[Peetwo]

Chester the charlatan Transport miniscule - Part II 

Reference quote from LMH via Aunty Pru CMTP: Final LMH for 2016  

...TAAAF is not a bunch of mugs pushing barrows with their own names on them; they are the single united voice for aviation that Darren Chester himself lamented the lack of at the Tamworth rally in May. They are gaining strength with numbers and together have the industry experience and street cred that the government lacks at most levels. So, their call for a national aviation policy is far from a cry in the wilderness; it's a roar from the bleachers that should not be ignored...

Not many people will know this but Aunty Pru has delegated me with the most unenviable task of monitoring DDDD_MNFI's office media webpage, his personal website and his social media tweets etc. Now at about the same time as Hitch was publishing his last LMH for 2016, DDDD_MNFI released a presser that IMO personifies the true deceit and lengths that M&M's hand-puppet will go to save face and avoid embarrassment.

Via DDDD_MNFI (note the headline - ):

Government reducing regulatory burden on aviation industry
Media Release
DC234/2016
16 December 2016

• Future requirements for Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS) to be based on safety risk assessment
  
• The modernised regulatory framework will adopt a more systems and outcome-based approach to regulation
  
• Existing ARFFS regional airport operations will continue to operate under current arrangements.
  

The Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester outlined a number of changes to improve Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Service (ARFFS) regulatory arrangements at Australian airports, and confirmed existing firefighting and rescue services will remain in place at regional airports.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said following consideration of public and industry submissions to the Regulatory Policy Review, the Australian Government will make better use of risk assessments to inform future decisions about the allocation of ARFFS resources.

“We are committed to maintaining a safe aviation environment while seeking to reduce the future regulatory burden on industry and improve service delivery,” Mr Chester said.
“Future decisions about the establishment and disestablishment of ARFFS at Australian airports would be based on safety risk reviews undertaken after certain ‘trigger’ events occur.

“The Australian Government has no plans to close ARFFS at regional airports.

“In relation to existing ARFFS locations at our regional airports, these will continue to operate under current arrangements which is appropriate as several of these ARFFS operations and facilities have only been established in the last few years,” Mr Chester said.

“Stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment on the detail of the changes when amendments to the relevant Civil Aviation Safety Regulations and the Manual of Standards are drafted next year.

“Any future assessment of ARFFS will be underpinned by a robust safety management system which will reduce costs to the aviation industry and the travelling public.
“The final decision on the requirement for an ARFFS would rest with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA),” Mr Chester said.

Further information on the outcomes of the Regulatory Policy Review are available online: infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/arffs/index.aspx

    
Much like DDDD_MNFI's non-acknowledgement of the TAAAF Communique the day before and considering this is such a 'big' initiative by the Turnbull government, bizarrely 4D doesn't self promote this announcement on his twitter (don't mention the "A" word) account - wonder why that is...


No further comment required but there will be much, much MTF...P2

MTF..P2 - Today I intercepted the following tweets from Ben Morgan...

&..

Thanks to Ken Cannane of AMROBA and Mr Mike Higgins of RAAA for your time today in Brisbane, discussing GA reform with @PaulineHansonOz

MTF...P2
Ps P9 could it be KC & MH have got a rope on him??

[thorn bird]

It's really is sad. Every now and then reading the OZ over heart starting coffee in the AM something catches your eye,
the old mind cranks over, and you suddenly realise wow! thats relevant to us.

This AM an small article on in the OZ caught my eye.
Now some people might think okay upping the federal penalty units applied to sinners not obeying regulations, from $180 to $210 is no big deal, but I thought given the thousands of regulations that apply to our industry, and given the appalling complexity, obtuseness, and convoluted processes of actually understanding what the hell they mean or what the hell they are intended to fix, my warped thoughts wonder just what affect this will have on the industry.
Given the thousands who have already given up and looked for something else to do because its all just become too hard, I imagine there will be plenty who will do a "risk analysis", something our regulator pays lip service to, but completely fails comprehend what it actually means, and decide the risks, very real risks of being bankrupted, or worse given a criminal record for farting in the bath, which I'm sure is in there, somewhere, who the hell knows, and along with the thousands who have already done so walk away. What hope does the industry have?.

Given the ten commandments story on another thread "adultery is still in". Farting in the bath therefore must attract at least 50 penalty units, thats more than ten thousand dollars. Making an addition mistake in the log book, misreading a clearance, making a sharp manoeuvre to avoid a bunch of birds and there went the farm!! who in their right mind but a fanatic would risk that. Fanatic???? hang on, being dubbed a fanatic automatically labels you as a terrorist.

Given CAsA's warped thinking?? it doesn't sound so fanciful, I mean John Quadrio was destroyed and he wasn't even flying in the alleged video that convicted him.

Dick Smith was right, "get out now"..not because you'll go broke, which is highly likely, but the risks of becoming an inadvertent criminal are even more likely and for gods sake Don't Fart in the Bath!!!

Well done "do nutting Minuscule", you have just allowed your Murky Mandarin to put another nail in the industries Coffin.

[P7_TOM]

Troo dat Thorny. See above; there was a printing error in the latest run of the ERSA. The question which CASA will now ask; now it’s been brought, loudly and rudely, to their attention, is just how many pilots used the flawed manual – operationally?

Seems to me the final responsibility for ensuring all information is correct at the time of planning and during flight rests with – Um – no: lemme guess – the pilot? Has AOPA just created a cash cow for the ravenous CASA? It is that easy to land in the crap; truly, it is.

[Kharon]

Risk mitigation.

TB – funny you bring the ‘penalty unit’ into consideration; just been fiddling with a chart which attempts to define the legal ‘risks’ associated with operating a routine ‘charter’ flight Be 200), a ‘Rex’ style RPT (Saab) and a ‘heavy’ public transport service (738). I’ve only been working on it when time and mood permitted; you need to be in the right frame of mind to tackle it, lest you go nuts.

Where it all gets really scary is when you bring in the AFM, SOP, OH&S, company ‘policy’ and the SMS. If I ever get it finished I’ll send you a copy, guaranteed to send you sleep with nightmares. As PIC, the sheer weight of government ‘legal’ obligation is overwhelming, then you must add to that total the ‘extraneous’ obligations which hang off or depend on those same regulations. Without labouring the point, taking out a flight is now at a stage where you almost must seek legal advice, before even signing on for duty.

Flight risk mitigation has not changed much; improvements brought about by accident and incident are, by and large, embraced by industry.  But for every single improvement to in flight risk mitigation the ‘regulations’ have grown, on my current values, at a rate of 16 to one. That’s 16 ‘new’ rules from every accident which brought operational change. A classic example is the Civil Aviation Regulations; go back 30 years and find the ‘Regs’; then look at the ‘regulations as they stand today. It’s nuts, out of control and being promoted as a safety improvement.  I may yet get an I-pad with a direct link to a lawyer; can I accept this landing clearance – the jet ahead looks a bit too close to me? Will a ‘go-around’ cost me my job?  Flying ain’t that dangerous; it’s back on the ground where the real risks are found.

Toot - Downing – not waving - Toot.

[thorn bird]

CAsA are the worlds experts on "Liability" management, it is their entire focus. "Risk" Management however, they would not understand if it bit them on the arse.

Same with the Minuscule, he admits to knowing nothing about aviation, yet defers to his murky Mandarin for "advice", a bureaucrat equally ignorant of things aviation, but very well versed in liability management.

[Peetwo]

4D to the rescue -

“It is essential that any changes that are made are assessed against safety and risk considerations,” - miniscule Chester...

Off the DDDD_MNFI's thread P9 talks about the ever growing plethora of 'strict liability' regulations placing high red tape costs of compliance on industry, in what seems for little or no (in some cases less) actual safety risk mitigation benefit:  

Risk mitigation.

TB – funny you bring the ‘penalty unit’ into consideration; just been fiddling with a chart which attempts to define the legal ‘risks’ associated with operating a routine ‘charter’ flight Be 200), a ‘Rex’ style RPT (Saab) and a ‘heavy’ public transport service (738). I’ve only been working on it when time and mood permitted; you need to be in the right frame of mind to tackle it, lest you go nuts.

Where it all gets really scary is when you bring in the AFM, SOP, OH&S, company ‘policy’ and the SMS. If I ever get it finished I’ll send you a copy, guaranteed to send you sleep with nightmares. As PIC, the sheer weight of government ‘legal’ obligation is overwhelming, then you must add to that total the ‘extraneous’ obligations which hang off or depend on those same regulations. Without labouring the point, taking out a flight is now at a stage where you almost must seek legal advice, before even signing on for duty.

Flight risk mitigation has not changed much; improvements brought about by accident and incident are, by and large, embraced by industry.  But for every single improvement to in flight risk mitigation the ‘regulations’ have grown, on my current values, at a rate of 16 to one. That’s 16 ‘new’ rules from every accident which brought operational change. A classic example is the Civil Aviation Regulations; go back 30 years and find the ‘Regs’; then look at the ‘regulations as they stand today. It’s nuts, out of control and being promoted as a safety improvement.  I may yet get an I-pad with a direct link to a lawyer; can I accept this landing clearance – the jet ahead looks a bit too close to me? Will a ‘go-around’ cost me my job?  Flying ain’t that dangerous; it’s back on the ground where the real risks are found.

Toot - Downing – not waving - Toot.

However maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel because in recent days our excellently manicured & coiffured miniscule has put out presser headlines like: Government reducing regulatory burden on aviation industry 

And making statements like: “In particular, I am keen to see what improvements can be made ...to help alleviate regulatory and cost burdens in the general aviation sector..."

However as with all normalised deficient polly-waffles, there is a difference between the weasel words and the reality...

The cynical, bollocks DDDD_MNFI MR headline was already mentioned at post #160 and in the SBG - Government reduces aircraft noise. The quote above was taken from this presser yesterday:

Comment now on medical certification discussion paper
Media Release
DC243/2016
21 December 2016


Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester is encouraging Australia's aviation community to take part in a discussion about the future of aviation medical certification requirements.

“Today, a comprehensive discussion paper has been released setting out a range of medical certification issues and options,” Mr Chester said.

“This discussion paper forms the basis for any future consultation between CASA and the aviation community on potential changes to medical certification.

“I welcome this consultation process which is intended to streamline medical requirements for pilots in the future.

“In particular, I am keen to see what improvements can be made to the private pilot medical requirements to help alleviate regulatory and cost burdens in the general aviation sector.

“It is essential that any changes that are made are assessed against safety and risk considerations,” Mr Chester said.

Comments are due by 30 March 2017.

