Shame or Fame for McCormack.

Hansard of failed oversight by DPM McDo'Naught -  Rolleyes

Although not 'Aviation' related, the following Hansard link - see HERE - from yesterday's RRAT AMSA Senate Inquiry, IMO says o'so'much about our absoultely hopeless, NFI miniscule's total lack of oversight of the transport safety entities/agencies that fall within his remit - FDS!  Angry  

Relevant reference:   

(02-19-2019, 09:51 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  The failed experiment of the GBE? 

(Def: GBE - Government Business Enterprise)

This week courtesy of the Conversation, via the Mandarin... Wink

Quote:Vital Signs: when watchdogs become pets – or the problem of ‘regulatory capture’

By Richard Holden  15/02/2019

[Image: what-could-go-wrong.jpg]
[img=750x0]https://www.themandarin.com.au/content/uploads/2016/11/what-could-go-wrong.jpg[/img]
Markets require regulators. As Adam Smith, the champion of the invisible hand, notes in The Wealth of Nations, when individual interests are left unregulated they work to turn competitive markets into monopolies.

But what happens when regulators meant to check individual interests fail to promote the public interest?

Consider Australia’s banking sector. The banking royal commission has found plenty of fault in the ways the corporate and prudential regulatory agencies performed their vital roles – due not to lack of power but an unwillingness to use that power.
University of Chicago economist and 1982 Nobel laureate George Stigler was the first to outline how regulators can become “captured” by the very firms and industries they are meant to be regulating, beginning with an article in 1971.

Stigler’s idea has come to be known as “regulatory capture theory”, and it causes us to confront the uncomfortable question of how to ensure regulators act in the public interest, not in the interest of the firms they regulate.

Supply and demand

Stigler thought about regulation through the lens of supply and demand. Self-interested politicians supply regulation. Firms demand it – usually because they want a competitor regulated.

His classic example concerned regulations on the weight of trucks that could travel on state roads in the United States in the 1930s. He found empirical evidence that where trucks were more of a threat to traditional train transport (like on short-haul routes where railroads were less competitive) more stringent weight limits were enacted.

Rather than the regulator being a beneficent protector of the general public interest, it had become a self-interested actor responding to political pressure from the railroad owners.

This may strike you as rather cynical, but there is a swathe of evidence that across industries and time, regulators often act more in the interests of industries than the public.

These regulations usually have a plausible rationale behind them. Consider licensing of doctors. Nobody wants a poorly trained doctor let loose on them, so some form of certification makes sense. But does the medical profession limit the number of doctors and exclude foreign-trained doctors to push up their incomes? You be the judge.

It’s easy to think of other examples: “tickets” in the construction industry, certification of train and truck drivers in mining, licensing of plumbers, and on and on.

There are lots of ways this can arise. Politicians often depend on support and campaign contributions. And there is all too often a revolving door between regulators and the regulated.

Financial regulators

This brings us to the regulation of Australia’s banks.

The corporate and prudential regulatory agencies may have been unwilling to use their power, but the the big four banks were not.

And the banks have plenty of power – financial and political. They are utterly vital to the operation of the entire economy. They are among the very largest companies in the country (so a lot of retirement savings are invested in them). And they employ a lot of people.

We should stop assuming the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australia Prudential Regulatory Authority, among others, are unquestionably acting in the public interest and start asking a bunch of questions.

What are the backgrounds of the people who head up these organisations and what perspective does that lead them to bring to the job? What jobs do they get after they leave the regulator, and how might that affect their motivations while acting as regulator? What would be the social sanction imposed on them if they decided to get really tough with financial industry players?

What about the politicians who make the laws in the first place? Are they really acting for all Australians with a thoughtful and balanced perspective? Or do they represent tribal interests?

Regulators typically aren’t bad people. But sometimes they have bad implicit incentives. And the laws they are tasked with enforcing often favour a particular group – quite frequently those being regulated.

