS'!
Bring on a Federal ICAC, preferably yesterday but ASAP...   
MTF...P2