For more information visit: www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/review-medical-certification-standards

What is still 'passing strange', is that for a miniscule seemingly so engaged & enamoured with trying to proactively address industry's concerns with 'regulatory and cost burdens', he did not 'self' promote his attempted proactivity on either the above press releases or the now doomed possibility of a renewed search for MH370 - see: So, that’s it then.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

Ah well I suppose it is a good thing we have such a self-sacrificing, modest miniscule looking out for our interests and those of the MH370 NOK...    


MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

I don’t expect many of the CASA crew in the ‘drone’ department have noticed it, but the UK CAA have had a very clever UAV ‘operational’ awareness campaign running up the Christmas break, anticipating the increase in ‘traffic’. The information presented is easily understood and well distributed. The part I really like is the clever idea to run a photographic competition, pictures taken by UAV from 400 feet. What a proactive, sensible approach. Bravo UK CAA.

Meanwhile, in Australia, where, provided you don’t live too close to an airport, you can still drink the water; what do we get – pages of dribble about drone pizza delivery. What a load of old bollocks. In the first place, particularly around built up areas, as any chopper pilot will tell you, the wind shear and mechanical turbulence even in light wind conditions can be lethal. It takes a great deal of skill to ‘operate’ at low level. Now this pizza delivery service want to start using ‘self guided’ drones to deliver their dreadful product - at the end of a 30 meter ‘rope’. It is a silly idea, but, IMO, even sillier are those who take a publicity stunt seriously and even respond in the press. Automatic, self guiding drones doing sling loads on GPS, in all weather conditions – Bwah hah hah.

UK CAA sane proactivity starkly contrasts the moronic, half baked CASA do nuthin approach.

Minister, the help you need is not available from CASA; get some before there is an incident.

[Gobbledock]

Tommy;

Automatic, self guiding drones doing sling loads on GPS, in all weather conditions – Bwah hah hah.

Tom, automated drones? It will all end in tears. Just look at the Tesla automated car cases - deaths, accidents, shenanigans. The automation of machines will be our downfall.

Drones in the hands of the wrong people are a disaster in the making. Especially when the drone, operated by a kid or an adult imbecile meets a couple of hundred tonne on short finals.

[Peetwo]

Is it a bird, is it a plane? - no it's 4D once again to the rescue -    

Reference:

4D to the rescue -

Ah well I suppose it is a good thing we have such a self-sacrificing, modest miniscule looking out for our interests and those of the MH370 NOK...   

&..

On the subject of drones, I came across this Popular Mechanics article about what *really* happens when drone meets aircraft.
I always figured they'd be nothing like birds..

Drones strikes are not like bird strikes—they're much, much worse.
[/url]
GIF

Author Copy Created with Sketch.    

By David Hambling
Dec 22, 2016

The skies are getting crowded.

The FAA says that reports of near-misses between drones and planes have surged since 2014, with as many as 650 cases as of August 2016. Last month an airliner narrowly avoided hitting a drone near London's tallest skyscraper. Dubai airport has been repeatedly shut down by drone activity, and low-flying drones are increasingly disrupting firefighting aircraft in the western U.S.

Sooner or later, those near-messes are going to become hits. So experts from the U.S. and U.K. are recreating these deadly scenarios before they wreck real-world consequences, hoping to nip this 21st century problem in the bud. New studies by the FAA and its European counterpart, the EASA, are looking at computer simulations and running physical tests to understand the problem and prevent disaster.

Mechanical Geese From Hell

What actually happens when an aircraft runs into drone? While some continue to believe drones are no more of a danger than one stray goose, new studies are showing that drones are more like mechanical geese from hell when it comes to commercial and low-altitude helicopters.

"Impacts from drones are not the same as impact of birds," says Javid Bayandor, associate professor and director of the Crashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab at Virginia Tech.

Drones are more like mechanical geese from hell when it comes to commercial and low-altitude helicopters.

Bayandor's simulations show exactly what happens when drones and birds meet a choppy death by jet engine. An airliner's engine would dice up the smallest commercial drones without much of a problem. But as these mechanical birds grow bigger, things get more dangerous.

Drones are made of materials much denser and stiffer than soft tissues and muscles of geese and other airborne animals. Simulations show that when a bird goes into an engine, it's essentially liquidized by spinning blades, like a macabre episode of "Will It Blend." Not so with a drone.

"Birds can disintegrate relatively easily...you get something like a very viscous bulk of fluid on the other side" says Bayandor. "A drone can be like a rock going through the engine."

That can mean immediate damage, leaving an engine blade deformed, broken, or completely fragmented, as shown in the above animation. Even where there is no initial damage, the sheer momentum of a larger drone can cause the engine to become unbalanced. This unbalance can escalate, and the blades may start hitting the casing that contains them. The engine ricochets back and forth inside its casing and the damage grows into a real problem.

Luckily, engines are designed to withstand some damage from stray objects, and the high-speed fragments thrown out by such events would likely be contained within the engine. "In general, the casing is designed so that it can also act as a shield between fuselage and engine," says Bayandor.

However this protection is not a given. Modern engines are not designed to gobble up drones, and models have already shown some unexpected results, such as the dramatic difference that the location and angle of impact can make.
But it's not just engines we need to worry about.

Break on Through

Across the Atlantic at Cranfield University in the U.K., Professor Ian Horsfall spends a lot of time "throwing things at other things" using different kinds of exotic cannons. He leads the Impact and Armor Group, and recently began simulating the aerial battle of drones versus aircraft.

• 
  

Impact and Armor Group testing facility at Cranfield University with specialized cannon, left, and mock nose cone.
Cranfield University

To test a drone impact with an airliner during take-off or landing—the most likely times for such a disaster, since it's when planes are closest to the ground—Horsfall developed a 4-inch-caliber cannon with a ten-foot barrel, powered by compressed air and capable of firing projectiles at 200 mph. While some other tests fired real dead birds–leading to an aviation urban myth all its own–Horsfall's project used blocks of gelatin as stand-ins, like the ballistic gelatin used to test the effect of gunshots on flesh.

To simulate drone impact, Horsfall created a projectile which mimics the physical properties of a drone, with components of the same size and weight (as seen in the top GIF). There are four grape-sized steel cylinders instead of motors, nylon blocks standing in for circuit boards, a camera, and drone batteries. These components were then encased in a Styrofoam block to recreate the similar weight and structure of an average commercial drone.

Tests showed that mock drones won't damage an airliner's windshield. However, the radome, the circular cover over the radar at the aircraft's nose, isn't so lucky. While simulated birds of the same weight just bounce off, a drone can become embedded or even tear right through the radome. It is the hardness of some of the components rather than the weight that matters.

Fire Danger

• 
  

Cranfield University

The other big issue is a battery's annoying tendency to burst into flames when damaged. To recreate this effect, Horsfall used a gun designed to fired a chisel blade at a drone battery. After a few seconds the damaged battery heated up and soon started burning fiercely. If the battery was lodged inside a radome or embedded in a plane, a fire could be the catastrophic icing on a tragic cake.

While most attention remains focused on airliners, thanks to the dramatic near-misses at the airport, other aircraft are in greater danger of drone strikes. Horsfall says helicopters and light aircraft have far more to fear from drones because their windshields are not as strong and are more likely to be flying at the same altitude as drones, especially when fighting fires. While airliner windshields are unlikely to be broken by bird impact, there have been cases where helicopters have been lost because of a run-in with a flock of geese. Drones will only make matters worse.

• 
  

Aftermath of a 200mph drone strike.
Cranfield University

Bayandor and his CRASH Team will be presenting two papers giving the full results of their research – including a detailed study based on their review of a hundred and fifty different types of commercial drones – at the [url=https://www.aiaa.org/EventsLanding.aspx?id=79]AIAA in January. Meanwhile, Horsfall is planning to upgrade his laboratory set-up, including a dedicated range for testing drone and bird strikes full time.

Many new measures, such as flight regulations, restrictions on drones, and sense-and-avoid systems are needed to ensure safety of shared airspace. But accidents will happen, and Bayandor says that drone impacts will need to be a part of future engine design, just like bird and hail strikes.

"Drones are here to stay," says Bayandor. "This is just the beginning."

Excellent catch Wannabe, choc frog is in the mail...

A rather more 'independent' approach to UAV/RPA safety issue research, than that of CASA with their fully funded interned boffin's reports - see Drone deaf and bone idle. - which they apparently based their whole 'safety case' for the amended CASR Part 101..
 
Reference CASA submission pg 8 & 9:

The Part 101 amendments consultation process

38. CASA consulted with the public and industry on the amendments that are now in effect between 14 May 2014 and 16 June 2014. Revisions to the draft regulations were endorsed by the UAS Standards Sub-committee (UASSC), which includes representatives from the RPAS industry as well as CASA, Airservices Australia and major Australian airlines.50 In developing the amendments to Part 101, CASA commissioned two research studies by Monash University—

(a) Potential damage assessment of a mid-air collision with a small UAV.51 This report analysed the damage potential to manned aircraft from a mid-air collision with a small unmanned aircraft. The scenarios of engine ingestion and impacts into fuselage and cockpit windscreen were considered.

(b) Human injury model for small unmanned aircraft impacts.52 This report described an injury prediction model for the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground. The model provides estimates of injury severity as a function of the RPA’s mass and impact velocity.

39. CASA took studies such as these into account in developing the amendment regulations including the Standard RPA Operating Conditions. CASA considers the regulations, supported by published guidance and safety educational material, assist in minimising the likelihood of a person or another aircraft being hit by an unmanned aircraft.

---

51 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/potential-...all-rpapdf

52 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/human-inju...impactspdf

Fantastic article and great research by the Cranfield crew. It's just a pity that the inept, incompetent and incapable CAsA won't have their eye on the ball when it comes to this issue as they are always 10 years behind the rest of the world!

And shhhhhh, don't tell Hoody about this study, he will be thinking that Drone impact upon aircraft is just a 'light touch', a 'gentle caress'.

TICK TOCK

 - Passing strange but today miniscule DDDD_MNFI actually took time out from feeding from the taxpayer funded trough, to unselfishly raise public awareness on the safety issues  surrounding drones... :

Stay safe flying drones this Boxing Day
Media Release
DC248/2016
26 December 2016


Drones were one of the top Christmas presents of 2016 - but along with the fun of flying there’s a responsibility to stay safe, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said.

“If you were lucky enough to unwrap a drone make sure you have read the safety rules,” Mr Chester said.

“These rules protect people, property and aircraft from any potential risks.”
Drone safety rules are simple, easy to follow:

• Keep the drone more than 30 metres away from other people;
  
• Never fly the drone around crowds or groups of people;
  
• Keep the drone in sight at all times; and
  
• In major cities fly the drone below 400 feet (120 metres).
  