We need to close revolving doors, provide more resources to regulators and scrutinise what they do much more. Let’s not be naive about regulation.[Image: count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic]

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW. This article was first published at The Conversation.

It could be effectively argued that the creation of independent Government statutory bodies (GBEs) has led to the bureaucratic phenomena of regulatory capture. To a degree that is fine and dandy for the big end of town major airlines and large MROs. However eventually even those high end businesses will also suffer through needless red tape suffocation of the middle to small aviation businesses by CASA. A healthy industry is dependent on the grassroots of the industry also being sustainable and flourishing. 

I could pick hundreds of references/quotes from the guru on the failed GBE model (i.e. Sandy Reith) but the following will suffice... Wink (ps click on the link to understand the context of this quote)      

(09-06-2017, 05:07 AM)Sandy Reith Wrote:  Mr.Mrdak might have some credibility if he could show that he has ever taken any steps to reverse the fantastic waste and mismanagement in the Commonwealth's administration of aviation, and especially the General Aviation industry which is in disastrous bureaucratically caused decline.

Can'tberra is a black hole for the taxpayer's dollar and Mr. Mrdak's complaints smack of the arrogance and almighty smugness from what we used to think of as the public service.

If Mr.Mrdak would explain how he's tried to manage the handover of airports and maintain a semblance of responsibility and watchfulness towards the original intent to maintain the aviation priority then we might find some plausible cause for his extraordinary outburst.

We will hope that Parliament takes note that all the PR consultants fees wasted on coaching our senior public officials how to pull the wool over Senate committees is further proof that the bureaucracy needs to be firmly taken in hand.

Parliament might also come to realise that the unelected independent Commonwealth Corporate style of governance has failed, and that its not possible to relinquish responsibility away from the will of the people's representatives and maintain good governance or prudent use of taxpayer moneys.

This brings me to yet another example of the failed GBE model and it's got nothing to do with aviation.  Rolleyes  

The following is the video footage off the Senate RRAT committee AMSA session yesterday... Confused  







Now although this is clearly a bad look for the CEO of AMSA Mr Kinley, I would suggest that his biggest fault is simply ineptitude and a man that is quite obviously out of his depth (either that or the guy is suffering early stage dementia??). However it is also obvious that this senior bureaucrat seems to be totally unperturbed and disconnected from the concerns of the Senate RRAT Committee. And why would he be or should he be concerned, after all he is the CEO of, a supposedly independent, Government statutory autocracy - FFS!  Dodgy 

Now for Clinton McKenzie et.al v Sterlo et.al... Shy 


Quote:ACTING CHAIR: No; it's words. It's all fancy words. We started this inquiry in December, and you sit here in April and say, 'Look, we want to make some changes.'

Senator PATRICK: This committee heard from CASA just recently on Angel Flight, where they've reacted very quickly—and, in my view, erroneously—and introduced a new regulation. So, in terms of time frames, it would seem that you can do things relatively quickly. Mick, in relation to that particular order and moving forward, what's the intention? Do you intend to have an account going on, an account going off and then something like knowing the number of passengers on the vessel at any time in between? Is that where you're headed?

Mr Kinley : That's the logical place for this to go. But as I've said, and as we've looked at in our submission, we know there is new technology coming along all the time with this. We know there are wristbands that can connect up to an app that will give you an automatic alarm, for example, if someone goes out of range. The headcount is part of it, yes, where that is appropriate for the nature of the operation. And, as I said, how we carve out the commuter ferries and that, without impeding their operations, will have to be examined.

Senator PATRICK: I would imagine that would be one leaving Fremantle, in this case, and one when you get off at Rottnest—the same for any particular journey, I would think, would be something that's sensible. The technology can be the way in which the requirement is addressed. You don't have to necessarily impose a particular technical solution or technology solution without—that shouldn't stop you from placing down what the requirement is.

Mr Kinley : Agreed. That is the intent, I guess, of Marine Order 504. The core of that is supposed to be around how the operators do their risk assessments and how they manage the risks of the operations on these vessels; that is, the risks to the passengers and crew.