“If people flying a drone see a low flying aircraft nearby they should land their drone immediately,” Mr Chester said.

“Never fly close to an airport or place where aircraft regularly operate, such as helipads.
“Many drones have the rules included in the packaging but it is important to check you have them.

“If in doubt the rules are available online on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s website.
“Heavy penalties apply for those who break the rules,” Mr Chester said.

To download the drone safety brochure visit: 

https://www.casa.gov.au/files/rpabrochur...l150dpipdf
Find comprehensive safety information on flying recreational drones:  https://www.casa.gov.au/modelaircraft

 
Unlike the three stooges (Comardy, Hoodlum & Harfwit) it is refreshing to see the self-sacrifices our miniscule is prepared to go to in making the public aware of the potential dangers of operating in the de-regulated drone zone -

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

4D's ticking time bomb on drones -

A day after miniscule DDDD_MNFI came to the rescue with his drone safety message the Oz came out with another drone related article:

..A sharp rise in the sale of drone aircraft is putting pressure on the Turnbull government to shield Australians from threats to their privacy, as federal MPs warn of the risks from cheaper devices with increasingly powerful ­cameras.


A government decision to ­reject tougher privacy laws has ­ignited a debate over the spread of airborne devices with zoom cameras, turning the issue into a political flashpoint in the year ahead.

The privacy debate adds to a push in federal parliament for stronger safety measures to keep drones away from buildings and people, after the Civil Aviation Safety Authority last year relaxed the rules on recreational craft lighter than 2kg.

“With lower cost and higher quality drones on the market, their prevalence is continuing to increase drastically,” said Liberal MP Michael Sukkar, who heads the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security.

“It’s therefore even more important that rules to protect the community’s privacy and safety are updated to keep pace with these changes.”...

This was 4D's non-committal, caught between a rock and a hard place contribution to the article... :

Transport Minister Darren Chester said consumers had a responsibility to consider the safety and privacy of others as “the penetration of drones into our lives will increase in the years ahead.

“It’s a question of making sure we get the benefits without the negatives.”

However if the miniscule would care to listen, from the Senate Estimates thread "K" provides a timely back to Reason & reality wake up call for 4D:

Ducks; all in a row then?

...It is however, unacceptable that the Australian agencies pose, preen, pretend and spend a lot of money selling the notion that they are ‘world class’. There has never been a better example of this than the stark, black and white difference between what the ‘real’ safety agencies do and the Australian aping of them. It has so far been; and, probably will remain, a disgraceful, expensive exercise demonstrating how truly inept the second rate service provided to a nation really is. Thank the gods we have a caring, intelligent, knowledgeable, proactive minister to take charge and sort out the mess. (ROFLMAO)...

..Aye; the new, officially sanctioned catch phrase for 2017 - "DUCK".

And Binger provides 'free of charge' a real expert industry view on what the aviation safety bureaucracy feel is acceptable safety risk mitigation laws on drones:  

Binger on Submission 11 VIPA (PDF 251 KB) & 34 Qantas Group (PDF 275 KB) -

Via the Oz today:

Drone law ‘may spur collisions’
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
Pilots from Qantas and Virgin say easing the rules around drones could lead to collisions with passenger jets.

Pilots from Qantas and Virgin Australia have hit out at laws that deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes.

The warnings come as a Senate committee investigating the safety implications of the new rules — allowing commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg — received close to 70 submissions.

In its submission, Qantas chief pilot Richard Tobiano said the airline feared increasing numbers of untrained and uneducated drone pilots could jeopardise the airline’s operations.

“The Qantas group remains concerned by the prospect of a collision between an RPA (remotely piloted aircraft) … and an aircraft, particularly within the vicinity of airports. Against this context, it would be opportune for the airline industry to confirm best-practice processes in managing the ramifications of an ­incident ahead of time,” he said.

Mr Tobiano, as well as chief ­pilots from Jetstar and QantasLink, said it was imperative that law enforcement agencies and regulators collaborate to identify and prosecute rogue pilots who flout regulations and put aircraft and people’s safety at risk.

“As with lasers and model rockets, this regime should involve education of — and strategic and tactical co-ordination between — state and federal law enforcement agencies, local ­government and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).

“Critically, it must also include a comprehensive suite of offence provisions and penalties to ­ensure general and specific deterrence,” said Mr Tobiano.

Qantas provided computer simulations with its submission showing that while significant damage to an engine would occur following a drone collision, such an ingestion would be unlikely to result in a serious incident. However, the airline said a drone collision would still pose a “significant source of risk to aircraft operations.” “Given the combustibility of some batteries and the ingestion of the device itself, the ­damage that such an impact would cause to a turbine engine and/or to an aircraft full of ­passengers and fuel could be very significant,” Qantas said.

Under the recently relaxed rules, from September 29, commercial operators flying drones under 2kg no longer need approvals. The amendments still will ­require operators to obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, not above 400 feet, not within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and to always have visual line of sight of the drone.

But the amended rules mean drone operators can fly into controlled airspace as long as they are 5.5km away from airports.

Pilots from Virgin Australia’s union, VIPA, also warned of the risk that deregulating the commercial operation of drones weighing less than 2kg could pose to passenger jets.

“Launching a drone close to an airport, particularly in proximity to an uncontrolled aerodrome, exposes aircraft (which are often jet powered) to the risk of collision which could result in substantial damage, loss of control and potentially, loss of life,” said VIPA president John Lyons.

“Collision with an UAV could be considerably more dangerous than striking a bird.”

According to the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association — which represents more than 5000 professional pilots — there have been more than 160 sightings in the past year of drones in airspace that should be free of any collision risk. “By way of illustration of what we might expect in the future, albeit from the admittedly much larger US market, the FAA now receives about 100 reports a month from pilots who say they’ve seen drones flying near aircraft and airports, compared with only a few sightings per month last year,” the association said.

“It allows virtually uncontrolled recreational operation and minimal control of commercial operations of the sub-2kg category and, while there are rules in place, there is no requirement for training, licensing or registration of these RPAs, many of which are capable of operation at high speed and at considerable height.”

Tick..tock indeed 4D -



MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

C'mon P2, what would Qantas and Virgin pilots know? They just fly planes. The Minister knows better cos he gets briefed by real experts such as Pumpkin Head, Wingnut and Hoody, plus the NFI Minister has publicly mentioned that drone users must be responsible. Tick. Problem fixed. Nothing more to see here, everyone go home and sleep tight.

[Peetwo]

4D in the hunt for a distraction??

Although road trauma and the national road toll are all disturbing and carry stories of major tragedy at a completely indiscriminate and personal level for many Australian families, other than Federal funding for roads or regulating for the national heavy vehicle industry (i.e. Trucking industry), safety risk mitigation is largely the responsibility of the State and Local governments.

Well no, not according to our immaculately groomed and manicured miniscule DDDD_MNFI who apparently seems to think it is within his power to shame the average Joe Public parent into buying their recently licensed 'love child' with the latest, greatest and safest in automobile transport...

Here was 4D's journalistic masterpiece in yesterday's Herald Sun:

Road safety is a national issue and quality of cars is crucial
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/1cb000f614776c9e1dcb8bda991d0dce?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=HeraldSun&td_device=desktop[/img]DARREN CHESTER, Sunday Herald Sun
January 10, 2016 12:00am
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/1cb000f614776c9e1dcb8bda991d0dce?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=HeraldSun&td_device=desktop[/img]
DOUBLING demerit points or increasing fines for drivers who break the law in an attempt to reduce the road toll is too simplistic and just lets governments off the hook.

It’s too easy for governments to blame drivers and launch advertising campaigns or police blitzes when the causes and public health impacts of road trauma have to also consider improving the safety of the road network and the quality of cars people drive.

It’s clear: safer drivers in safer cars on safer roads will save lives and reduce serious injuries.

It’s time for a focused national approach and practical action from all levels of government to reduce the toll. The National Road Strategy 2011-2020 made the point succinctly: over the past several decades, Australia has earned an international reputation as a model country in many areas of road safety intervention. But the overall performance in recent times has not kept pace with the achievements of other developed countries, and there is a need for a major shift in thinking.

Governments must stop thinking it’s about drivers and the community must stop accepting the inevitability of the road toll.

Road trauma costs Australia roughly $30 billion per year. But the social impact of about 1200 lost lives and countless injuries is huge. In Victoria alone, 257 people lost their lives in 2015 and road trauma will cost the economy $7 billion.

Everyone has been touched by the road toll; it is a national public health disaster. But we seem content for each state to have its own strategies on driver education, enforcement, advertising campaigns and road construction.

It is bizarre that we can’t even agree on the best graduated licensing system with individual states adopting individual approaches to training learners and even the age at which licences become available. States also have different methods for alcohol and drug testing, speed limits, use of speed cameras and the demerit point system. We should be able to bring together research and agree to harmonise our licensing and enforcement systems to optimise road safety across state borders.

But that doesn’t even touch two of the other key issues: improving the safety of the road network and getting drivers into safer cars.

Technology can help the driver avoid crashes or minimise the severity of injury in an accident. However, the average age of the Australian vehicle fleet of 10 years means it takes several years for the benefits of innovations to flow to the second-hand market.

The Federal Government could ban the importation of vehicles that don’t meet specified safety standards under the ANCAP star rating system to improve the quality of vehicles on our roads. But we will need incentives to get drivers into safer cars at a faster rate and increased enforcement of roadworthiness standards.

A safer car may turn a serious injury into a minor one and save the health budget billions, so why shouldn’t governments consider ways to subsidise the purchase of safer vehicles, particularly for young drivers? Young drivers face the highest risk of accident in their early years of driving but which usually coincides with them driving the worst car of their lives.
And that leaves us with the road and transport network itself.

Our aim must be to prevent road crashes and if they still occur, to minimise their consequences and extent of injury for all involved.

Duplication of major highways, installation of road safety barriers, widening road shoulders, better lighting, tactile line marking, improved signage and increasing the number of rest areas are all strategies being rolled out through various local, state and federal initiatives. But again, there is a lack of consistency across state borders and no national narrative.

Supporting rail freight upgrades to take some traffic off our roads, improving public transport links and providing dedicated cycling lanes also have a role to play.

It is the right time for a national debate about road trauma but we should demand more from all of our governments and focus on building a safe system, not just blaming drivers for the road toll.

DARREN CHESTER IS THE FEDERAL MEMBER FOR GIPPSLAND

And this was the subsequent media appearances that 4D has done since:

Transcript—3AW Melbourne Mornings
Subjects: 2016 Road trauma, Road safety
02 January
interview
Transcript—ABC Statewide
Subjects: 2016 Road trauma, Road safety
02 January
interview
Transcript—2UE Sydney Breakfast
Subjects: 2016 Road trauma, Road safety
02 January
interview
Transcript—ABC Statewide Drive - VIC
Subjects: 2016 Road trauma, Road safety
01 January
interview
Transcript—ABC 24
Subjects: Road safety, Infrastructure funding, January 1
01 January
interview

 
Ok 4D I'll admit that is an admirable cause but while your calling for a national debate on the issue could you also show a similar proactivity - instead of weasel words - to help halt the national decimation of a once proud and productive aviation industry - FDS...

Or perhaps 4D you should consider sending your CV to Premier Daniel Andrews, although I do believe he already has a Transport Minister...  
      
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Of impassioned speeches and the Cinderella effect

Bravo Miniscule bravo! Such a robust speech filled to the brim with empty promises. What a deadset idiot. Tell us something we something we don't know numbnuts, like; better roads, training, other infrastructure and the harmonisation of laws and and standards nationally would improve safety and cut down on economic waste! Here's a thought; how about YOU as the Miniscule start actioning the fixes that you mentioned? And you can fix the skies while you are at it.

You can see this fools 'journalist' background shining through can't you? He speaks the words of a $1000 per night whore. He must have had half a chubby while writing that Nobel Peace Prize puff piece!

Imagine if Chester provided brand new Government funded limousines, LTD's and chauffeur driven Comcar's  to our kiddies and provided them with the same smooth pothole free roads such as you find around Parliament House and within the city of Can'tberra? Or if you paid our kiddies the same remuneration and tax free benefits that you arseclowns earn? Safety first alright!!! Of course they could all afford new cars.Oh how delightful and safer it would be. But this fools forgets that one can pay $30k to $100k for an average new car and the medium house price in Sydney is over $900k. How the fu#k could our kids ever afford to buy a new car when the above numbers combined with their shitty $8.00 per hour part-time Hungry Jacks salary? But yes I agree with harmonisation - harmonise all the taxpayers salaries, perks, benefits and paid rorts with Politicians remuneration and generous conditions. Sounds like a good idea to me!!!

Put your money where your mouth is Minister, I double dare you. Either that, or wake up from your fantasy and get out there and taste the real world where normal people exist, unlike your Can'tberra matrix and fantasy world tightly cocooned inside its bubble.

P7 – tack on - The fantasy of a $1000 experience always trumps the reality; in Spades. CF and a big smile.

[Peetwo]

Perhaps DDDD of NFI D should forget about watching his own visage and study a real statesman; hard at work for 'her' country. There are some outstanding Senators, from all parties, who could teach the mister much. Selfies are all well and good, for private consumption; but, want make friends and influence people – watch a winner.

Fiona Nash (sans Pete) full throttle. Bravo.

More of Senator Nash, less of Barnaby's photogenic filter please...

Via the Oz today:

Regions vital to our continued economic prosperity: Fiona Nash

• Joe Kelly
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM January 5, 2017
  
• @joekellyoz
  [img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/c1e593b57554afc1c3bc4d1f516c297b/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

Nationals deputy leader Fiona Nash has called for a strengthening of decentralisation policies after research from the Grattan Institute revealed nearly half of new jobs growth in the past decade was in capital city centres.

Senator Nash, the Minister for Regional Development, said yesterday it was critical to back rural Australia, noting that the regions produced 67 per cent of the ­nation’s exports and were respons­ible for 45 per cent of domestic tourism — factors she said helped to drive the national economy.

“Regional Australia provides the water, the food, the electricity that powers our cities,” she said.

“We can’t have a strong Aus­tralia without … strong regions.”

The research showed the ­regions were getting a dispropor­tionate share of infrastructure funding, with Sydney, representing about 22 per cent of the national economy, absorbing 5 per cent of federal infrastructure spending in the decade to 2015.

The findings cast doubt on whether the government’s policies to create more economic opportunities in rural Australia, including the Coalition’s decentral­isation agenda, were delivering results, with jobs growth weakening in outer suburbs and regions.

The Coalition’s policy of decentralisation has seen several government agencies relocated from Canberra to the regions, with Senator Nash saying the policy should be expanded to help back in the development of rural Australia.

“We have to back ourselves, back the regions and, where we can, look to strengthen that decentralisation policy,” she said.

Agencies affected by the policy include the Grains Research and Development Corporation, split between Toowoomba, Dubbo, Perth and Adelaide, and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, which has shifted to Adelaide.

The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority is being moved to Armidale, in the electorate of Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce; some have condemned that move as a $25 million exercise in pork-barrelling.

 
MTF...P2

Ps

[Peetwo]

POC - NX vs DDDD_MNFI

Over on the NX thread the Ferryman brings up an interesting 'point of comparison', that will probably be totally ignored by our trough feeding AIOS inflicted pollywaffles yet again. However for future reference and the Aunty Pru archives, here is the chain of posts (slightly abbreviated) leading up to the K_POC :

Saint Nick on the pollywaffle bottomless trough -

Via the other Aunty... :

Punishment for breaching entitlements 'like being slapped with a wet piece of lettuce', Xenophon says
By Julia Holman
Updated Mon at 3:04pmMon 9 Jan 2017, 3:04pm
Photo: Nick Xenophon said some politicians feel 'they're a class apart' from Australians. (AAP: Mick Tsikas)

Nick Xenophon says both parties are guilty of ignoring attempts to reform entitlements rules, and that Coalition and Labor are colluding to make sure that politicians' perks are not taken away.

Key points:

• Senator Xenophon is calling for major overhaul of entitlement system
  
• Says "current rules are like being slapped with a wet piece of lettuce"
  
• Suggests Australia look at UK system, where an independent authority monitors and reviews politicians' expenses
  

The Independent senator from South Australia said he proposed a bill in 2015 that would have meant harsher penalties for breaches of the entitlement rules, but it was rejected by the Coalition and Labor.

He said the current punishment for breaching parliamentary rules were far too lenient.

"What dismays me about all this is back in 2015 I introduced a bill following the chopper-gate scandal involving Bronwyn Bishop that would have led to more transparency, an independent watchdog, greater financial penalties, the public having a right to complain, and also monthly disclosures of pollies perks, yet that was rejected out of hand by the major parties," he said.

"When I see the Labor Party saying that Sussan Ley's head needs to roll, it makes me sick because they're part of the cabal as well."

He said the current entitlement system was a joke and that there needed to be a major overhaul, including a financial penalty of up to four times the amount claimed if MPs are found to have breached the rules.

"Right now, the current rules are like being slapped with a wet piece of lettuce," Senator Xenophon said.

"We'll keep having these inquiries out of the Prime Minister's office, we'll keep having ministers standing aside and politicians being embarrassed, unless and until we have a new system in place."

"We need to break that cosy cabal, and the way to break it is to have an independent watchdog, and insistence that MPs have to have heavy financial penalties if they do the wrong thing.

"It's a cosy little club, they get entitlements and perks that the rest of the country doesn't get, and that's why we need to shake up this system so it will bring some pollies down to earth."

Of emptying political troughs

Nicks passion and determination is admirable, and he would no doubt have the support of most Australians in any quest to make Politicans accountable for their actions and to force the removal of their 'special rights' that the rest of mankind are not subjected to. However the chances of making Politicians loose their 'trough privileges' has about as much chance as Turnbull Sachs donning a blue singlet and becoming a blue collar worker living out at Redfern.

The day that Nick makes it all happen, the removal of the 'wet lettuce leaf' replaced by the 'spikey pineapple', is the day that Bill Short'one, Dick-togs Abbott or Turnbull Sachs lay straight in bed. It will never happen. It would also become the day that Nick starts wearing Kevlar and checking out every grassy knoll that he drives past!

We all eagerly await the outcome of any proposition mooted by Saint Nick with baited breath, however that particular clock ticks ever so slowly!

Tick $$$$ Tock
Oink

Statesman v Trough dweller.

GD – “We all eagerly await the outcome of any proposition mooted by Saint Nick with baited breath, however that particular clock ticks ever so slowly!”

Don’t like ‘stats’ very much; slippery things and deceptive. But, FWIW the first AP NX post made 19/03/2015 and as of this morning has 27,868 ‘views’ : there is not one negative remark aimed at Nick; and, appreciation of the good work done by both he and his Senate colleagues is clearly reflected in those remarks. Credibility gained, trust earned and due respect freely given.

Then, we look down the list to Chester’s line.  The first DDDD post was 14/02/16 and as of this morning has 29,818 ‘views’ with nary a good word said.  Beginning with a clean copy book and a line of credit, the incumbent has, in a short space of time, quickly lost all credibility, destroyed the trust and respect which could have been so easily gained. Had the man been properly advised; or been prepared to listen to industry, then the stats would tell a very different tale today. As it is; well the minister is just another useless, trough dweller blithely and blindly destroying an industry by supporting and relying on one of the world's worst civil aviation administrations.

Aye, lies, damned lies and statistics – all telling the same tale.

Toot – toot.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update to 'snouts in the trough' -

Yesterday's announcements - of inevitable pulling the pin by 'Ley down Sally err..Sussan' and 'Malcolm in the Middle' finally doing something to close the tap (just a little) on the seemingly unlimited trough gorging going on in Can'tberra - all prove that 24 hours in politics is a bloody long time...

So here I am trying to catch up, 1st via GD a Pickering offering...

An example of 'snouts in the trough' Pickering style!

Only Larry can highlight the disgusting long term trough dwelling habits of politicans in a succinct yet humourous manner. Susan Ley and Tony Bourke;

LEAVE ME ALONE
... I'm only doing what comes naturally
Larry Pickering
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
BLOG / FACEBOOK

---

Tue 10 Jan 2017 10:20:47 am/1512 COMMENTS

---

Having a bonk buddy on the Gold Coast creates a problem for any red blooded Canberran politician. Nothing happens on the Gold Coast that interests Federal politicians except gigolos and hookers. Sussan Ley can justify a flight to Brisbane, then a comcar to the glitter strip to visit some er, “clients” of the welfare budget who happen to live not far from the bonk buddy's bin-cleaning business.
 
But an upgraded hotel room with champas in bed is more appropriate for important people. 

The trouble starts when Sussan has a sudden urge to buy an investment property while there. It makes a lie of why she originally said she was there. Therefore she can’t take the comcar back to Brisbane. She has to pay for a cab fare with her comcar following dutifully behind her. Oh dear.

The Press gallery has very little to amuse itself over the new year period so the little darlings pore over Senate Estimates to see how politicians have been misspending our taxes. Only Liberal politicians take their interest of course, otherwise Labor’s Tony Burke would be sharing Eddie Obeid’s cell.