Senator PATRICK: How long do you think it will take to get a new order tabled in the parliament? What's your time line?

Mr Kinley : We could do something, I think, within six months. But that's going to depend on if there are things that are going to—we have to do a cost recovery implementation statement and all those processes as well. Technically, I can sign a marine order tomorrow but it has to go through the process. We've got to go through the Office of Best Practice Regulation—and Mr Groves can help out here with the process—and then it's got to be tabled. It's a disallowable instrument. It's tabled in the Senate. It's got to go through those processes.

ACTING CHAIR: There isn't anyone who's going to believe that in the Senate; I can tell you that right now.
Mr McKenzie : I might add, Senator, the way in which CASA achieved the Angel Flight thing was to impose conditions on pilots' licences, not to make a new regulation.

Senator PATRICK: I might disagree with that. There were certainly imposed requirements, for example, that helicopters were not to do it. That's not a pilot restriction, I don't think.

Mr McKenzie : I'm a pilot. The instrument purports to be an imposition of conditions on the holders of all flight crew licences. If you're a flight crew licence holder, you're not allowed to conduct an Angel Flight unless these conditions are met.

Senator PATRICK: I don't want to burden the committee's time with this, but maybe you could set out on one page what it is that you have to do to get a marine order tabled in the Senate. That would be appreciated...
  
&..

Quote:ACTING CHAIR: Even though someone was missing?

Senator BROCKMAN: Even though someone was missing, there was no record of the count? There was clear evidence from a number of passengers that a count had not taken place—or had not taken place in a visible way, which the count on was—and a statement from the crew member on the boat that no headcount had taken place to his knowledge.

Senator PATRICK: Indeed, by your own submission, there were five people who recalled there not being a headcount upon departing the vessel at the end. Of the remainder, none said that there was; indeed, they simply said they couldn't recall. The crew member said it didn't take place. The only person saying that it did take place was the master. If you have five witnesses who are adamant that a headcount did not take place, surely that meets the burden of proof.

Mr McKenzie : Even if we assume that it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the master failed to conduct the headcount that he said he did, one fundamental element was missing from the offence provision that carried the two-year sentence - and that is that he admitted to do so with the intent of causing a risk of a passenger going overboard unnoticed at the time or at the completion of the voyage. I will repeat that: that he intended, by failing to conduct the headcount, to create the risk that a passenger would go overboard unnoticed at the time or at the completion of the voyage. There was no evidence to that standard, and that's why—

Senator PATRICK: Where's that standard laid out? That seems bizarre.

ACTING CHAIR: They were on another planet, I think. I'm going to wake up in a cold sweat.

Mr McKenzie : I'm merely reading the elements of the offence.

Senator PATRICK: Where's that laid out?

Mr McKenzie : That is section 18(1)©. That's the offence provision. The police alleged a bunch of safety management system breaches, some of which AMSA considered had occurred.

Senator PATRICK: Section 18(1)© of which—

Mr McKenzie : It is 18(1)© of the national law.

Senator PATRICK: The national law?

Mr McKenzie : That is the offence for failing to comply with the safety management system, which carries the two-year jail sentence.

Senator BROCKMAN: So there is no subprovision regarding negligence?

Mr McKenzie : Yes, there is.

Senator BROCKMAN: Or carelessness?

Mr McKenzie : Yes; and there's a strict liability offence there that was assessed by the compliance enforcement people—and Mr Marsh can talk about that later. So far as the one that carried the heaviest penalty, that's the one where we had to improve intent. That's the one where there is no limitation period. That's the one that people were focused on at the time. In the absence of intent, that's why the officers at the time moved on to other serious offences that were alleged.

Senator GALLACHER: Can we just get this on the record clearly? So you are saying that, unless the master doesn't do a headcount, because he wants someone to fall over, you can't prosecute?

Mr McKenzie : He intends to create the risk. You cannot prosecute—

Senator GALLACHER: So he actually needs to intend to have a risk of losing one of his passengers?
Mr McKenzie : He has to intend to create the risk of that happening?