Burke flicked his wife and kids to enjoy life between the legs of his young attractive office mail girl, a Ms Laris. (Well, she looks sort of okay if you squint your eyes a bit.)
 


Their whirlwind multi-Continent tour (holiday) cost taxpayers exactly $225,000. But the Press gallery doesn’t want to upset the wrong Party and the Libs won’t mention it for fear of retaliatory revelations by Shorten or Wong.



Regardless both the budding love birds travelled first-class along with two departmental officials with Mr Burke’s out of pocket expenses totalling an extra $48,951. 

On return, Burke promoted Ms Laris from mail girl to chief of staff on triple her salary and he stipulated that from then on his new love must accompany him on all of his domestic and overseas trips. And she does. 

Wow, one of them must have been a damned good shag!

But this is how it works for the average member and every politician does it: There is a wedding you simply must attend on 14/10/2017 at Nar Nar Goon, Vic. But there is no way that you intend paying the cost of getting to and from there, because you are important. 

You are an important politician! I mean does Barack Obama pay for the 747 that takes him to his golf lessons?

So you get your secretary to phone the local Nar Nar Goon Lions Club (note phone, do not leave an email trail just yet) suggesting the Federal politician will be in Nar Nar Goon on the weekend of 14/10/2017 and if the club president would kindly send a letter asking the politician to address the Lions meeting, the politician will be only too happy to accept. 

The letter duly arrives and your secretary duly accepts the request (this time by official email) and voila, suddenly all the costs of attending the wedding are now met by the taxpayer, plus a free inedible Lions’ dinner that you excuse yourself from eating, plus accommodation and all you have to do is talk shit to a few blank faces for 20 minutes.

I mean a comcar driver can now take you from Tullamarine to Gippsland and return with free accommodation for the weekend and the politician can of course arrange for upgraded accommodation, all on the taxpayer.

Just ask Tony Abbott, he knows how it all works, but Malcolm Turnbull is rich and doesn’t need to take any risks.

And you thought “swindle dockets” were only used by travelling salesmen?

Good luck Nick. Poliies are like cockroaches and not even a nuclear war could stop their mission. In this case, hoovering the taxpayer of every last cent!

Gobbledock's reference to NX is quite opportune because the next offering is from Saint Nick courtesy the Advertiser (Ps Luv the cartoon.. ):

Cartoon by Roy

[/url]Opinion
[url=http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion]Nick Xenophon: Thanks to Sussan Ley, it’s no wonder so many Australians feel they’re being played for mugs
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/cce48b1c715d7edca0b7fcb0dd5e0f84?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=AdelaideNow&td_device=desktop[/img]
Nick Xenophon, The Advertiser
January 12, 2017 9:30pm
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/cce48b1c715d7edca0b7fcb0dd5e0f84?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=AdelaideNow&td_device=desktop[/img]
ENOUGH is enough. No wonder so many Australians can’t stand politicians, and in the process lose trust in our democratic institutions. No wonder so many Australians feel they’re being played for mugs.

The latest pollies expenses scandal – triggered by stood-down Health Minister Sussan Ley and her “impulse” buy of a Gold Coast apartment while claiming parliamentary travel expenses – shows what a shemozzle the system is.

And maybe it tells us a deeper truth about how out-of-touch the political class can be with the rest of the community. How can pollies be trusted to fix the nation’s problems when we can’t even get our own house in order? It doesn’t have to be like this.

Pollies do need to travel to do their jobs.

But the current system is as clear as mud, and too often (like now) the mud seems to be sticking to all politicians.

I’ve found Sussan Ley personable and decent to deal with as Health Minister and she claims “I have nothing to hide – I have not broken any of the rules”.

The problem is, the rules are broken and, with it, the public’s trust. There being no less than four independent reviews into pollies’ perks in the past five years – including an Auditor-General’s investigation in 2015.

The most recent review – with its findings released last February – was triggered by the Bronwyn Bishop “Choppergate” scandal in 2015.

Remember that? Bronwyn Bishop had billed taxpayers $5227.27 for an 80km helicopter flight from Melbourne to a golf course in Geelong to attend a Liberal Party function. At the time, then PM Tony Abbott said he wanted the system overhauled with a “root and branch” review to make the rules clearer.

media_cameraHealth Minister Sussan Ley faces continuing scrutiny over her travel entitlement claims. Picture: SIMON DALLINGER

Channelling Mick Jagger’s “well this could be the last time”, Tony Abbott told an Adelaide radio station “I hope it’s the last time” the party was rocked by such a scandal.

But the root and branch review, instead of being a big stick to reform the system, has turned into a twig.

With its 36 recommendations, it called for increased transparency and made the quaint point that some parliamentary travel had been “inside entitlement but outside community expectations”. Translated from bureaucratic language, it means they failed the pub test.
Increasingly, it seems a lot of claims will be laughed out of the pub before they can be tested.

Back in September 2015, I introduced legislation into the Senate that would have established an independent watchdog for pollies’ expenses, required monthly reporting that goes online for all to see, and given taxpayers the right to complain to the watchdog and significantly increase penalties for non-compliance.

Currently, an MP caught out on a dodgy claim only has to pay back the amount of the claim with a 25 per cent penalty. It needs to be at least double – and four times as much for repeat offenders.

There’s nothing like pinching a pollie’s hip-pocket nerve to make them change.
Back then, the major parties said my Bill wasn’t necessary because of the Abbott-instigated review. A lame excuse given this review and three others like it had been ignored.

Next month, I will reintroduce the Bill and my warning to colleagues is: ignore it at your peril.

Of course the Pickering post and the NX article was all before MIM's MR & press conference yesterday, which suggests that the power of the press and NX can be a strong motivator for proactive action when your the PM...

MTF...P2  

Ps Q/ Does this mean our GA frequent flying miniscule DDDD_MNFI Chester is going to have drive himself home at the end of each parliamentary sitting week??


 
 


Surely not, after all he is the miniscule for transport and needs to be seen to be promoting a sector of the industry that he oversees...


Pps Hmmm...hope his books are all in order, not a good look if Barnaby was to lose his photogenic filter...

[Gobbledock]

Snouts in the trough Part 2

It's impossible to keep up with the greediness of the political vermin, however a recent article had a Top 10 trough swillers list and it was worth sharing here. So stand by with the bucket because you are going to need it;


1. STATIONERY KING

KEEN correspondent David Feeney, the Labor member for Batman, spent $152,125.33 in total on “office administrative costs” in 2014.

The Shadow Minister for Justice blew almost $100,000 went on “printing and communications”, including $2225 on 40,000 personalised letterheads in October.

Feeney has a history of loving an old-fashioned missive. Before he became one of the “faceless men” who plotted Kevin Rudd’s overthrow in 2010, he complained to the then-prime minister about a 25 per cent cut to MPs’ printing allowances.

2. BIGGEST BLOCKHEAD

RENOVATION shows are pretty addictive, and South Australian MP Tony Pasin must be even more devoted to The Block than us. He spent a record half a million dollars fitting out his Mount Gambier office, which must have some very special vintage wallpaper.

The Liberal MP’s office cost around $150,000 more than any other this year, but he’s not the only politician with an eye for interiors. We spent more than $4.5 million on fit-outs and upgrades for more than 100 MPs and senators between July to December last year, nine costing more than $250,000. Jacqui Lambie’s Tassie office was second-priciest at $357,000.

The Lodge is currently being refurbished for an expected $8.8 million, and taxpayers previously shelled out $450,000 for Julia Gillard’s Adelaide office fit-out after she was deposed as PM.

Mr Pasin defended his spend, saying the work done was “similar to equivalent newly established premises for MPs”, particularly in regional locations where there are no existing offices.

And in case you were concerned the furniture would pale in comparison to the distressed oak floorboards, the Barker MP also spent $140,130.84 on facilities and $117,512.49 on administrative costs. Now that’s a Reno Rumble.

3. A ROOM OF HIS OWN

SCOTT Morrison also likes a stylish office, spending more than $200,000 on office facilities, where even the Prime Minister only needed $92,973.20.

Sure, that includes power, repairs and maintenance — but it doesn’t include his administrative costs, which reached almost $80,000.

The Minister for Social Services has been questioned over facilities before. In July 2014, the then-Immigration Minister was at the centre of an uproar when it emerged the government had spent $330,000 on a room it had not used in the ten months since it had been refitted. The room, which was apparently intended for border protection media briefings, boasted an $800 doorknob and $10,000-a-month audio visual equipment, plus $30,000 rented stage lights.

4. GRAPE MISTAKE

BISHOP isn’t the first Speaker to run into controversy over their expenses. Peter Slipper won an appeal against three dishonesty convictions over reports he falsified records in order to claim $954 for taxi fares on winery visits.

He racked up more than $8000 on his parliamentary gold travel pass ­between July and December last year, two of the trips to Canberra coinciding with his court appearances.

The controversial gold pass gives retired MPs a certain number of free flights each year.

The most famous traveller among ex-MPs is former Nationals leader Ian Sinclair who, according to the ABC, took more than 750 taxpayer-funded flights, costing more than $250,000.

5. JOURNEYMAN

NORTHERN Territory Senator Nigel Scullion was last year’s leader in spending on domestic airfares, racking up a solid $73,476.99.

And some of his flights were expensive — a trip from Darwin to Melbourne on 21 September cost him $2,011.39. The same journey on that date this year is currently a modest $300 with Jetstar, and around $1000 flying business class with Virgin Australia.

A trip from Canberra to Sydney cost him a rip-off $1,645.66 on 4 September, and a flight from Melbourne to Canberra came in at $491.54 on 22 August.

On the 27 September, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs dispensed with ordinary flights entirely, spending $14,727.27 on a charter flight from Darwin to Katherine.

6. ANYWHERE I LAY MY HEAD

WARREN Snowdon used $43,615.00 in travel allowances, which covers overnight stays in locations other than their home base. He also spent more than $50,000 on domestic airfares, $13,000 for charters and more than $50,000 on cars.

The Lingiari MP also spent $5000 on family travel, but all those nights away from home still pushed up the phone bill, with the Labor MP also coming in top for telecommunications, at almost $10,000.

Snowdon is another letterhead fan, with 42,000 pieces of the stationery coming in at $3200 in July last year.

7. TRAVELLING IN STYLE

BISHOP’S chartered chopper caused uproar, but she’s not the only MP who loves VIP travel.

Warren Truss is the biggest fan of the luxury option, spending $67,117.27 on it last year, with one Canberra to Brisbane trip costing him $21,570.00 on 13 May.