Senator GALLACHER: That's absurd!

Mr Kinley : Sorry, Senator, but that is only—

Senator GALLACHER: Well, you wrote this stuff. That's absurd!

Mr Kinley : No; we didn't write the act. That is only for the most severe level of penalty, though—the two-year imprisonment. There are other levels of offence for recklessness and negligence and there is a strict liability offence.



Mr Kinley : Unless we can prove that intent, that it was intended to cause harm, then, yes, that's correct. Of course, there are other acts which would apply—for example, we don't see why the Western Australian work health and safety laws wouldn't apply. In fact, there is a code of practice under that act for charter vessels.

Senator BROCKMAN: How is it characterised? Reckless and—what's the characterisation?

Mr McKenzie : The precise order is: intent, reckless, negligent and, then, strict liability.

Senator PATRICK: I'm looking at the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act, from which you cited 18.1. Section 18 is to do with powers of magistrates.

Mr McKenzie : No, that's the local application provisions of the act. The national law is schedule 1, and section 18 of schedule 1 is the national law. It has to do with the way that it was implemented at the time.

Senator BROCKMAN: Explain to me when the reckless provisions would come into play. When could you have pursued a charge on the basis of recklessness?

Mr McKenzie : We'd have to have evidence to show that the master was reckless as to whether failing to do a headcount created a risk to a person on a domestic commercial vessel.

Senator BROCKMAN: But time frames. Why did you choose not to go down that path?

Mr McKenzie : Because the penalty for that meant that there was only one year within which to do—

Mr Kinley : Reckless is still a fine. The only offence that potentially carries a jail term is the offence for intending to cause harm.

Mr McKenzie : Although it's the same regime today, we don't have the same practical problems that we had back then. What was provided by the Western Australian officials were reports. They weren't briefs of evidence. The WA police report included inadmissible stuff about opinion and inferences and all this sort of stuff. What they were supposed to provide was evidence that could support a prosecution. In the absence of evidence, we cannot prosecute. Mr Marsh will continue to walk through the difficulty we had getting sufficient evidence to support the prosecutions that we were pursuing. I hopefully help the committee by pointing out that prosecution is a very useless safety tool. The safety tools that were used at the time resulted in the operator ceasing operations a week later. The national regulator delegate suspended the certificate of operation as a consequence of other concerns that were highlighted in the aftermath of the Mills tragedy. Those are the tools that deal with safety. Prosecuting someone two years later and putting them in jail doesn't deal with any safety risk.

Senator PATRICK: Mr McKenzie, I'm now reading that section of the act. I think you can actually read it in a couple of different ways. One of them is that the person intends—and then it goes on to say 'to commit the act' that concerns the safety of the vessels. Or you could then say he intends the act or omission to be a risk. It depends on how you read that. Did the DPP look at that?

Mr McKenzie : No, but we can ask the DPP that question, because there is no statute of limitation on this provision. I also note that it is open to the Western Australian authorities, through the Western Australian DPP, to pursue a prosecution under that provision if they think they have sufficient evidence to prove it.

Senator PATRICK: But you're saying the reason you didn't pursue this was that you couldn't get it to meet that burden. I'm saying you can read that in a way that I think any sensible parliamentarian would intend—the intent of the parliament. It would never be simply to say: well, they have to intend a risk. They're just saying the act was intentional, so the person intentionally failed to do the count.

Mr McKenzie : Senator, it's a basic precept of the criminal law that, if you're going to put someone in jail, they have a criminal intent. We can ask the DPP whether the DPP share your view, and if they do—

Senator PATRICK: It worries me that you haven't asked the DPP yourself. That's the point. There's an act there. Look, in terms of burdens, I understand mens rea in the context of manslaughter and so forth. This is someone failing to carry out what effectively becomes a statutory requirement, because the statute requires them to follow their own manual. Therefore, in my view, that absence of following the requirement is a breach of statute. I believe that could be read in that way, and I can't understand why you would not have sent that to the DPP for a lawyer to look at. Did you take advice on that?