On September 27-28, the Maryborough MP took chartered trips from Hervey Bay to Roma, Roma to Birdsville, Birdsville to Thargomindah and Thargomindah to Gold Coast, costing taxpayers $24,420.

Charter trips are intended for use when a commercial fare is more expensive, not available or not feasible.

8. FAMILY FIRST

PETER Dutton spent a not-insignificant $28,537.53 on family travel last year, mainly between Brisbane, Canberra and Cairns.

While we admire his dedication to his clan, the member for Dickson certainly spends a large amount on keeping them close by.

Family travel has caused headaches for others, from Burke (see below) to Gillard, who repaid $4243 for her partner’s use of a taxpayer-funded vehicle. Pyne is also under scrutiny for charging taxpayers more than $5000 to take his wife and two of his children to Sydney for Christmas in 2009.

What is the nature of the journeys it is funding for friends and relatives?

9. WHOLE LOTTA LOVE

AND now to the past week, in which Labor frontbencher Burke has landed in hot water over a four-day family trip to Uluru in 2012, when he argues he met with members of the Mutitjulu community and managers of the national park as environment minister.

The Labor MP has also said he will pay back $90 in Comcar fares he charged taxpayers to travel to a Robbie Williams concert in 2014, which was work-related because he met with the promoter as an opposition MP. There was also controversy over him charging taxpayers $48,951 for a six-day ministerial trip to Europe, including first-class flights for a senior adviser who is now his partner.

The Shadow Minister for Finance has been further criticised for using the PM’s luxury jet to attend meetings over three days that didn’t conveniently align with commercial flights, costing the taxpayer $16,000.

10. FLIGHT OF FANCY

FINALLY, back to Bishop, who sparked this new expenses debate after her resignation, following her chartering of a chopper to a Liberal fundraiser 80km away (by road). She certified her “spectacular’’ entrance to the Clifton Springs Golf Club last November to fundraisers as being for “official purposes” as Speaker.

There has also been discussion around another $6000 chartered aircraft trip to Nowra, and two weddings in 2006 and 2007. She claims that as well as attending the nuptials, she held secret­ discussions with confidential sources in her capacity as chairwoman of parliamentary inquiries. Abbott also claimed for Sophie Mirabella’s wedding, but later refunded the $1000 in travel expenses.

Bishop has also spent more than $260,000 in chauffeured cars and limousines in recent years.

TIME FOR ACTION

THERE may be excellent explanations for some of the apparent liberal spending with taxpayers’ money, but many of the categories are so broad, it’s hard to nail down exactly where our cash has gone.

If office extras are costing tens of thousands, our MPs must be buying an expensive brand of biscuits.

We’re calling for detailed breakdowns and justifications of where the money has been spent. If, as Pyne maintains, MPs are “following the rules”, then perhaps the rules are too lax.

The UK faced a massive scandal in recent years over MPs blithely charging taxpayers for mortgage repayments on second homes, ornamental duck ponds and moat cleaning. At the other end of the scale, MP Rob Wilson was ridiculed for claiming 9p (19c) for a 322m car journey and 60p for his bicycle.

British MPs claims are now vetted by an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which caps annual spending.

Of course, no one is suggesting Australian MPs are as out of control as the Russians, who had to question how President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov could afford a watch worth more than half a million dollars after he wore the expensive piece at his wedding.

It’s time Australia stopped being so generous with MPs’ expenses and made our politicians accountable to the public.

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics...f547bee3f0

'May your trough floweth over'

Oink oink

[Peetwo]

4D on SIO (MH370) swells & bottomless troughs -

Two days ago the well manicured & coiffured, photogenic filter miniscule 4D was in excellent form and firmly on script with the 'snouts in the trough' and MH370 shambolic scandals...

Courtesy DDDD_MNFI_Chester:

Transcript—ABC Drive
Interview
DCI010/2017
13 January 2017
Subjects: Entitlements, MH370.

Warrick Long: We are joined by Darren Chester, who is the Minister for Transport in the Government and also a National Party Member. Welcome to Drive.

Darren Chester: And good afternoon to you Warwick.

Warrick Long: What do you make of the Prime Minister's announcement today, Sussan Ley has resigned?

Darren Chester: Well two things Warwick, first of all I'd have to say I am disappointed that a work colleague who has done her best to represent her electorate and perform well in the Health Portfolio has resigned. I feel sad for Sussan because I regard her as a good member of Parliament who has worked very hard, but I understands that in this job you are held to the very highest of standards and if you make mistakes whether it be inadvertently or deliberately, if you put yourself in a position where you have made errors of judgement you pay a very heavy price and in this case Sussan has paid a very heavy public price and she has been subject to some pretty harsh commentary as well. But at the end of the day I think she had to make that decision and it is the right decision for her to make and I accept that, but in terms of the Prime Minister's announcements regarding the need for an independent parliamentary expenses authority and for greater scrutiny and transparency, I think they are good moves, they are welcome moves. I think the public desperately wants to have more confidence and see more clarity and transparency in the system and I think these will be welcome moves.

Warrick Long: Do you worry about your own travel expenses; you are a Minister in the Government. When you see a colleague in a similar position lose her job?

Darren Chester: Absolutely Warrick, I have two of my staff members who check my travel claims before I sign them and I can stand here and say to you I'm very confident we have done the right thing and haven't broken any rules. But It is all very well for me to say I have got confidence, the public needs to have that confidence as well. I think that is where we run the risk in recent times with the coverage in the media and the views being expressed by a lot of people that their annoyance with the current system, that they want to see more clarity, they want to see more transparency and they want to have confidence in the system that workplace related expenses are being properly claimed and we need to make sure that happens. I think the Prime Minister's announcement today will be a very welcome step in that direction.

Warrick Long: According to Sussan Ley's resignation she hadn't broken the rules either?

Darren Chester: Well this is the troubling part Warrick, as I indicated to you, I have got two of my staff check my claims before I even make them, and I can put my hand on my heart and say I believe we haven't broken any rules or made any mistakes but sometimes mistakes may have been made, now whether they were inadvertent mistakes or errors of judgement are there for others to decide. I think the move the Prime Minister has made to provide greater transparency and greater clarity will be very welcome. It will certainly be welcomed by MPs I believe, it will be welcomed by their staff and it will be welcomed by bureaucrats who right now have to enforce the current system which has a number of grey areas which are difficult to negotiate and potentially easy to get wrong and when it goes wrong you see some very public fallout as we have seen in recent days and I think the announcement by the prime minister is a very welcome step.

Via the SMH:

Cabinet minister Darren Chester picked up keys to new investment property on taxpayer-funded Melbourne trip

Matthew Knott

Turnbull government cabinet minister Darren Chester completed the purchase of an investment property on a taxpayer-funded trip to Melbourne in which he also attended the Australian Open tennis and a soccer match.

Stood aside Health Minister Sussan Ley's frequent taxpayer-funded trips to the Gold Coast, where she bought an $800,000 investment property, have reignited debate about whether politicians' entitlements are too generous and whether the lines between personal and private business are too blurred.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has accepted Sussan Ley's resignation from his frontbench amid revelations of her travel to the Gold Coast and use of expensive charter flights. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.

The expense system will be streamlined, with the aim to make it clearer and more transparent, after Sussan Ley travelled to the Gold Coast on official business and bought a unit. Courtesy ABC News 24.

According to Mr Chester's register of interests, he purchased a two-bedroom unit in Ivanhoe, a leafy suburb in north-east Melbourne, while on official business on January 27 2016. A spokeswoman said this was the date of settlement for the property and that Mr Chester collected the keys to the unit on this date.

At the time Mr Chester, now the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, was the assistant minister for defence.

Related Content

• 
  Government to pursue rule changes to MPs' expenses in 'first half of 2017'
  
  
• 
  Ley billed taxpayers to travel to New Year's Eve party with 'job queen' and donor
  
  

Mr Chester claimed travel allowance, worth $876, for January 26 and 27.

A spokeswoman said Mr Chester's official business included representing the government at an Australian Defence Force enlistment ceremony at the Shrine of Remembrance on January 27.

After attending several Australia Day events in his electorate of Gippsland, Mr Chester attended a football match that night between the Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC at the invitation of Victory chairman Tony Di Pietro. The following night he attended the Australian Open quarter finals as a guest of Qantas.

Mr Chester's spokeswoman said the visits to the football and tennis were part of Mr Chester's official business over the Australia Day period.
 
Transport Minister Darren Chester settled an investment property purchase while on a taxpayer-funded trip in Melbourne.  Photo: Andrew Meares

"The Minister declared the events on the register of interests, and is confident that his travel was in accordance with the rules," the spokeswoman said.

"The Minister did not claim accommodation in late November when in Melbourne to purchase the unit."

Mr Chester bought the apartment on November 28, the spokeswoman said.

Mr Chester's cabinet colleague Sussan Ley stood down from the ministry on Monday following revelations she bought a luxury apartment while on a taxpayer-funded trip to the Gold Coast.

Ms Ley, who said the purchase was "neither planned nor anticipated", has agreed to repay her claims for the trip as well as other trips to the Gold Coast.

"I realised that my purchase of the unit changed the character of the occasion to one of a more personal nature and I should have adjusted my claim accordingly," she told reporters on Monday.

It has also been revealed that three government ministers - Attorney-General George Brandis, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield - billed the taxpayer to travel to a New Year's Eve party hosted by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. The other ministers who attended the event did not charge taxpayers.

Acting Special Minister of State Kelly O'Dwyer on Tuesday said the "parliamentary expense system needs to change" and that the government would take action this year.

"A clear definition of what official business is is obviously at the centre of the changes that need to be made - and will be made - by the government in order to give the Australian people confidence that their hard-earned taxpayer dollars are respected and they can have confidence in the system," she said.

Follow us on Twitter

Warrick Long: And you have been named in articles this week about picking up some keys when you're on a work trip. What is it like waking up and seeing your name in this controversy and an article written about you…

Darren Chester: Well, I was quite…

Warrick Long: Was that fair?

Darren Chester: I'd suggest I was quite unfairly named in that regard in the sense that I was in Melbourne on work related activities and I ran an errand to pick up some keys for a unit I'd bought two months earlier. Now, I'm not sure that that really should have been linked to a whole range of other conversations that were going on that day but the media has its job to play and that is to report the news and I'm not convinced that my picking up the keys to a unit was necessarily news but that's a bitter pill for me to swallow, I'm big enough and ugly enough to manage that. I'll get on with my job and pick myself up and do my job to the best of my ability.

Warrick Long: Even though you think it was unfair, what's it like when suddenly you're launched into a wider Government scandal?

Darren Chester: Well politicians are humans too and I'd have to say some of the comments that have been made about Sussan Ley on social media in particular have been quite appalling. I mean, Sussan is a Member of Parliament who has worked hard and been elected by the people of Farrer on several occasions. And to see some of the language and some of the comments directed at her, very personal and unnecessary comments. I think, you know we have got a challenge in Australia, we need to make sure we can have these robust and rigorous debates about important issues of public policy without descending into name calling or the type of language we have seen in recent days. I hope we can get ourselves over this and build more confidence in the system. Because, I actually, I believe that being a Member of Parliament, whether you are Labor, Greens, Independent or Nationals is a very esteemed role and one that you take on with all seriousness and I think we need to try and rebuild that public trust in the roles we do. And I think the Prime Minister's announcement in the last hour or so are part of that process of rebuilding that confidence and trust in the public and then they can rely on their members of parliament who've been sent to do a job in Canberra, are doing that job to the best of their ability.

Warrick Long: Here's the Prime Minister today:

The Government believes that the work expenses of Parliamentarians including Ministers, should be administered and overseen by an independent agency. It will monitor and adjudicate all claims by MPs, Senators and Ministers, ensuring that taxpayers funds are spent appropriately and in compliance with the rules.

It has certainly been a damaging week for the government, particularly so close in the memory of those in the community of the ‘choppergate’ scandal with Bronwyn Bishop. Another former Coalition Government Minister, do you think this is enough to rebuild some of the faith that has been lost in your government?

Darren Chester: I'd go a step further Warrick. I'd say it's been a damaging week for all Members of Parliament, whether it be at state or federal level. We have a job to do where we need to rebuild public trust and confidence in the integrity of the system. I think Australia is a better nation when politicians are more highly regarded and I think there is a process we have to go through; we have to raise ourselves to the standards the Australian people expect from us. I think the independent authority announcemed by the Prime Minister is a very welcome step in the right direction and I just hope the Australian people can come with us on that journey that it won't be seen as a bit of window dressing, it will be seen as a genuine attempt of reform so that we can rebuild that confidence and trust which I think is important for this great democracy that we have.

Warrick Long: A final question on this, Sussan Ley has gone, Arthur Sinodinos is in her stead in the interim. The Government does have a former Health Minister sitting on the backbench, Tony Abbott. Should he be considered for this job?

Darren Chester: Nice try Warwick, it is not my job to tell Prime Minister who should come into Cabinet. I am there to serve as the Member for Gippsland and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. If I get to continue in that role I will be very happy but it is up to the Prime Minister to pick his team.

Warrick Long: Would you have a preference though?

Darren Chester: No, it is up to the Prime Minister to pick his team. I won't be telling the Prime Minister how to pick his Cabinet.

Warrick Long: Let's move on to the issue at hand which we had had a long standing commitment to talk to you about—it is one of the great mysteries in the modern era is what happened to flight MH370, which disappeared in March 2014 without a trace and we have really been searching for it ever since, but that search is about to cease. Can you tell us why that search is about to wrap up?

Darren Chester: By way of background Warwick you are right the aircraft went missing almost three years ago now and the undertaking by the Chinese, Malaysian, and Australian governments as part of a tripartite agreement was to search the 120,000 square kilometres highest probability area which the research indicated was the most likely place that we would find MH370 and then on the completion of that search area to suspend the search unless we had credible new information leading to a specific location of the aircraft. Now we are getting very close to the completion of that search area and tragically we need to prepare ourselves for the sad reality that despite this enormous search effort and despite bringing together experts from Australia and around the world to analyse the data we may not locate MH370 at this stage or in the foreseeable future and that is a very sad and a very tragic fact.

Warrick Long: So when will the search end?

Darren Chester: There is one vessel searching now in an area which is located about 2,600 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia. The vessel is out there on station at the moment—the Fugro Equator it is called—and we expect it will complete its search efforts in the next couple of weeks depending on weather conditions. It is worth reminding people the search area is located in a very inhospitable part of the world. It is a long way off the West Australian coast, there have been occasions during this search effort where sea states have reached 20 metres high. They are searching water which is up to six kilometres deep. So in many ways it has been an extraordinary search which has really tested the edge of scientific knowledge and technical capacity, but also testing human endurance so that is going on at the moment as we speak. But sadly and tragically MH370 may remain as one of aviation's greatest mysteries, as you indicated.

Warrick Long: And just on that if you stop the search do you worry about fuelling conspiracy theories really forever as people continually speculate on what actually happened to the flight. There has been talk of Russian intervention, US intervention, it is not hard to find a conspiracy about MH370 as soon as you get on a keyboard. Do you worry about that?

Q/ Is the MH370 search & parallel investigation being conducted in direct contravention of ICAO Annex 13?

References, No1: What now for the JIT Annex13 MH370 investigation? 

PAIN & the IOS witnessed, throughout the PelAir cover-up inquiry and Senate Estimates, many instances of where Beaker and the ATSB simply took the Mickey Bliss, let alone the spirit and intent, on many of their so called obligations to ICAO Annex 13.

Example:

Now as much as the ATSB propaganda line seems to imply a degree of separation between the MH370 JIT Annex 13 investigation and the SSWG defined MH370 SIO search, there is much evidence to the contrary that says they are very much inseparable...

&..

Update to - "..damn them as asks it..."

Here I sit at my truly beautiful desk, surrounded by a life time collections of ‘technical’ manuals and such other wonderful books I have been able to hold; all parked on book shelves made by the same hand which ‘created’ this remarkable desk.  Were it my son, my friend; or, even my enemy, would I want the search to continue? 

What a bloody fool question that is; and, damn them as asks it.

Courtesy Creepy via Yahoo7 & the West Oz:

Halt MH370 hunt at your peril, ocean expert warns
Steve Creedy
Saturday, January 14, 2017 3:45AM
US wreckage hunter Blaine Gibson with a piece of wreckage from MH370.

"Australian Transport Minister Darren Chester, his Malaysian counterpart Liow Tiong Lai and China’s Yang Chuantang said last year that the search would end in the absence of credible new evidence leading to a specific location for the plane".

Darren Chester: My role as the Minister is not to second guess the experts. Our responsibility through the ATSB has managed the underwater search efforts and I understand there are a lot of theories but the absence of finding the aircraft you are going to have various amounts of speculation put forward. But we owe it to the families—there were 239 passengers and crew and of which seven of those people on board called Australia home. We owe it to the families to do the best we can and we are doing that. It is a very difficult question though when you talk about do you extend the search area; we have a responsibility to continue to search the area we specified through the tripartite agreement—that was the meeting in July in Malaysia that I attended. In the absence of any credible new information leading to the specific location of the aircraft we simply don't have that information with us today so I guess you are right in saying that there will be theories and speculation which will abound but it is not up to me as the Minister to second guess the experts. I can only go with the information that was provided through the ATSB and through some of the world's leading aviation experts.

Warrick Long: Does it feel like a failure to not succeed here?

Darren Chester: Of course it does Warrick, for the families involved you want to find the aircraft. We hate mysteries as humans, we think we can solve every problem and we haven't solved this one at this stage so it does feel frustrating. I wouldn't call it a failure, there has been an extraordinary amount of research effort and learning that has gone on through the process. The underwater search actually has uncovered two ship wrecks from the early 1900s so the equipment certainly worked in that regard so it has been an extraordinary effort by everyone involved. I can simply show my respect and say thank you to them for their efforts. But we do have to prepare ourselves for the fact that we may not find MH 370 now or in the foreseeable future. There is still some work going on in terms of if more debris is located, the modelling of the ocean current to try and detect where it came from, still analysis of satellite imaginary and those sorts of things are continuing but in terms of the underwater search effort, the intention is once the 120 000 square kilometre area is completed there will be a suspension at that time.

Warrick Long: Do you think private companies will try and fill the role that you will inevitably leave behind in the next few weeks or so and try and find it themselves?

Darren Chester: It is not up for me to speculate on what private companies might want to do. I have got an important role on this that I don't want to be raising false hope for those families and friends of the people on board. So our intention through the discussions with Malaysia and China was that once we have finished the highest probability search area we would suspend the search at that time. Now, that is still our intention, it is not a decision for me to make in isolation or for Australia to make in isolation about any future search effort. It would be something that we would talk about as the responsible Ministers from the three affected countries. But our intention as it stands, is unless there is credible new information which leads us to that specific location it would be inappropriate not to suspend the search.

Warrick Long: Minister, we thank you for your time today.

Darren Chester: I appreciate your time, thank you

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

The Miniscule for masculinity said;

"I can put my hand on my heart and say I believe we haven't broken any rules"

Might as well put your hand on your todger mate because we aren't buying any of your bullshit.

This too is one of the issues, as the Minister for Selfies said; the 'rules'. That is the other way these trough dwelling greedy parasites rort the system, they have grotesque rules that are stacked in their financial favour. Written to favour and support their lust for spending money that is not their own personal money, on themselves. It's the same as handing a person a blank cheque - of course they are going to rort it.

The entire favourable system for just politicians is disgusting, expensive, amoral, out of touch, beyond the realms of fairness, equality and what is reasonable, it is divisive, nepotistic, and is an outright slap in the face to the poor, the pensioners, the battlers and the sufferers. They sanction 'legalised theft'.

One day, there will be an uprising against the sort of behaviour these grubs promote, and I for one cannot wait!

Tick tick goes the taxpayer clock

[Peetwo]

TICK, TOCK DDDD_MNFI - miniscule forgets his lines...



To begin I just like to say to ABC radio's Jon Faine the choccy frog voucher is in the mail..

Well done JF for not falling for the usual spin, bulldust & Motherhood weasel words that freely emanate from Barnbaby's photogenic filter. Your interview (IMO) overwhelmingly put beyond all doubt that 4D is a walking, talking, liability and has absolutely NFI what he is talking about...          

Mornings - 16 January with Jon Faine on ABC Radio Melbourne

Transcript—ABC Radio Melbourne Mornings
Interview
DCI011/2017
16 January 2017
Subjects: Reshuffle, entitlements, Tiger Air

Jon Faine: Darren Chester is one of the key Victorian ministers in the Turnbull Government. He is the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. He has got his hands full with a raft of issues this morning. Mr Chester, good morning to you.

Darren Chester: Good morning, Jon, and Happy New Year and welcome back to the program.

Jon Faine: When is the Prime Minister's reshuffle to be announced?

Darren Chester: Well, my expectation is this week the Prime Minister will make an announcement, and obviously he has one position vacant at the moment, and Arthur Sinodinos has been announced as the Acting Health Minister. Obviously, it is not my job to speculate on who will be in the team and who will take on the role as Health Minister for a longer period. That is up to the Prime Minister to choose his team.

Jon Faine: Do you think it was a bit tough for Sussan Ley that she had to resign?