Mr McKenzie : We will ask the DPP their view on that. I'll note that that's not the only reason we didn't pursue that particular line. It was because more serious offences were identified, and those were the ones that were pursued by the compliance and enforcement team. Mr Marsh will explain, if he gets the chance, where that got to.

ACTING CHAIR: I'm going to make it easier for you. I'm sick of listening to lawyer speak; I'm starting to lose my patience. Sorry, Senator Brockman, I don't want to cut you off but the general counsel here is skilled in just going on all day; they're paid by the hour to talk all day. That's finished. Did you want to continue, Senator Patrick? I'm very interested to hear where we're up to from Mr Marsh. We've already gotten to the stage where the general counsel has said that we can't do anything, and Mr Marsh has said he could have done something on another charge and hasn't. So I'd be very interested in that before I quote some correspondence from the Department of Transport to you as well. Keep going, Senator Brockman.

Senator PATRICK: Just help me out here. I'm just looking at section 307B of the Criminal Code, which relates to false and misleading information:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person gives information to another person, and
(b) the person does so knowing that the information:
   (i) is false or misleading, or
   (ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading …
Mr McKenzie : Yes, that's correct. But you still have to prove knowledge. When someone passes a document—let's assume that it is patently, clearly false—you still have to prove that that person knew that it was a forgery.

Senator BROCKMAN: How are you ever going to prove that outside of a court of law? How are you ever going to prove that without taking it to prosecution?

Mr McKenzie : You have to get evidence first. This is what Mr Marsh is talking about. It is about trying to get evidence that the person who we are going to accuse of this crime knew that the documents were falsified when his version of events is that he didn't know who organised the certificates. That may or may not be true, but the way the rule of law works is that if you want to prove someone committed an offence that entails a 10-year jail sentence then you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that person knew that the documents were falsified. That's what we were trying to find; it was that evidence.

Senator PATRICK: So there is no obligation of due diligence, as long as there are two people—

Mr McKenzie : That's a different issue.

Senator PATRICK: I'm just trying to explore what you're saying. A person handing a false certificate to somebody is one arm of the offence. You say they need to know that it is false.

Mr McKenzie : That's what the law says.

Senator PATRICK: That just means that, at any point, as long as there are two people involved, that offence can never be invoked because you would never reach the burden of proof.

Mr McKenzie : You could go for a different offence.

Senator PATRICK: Part of the committee's role here is to look at legislation and to work out whether or not there are flaws in the legislation. That seems to be a burden that is insurmountable. In those circumstances one would expect, when faced with a situation like that, that someone might write to a minister or general counsel to see about changing the provisions of the act such that it's workable. Did any of that occur?

Mr McKenzie : No. The Criminal Code set out—

Mr Kinley : Senator, what I certainly learned out of this, especially going back over a lot of this information, is that if this happened today and we started looking at fraudulent offences I would be asking them to refer it to the AFP, who are the experts in this stuff. We'd gone outside the national law at that point. I understand the motivations and why we did that, but we are not experts in fraud offences.

ACTING CHAIR: It's a well-known fact—and you admit this—that the skipper himself falsified the logbooks. That's a well-known fact. There's no dispute there. This bloke went out and falsified how many people were on the boat. No, he falsified the records when the police contacted him the next day when they unfortunately found a body floating off Leighton Beach. So we know that his character is in question. The same skipper falsified documents relating to safety equipment, firefighting equipment and life rafts, and you're seriously telling me you couldn't even follow that rabbit down a hole. Is that what you're saying?

Mr McKenzie : Mr Marsh can continue his story as to where—

ACTING CHAIR: Yes, yes, okay. Before I go any further, just let me know: has anyone had any media training in the last few weeks on how to deal with senators? Has anyone had that at AMSA? No-one's had any training? Anyone?