Darren Chester: Well, this is a tough business, Jon. Sussan got herself into a position where through either misjudgement or through public pressure, she was seen to have not shown good judgment, and the Prime Minister was in a position where he accepted her resignation. Now…

Jon Faine: Do you think it was unfair?

Darren Chester: No, it is not a question of whether I think it is fair or not, Jon. It is a tough business and this issue of accountability around our workplace expenses or entitlements as they are often called…

Jon Faine: Used to be called, not anymore.

Darren Chester: Well—and this is where it is a difficult issue for us, Jon. We need to make sure that we can provide the clarity and the transparency and the certainty the public wants, and right now there is a deficit of trust between elected representatives at state and federal level and the Australian people, and we need to work damn hard as members of Parliament at state level and federal level to restore that trust, because it is an important role we have to play on behalf of the community, and at times we get it wrong, we pay a very heavy price, and Sussan Ley has paid a very heavy price. (P2 - How to say absolutely nothing in as many words as is humanly possible)

Jon Faine: Did you go to the Boxing Day test as a guest of Cricket Australia?

Darren Chester: No, I didn't, Jon.

Jon Faine: Did you go to the tennis?

Darren Chester: No, I haven't gone to the tennis, but I will be going to the tennis actually later on this week. I'm in Melbourne all this week doing a whole range of meetings, and I'm working in my office in Melbourne today as we speak, and I think on Wednesday after I speak at an infrastructure forum on behalf of Tennis Australia, I'll be staying around to go to the tennis that evening, and then on Thursday …

Jon Faine: As a guest?

Darren Chester:…and again on Thursday morning I'll have more meetings here in Melbourne. And I think this is a really good point you're raising, Jon. This is where…

Jon Faine: Well, is it work or pleasure is what the public want to know.

Darren Chester: Exactly, and this is the same question we could ask about when the ABC travels to Canberra en masse for the Showcase where the ABC on-air presenters meet with Members of Parliament and we have a wine together and we discuss issues. It is a huge event, and it is a mixture, I guess, of whether that is work or pleasure, but I would say…

Jon Faine: Well it is work for me. I don't know what it is for you.

Darren Chester: I know. But this is my point, Jon. I'm not trying to defend anything which is indefensible, but there is a lot of work that goes on at community, sporting, social, or cultural functions which is related to the Member of Parliament's job or the Minister's job, just as it is related to the journalist's job.

Jon Faine: Well, on that basis, every single thing, every breath you take is work-related in that sense. I mean, if Julie Bishop wants to go to the polo, fine. She can go to the polo. She can network until she is blue in the face. Just—she can pay for it herself. If you want to go to the cricket and swan around and chat to people, fine. Just buy your own ticket.

Darren Chester: Well, and that is where I think—this is where the clarity needs to come, out of this independent process that the Prime Minister has put in place. And I think the Prime Minister has acted to fix a problem which has plagued politics for as long as I can remember, and probably as long as you can remember. That we need to provide a clearer system of rules, because right now, under the current system, Members of Parliament cannot break any rules whatsoever within the current system and still lose their jobs because of a public backlash or what we like to call the ‘pub test’. Now, if we get the rules right around the workplace expenses and we provide that greater clarity and transparency, there won't be any need for a pub test because you will know for sure whether you have broken the rules or not. I think we can clean it up, and I think this conversation you and I are having is part of it, but the Prime Minister's decision I think is a good one. It is one that will be a step in the right direction. (P2 - WTD?-UDB!)

Jon Faine: When is the last time a politician actually paid to go to one of these events? Instead of publishing all the things that you get reimbursed for, publish a list of all the things you pay out of your own pocket for. That would be just as revealing, wouldn't it? Because it seems and from the outsider's point of view, it seems that politicians never want to pay out of their own pocket for anything.

Darren Chester: Well, I think that is a bit unfair, Jon. I sponsor a whole range of community and sporting organisations in my own electorate out of my own pocket, and I don't think it is fair to say that politicians don't pay for anything. But this is… (P2 - Uhh pleez, my heart bleeds for 4D... )

Jon Faine: Well, if you want to come to Melbourne to inspect an investment property, or if Sussan Ley wants to fly from Albury to the Gold Coast to inspect an investment property, you pay for it. Like anybody else does. In fact, it would even be tax-deductable.

Darren Chester:I'm not arguing with that.

Jon Faine: So we are going to have a new integrity body. There is a call, though, for a new national anti-corruption body, like the ICAC in New South Wales and the IBAC here in Victoria. Are you a supporter of a national anti-corruption body?

Darren Chester: Well, I support what the Prime Minister has announced, Jon, in terms of having an independent process. (P2 - Yeah we know how those independent processes or agencies work out.. ) Now, the clarity and transparency we have just been talking about, some of it is already in place in that there is a list there, a public list of a member's register of interests where you can check out everything I own already. You check out what debt I have got to the bank that I choose to get my loans from; you can check what hospitality I have received.

So there is a level of transparency which is there already, which is why we are having this discussion, that journalists have checked with those registers and found things they didn't agree with and decided to run stories on it, and quite rightly it has got to a point now where the Prime Minister has put in this process of having an independent umpire, if you like, attached to the Parliament of Australia to make sure that members get it right in the future. Now I'm not trying to sugar coat this, Jon, I'm not trying to walk away from the fact that we have a problem, and the greatest problem we have is the deficit of trust between the Australian people and their elected representatives, and we need to earn that trust back, and I think we can do it.

I mean, I was in Buchan on Saturday at the Mountain Cattlemen's Association of Victoria gathering, and many people came up and wanted to talk to me about projects in their community, things they want me to do on their behalf, and I'll follow them up and try and get those things for them.

Now, that sort of engagement with your local community is what Members of Parliament need to be doing on a daily basis, and I'm confident we are doing it, but when we get it wrong it is very public, it is very ugly, and it has been a rough start to the year, as you described, but I think we can do better throughout the year. (P2 - Read.."I think we can go back to gorging from the trough unimpeded later in the year..")  

Jon Faine: And separately from the integrity on politicians' work expenses, do you think Australia would benefit from a national anti-corruption body like the IBAC and the ICAC?

Darren Chester: Well I don't, Jon. I think the process the Prime Minister has announced is the right process, and I think we need to give it a chance to work and then go from there. (P2 - Well you wouldn't, would you Dazza... ) 

Jon Faine: But an anti-corruption body would do a lot more than look into politicians; it would look into all the things that corruption involves, but at a national level. We don't have one, at all.

Darren Chester: Yeah, but you are suggesting to me something which is quite different to the discussion we are having about workplace entitlements and expenses around getting that right…

Jon Faine: Oh that is right, it is much broader. Luv it!

Darren Chester: You are talking about something very different in terms of—there is no suggestion in the discussion over the last couple of weeks about expenses claimed of any level of corruption, it's more about was it appropriate or did it meet the public's expectations. All those expenses were properly declared, and people became aware of them publicly because they are on a public list already. So I think transparency is the key to giving people confidence that Members of Parliament are acting appropriately, and I think that's why the Prime Minister has announced this independent process. (P2 - Again more white noise with many words signifying nothing)

Jon Faine: There are still some Australians stuck in Bali since the Indonesians withdrew accreditation for Tiger Air. As the Minister responsible for—amongst other things—Transport, Darren Chester, do you know the detail of why the Indonesians have targeted Tiger Air?

Darren Chester: Well it is not a question of the Indonesians targeting Tiger Air, and I don't want to get into a he said, she said debate about a sensitive negotiation between a commercial entity and a foreign country, but as I understand it there is an administrative matter between the Indonesian Government and Tiger, and unfortunately…

Jon Faine: But what is it?

Darren Chester: Well unfortunately passengers have been caught in the middle about whether they have the rights to fly beyond March this year, and…

Jon Faine: But what's at the nub, the core of this? It is very hard to understand.
(P2 - Keep at him Jon you'll eventually get the "I have no ducking idea about what I am talking about"...answer you are trying to extract)

Darren Chester: Well the nub or the core is access to Indonesia under air service type agreements, and I haven't been asked—I must stress that (P2 - FDS.. ) —I haven't been asked to intervene personally, and nor would I expect to be. But our embassy is certainly working with the passengers who were affected, and unfortunately for the passengers they have been like the meat in the sandwich, they have been caught in the middle of this, and we are working with Tiger as well in terms of our diplomats in Jakarta providing assistance to passengers and representations on behalf of Tiger to help them bring people home, which is occurring as you indicated.

Jon Faine: But if indeed the Indonesians say, and as best as I understand it, it is to do with the training of the pilots for the actual types of planes they've been asked to fly. If the Indonesians aren't satisfied and say it is deficient, well is it also deficient in Australia? Why are those issues not being investigated for the safety in Australia of Tiger Air, not just the safety of Tiger Air in Indonesia?


(P2 - Ok BYOB because here comes the bollocks Motherhood statements ) 

Darren Chester: Well the safety of Australian airlines across the borders are responsibility, quite rightly, of CASA and myself as Minister, and we have an outstanding safety record. We take the training of our pilots, the safety of our aircraft as the number one priority, and continue to do so. So I don't want to get into a discussion about what Indonesia expects of Tiger Air and what Australia expects, but I can assure you and assure the Australian travelling public that CASA and the Government takes air safety as an absolute priority, and we have an outstanding safety record as a result.

Jon Faine: We have been talking for ten minutes the Prime Minister didn't try to ring you to offer you a new portfolio during the last minutes?

Darren Chester: No, Jon, I'm very happy in the responsibility I have, infrastructure and transport. I have got a huge year ahead of me here in Victoria, as you and I have talked about many times. There are a lot of infrastructure requirements in Victoria…

Jon Faine: Yes, there sure is.

Darren Chester:…and I'm working with my state colleagues to try and make sure Victoria gets a very healthy share of the Commonwealth Budget into the future.

Jon Faine: Sure. Well if you do become minister of something else, I look forward to speaking to you about that. You are hot tipped to be the new Minister for Sport, so we'll keep an eye on things and see what happens over the next 48 hours.
(P2 - Pleez, pretty pleez Malcolm... )
Darren Chester: I wouldn't go betting on that, Jon. I think I'll be staying in the same job. If I'm so lucky to continue in that role, I'll be very, very, very appreciative.

Jon Faine: I'm grateful to you for your time this morning, and happy New Year and all the best for 2017. Darren Chester, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and one of the Victorian Ministers in the Turnbull Federal Coalition Government.

MTF...P2

Ps Dear Jon if you want a handy reference on how individual international air-service agreements/treaties work please refer to Senator David Fawcett and/or go to the Mount NCN thread from about HERE..