Mr Kinley : Senator, we have. Not media training, but—

ACTING CHAIR: Just so I know, who's had the training? Mr Prosser, Ms East, Mr McKenzie, Mr Marsh, Mr Groves—anyone else? That's fine. I hope it was value for dollars. Keep going, Mr Marsh, because so far I'm not enlightened.

Mr Marsh : Senators, at this point—

ACTING CHAIR: Sorry, go back to why you didn't follow up the other charge. What was your thinking there?

Mr Marsh : The certificates of survey issue?

ACTING CHAIR: Whatever the other one was you said at the time. All I can see is a litany of incompetence in front of me. That's not directed at you, Mr Marsh; it's directed at the whole of AMSA. None of you should feel left out.



Senator BROCKMAN: You had multiple streams of evidence, it seems to me, that fraudulent conduct had taken place. You had an altered logbook. The company who supposedly provided the certificate said, 'It didn't come from us.' Keep talking through the chain of events. We want to get to the point of where you decided to say, 'There's nothing we can do here.'

Mr Marsh : Sure. At this point I request that the piece of evidence I'm about to give be heard in camera. The reason I ask that is I'll be referring—

ACTING CHAIR: Hang on, you're requesting to go in camera?

Mr Marsh : Yes.

ACTING CHAIR: We don't want to go in camera. Unless my colleagues challenge that—and I'll talk to my colleagues—we want everything on the public record.

Senator BROCKMAN: I would like the explanation of why, then we should probably have a chat about it.

Mr McKenzie : The reason we request this is that Mr Marsh is going to refer to a file note of a conversation with another government agency, in the course of which an inelegant metaphor is used that may be quite upsetting to people who are listening or might read the Hansard. Further, there is also a word used that is critical of another government agency, and we would prefer that the Senate hear that first before it's published.

Senator PATRICK: There's nothing to stop the committee hearing in camera then deciding not to publish it.

ACTING CHAIR: If you want to overrule me, that's fine. We'll do a count very quickly. I want everything on the record. We have deaths that have not been investigated by this mob, and all we've seen—you can smile as much as you like, Mr McKenzie, and whisper in your mate's ear or whatever you want to do. You people really are on the verge—I tell you: if I was the minister, none of you would even be sitting here unless you started owning up to whose incompetence led to this.

Mr McKenzie :
We're not asking to go in camera to protect us—

ACTING CHAIR: Don't mention it then; just keep going through, and I'll talk to my colleagues—

Mr McKenzie : we're asking to go in camera to protect—

ACTING CHAIR: because we're going to be back here, guaranteed—safer bet than Winx. Colleagues, if you want to have a chat outside, we can suspend for a minute and have a chat.

Proceedings suspended from 10:17 to 10:20

ACTING CHAIR: Where we're at is that it is the wish of the committee—I'll come through you, Mr Kinley—that you can provide whatever that information is to the committee in confidence, but we're not going in camera. So you can give it to the secretariat and we'll continue on our line of investigation. Okay? Thank you. So, Mr Marsh, what you were going to do you can provide not in camera here but in confidence...



ACTING CHAIR: Mr Kinley, I'll talk to you, as the CEO, about what we have learnt recently in your term as the CEO, taking over under the national law. What brought this to our attention was the very unfortunate death of Mr Mills. As I said earlier, we're not going to stop here, because we know there have been so many more. For the families out there I'm going to mention Glen Wilson; Ryan Donohue; Ian Thompson; Paul McVeigh; Leila Trott; Murray Turner; Mason Carter; Chad Fairley; Andrew Kelly; Allan Russell; John Rodgers; Matthew Roberts; David Chivers; Martin Cunningham; one person on the Seabring; three people on a night raid, Luke Murray, Daniel Bradshaw and Tim Macpherson; Ben Leahy; Adam Bidner; Adam Hoffman; Zach Feeney; Chris Sammut; Eli Tonks; Harry Evans; Shalina Abdul Hussien plus about twenty more people who I'm not able to name, because no-one seems to collect the information. All these people have been killed on Australian vessels since AMSA took responsibility for the national system in 2013.
After what we learnt about the death of Mr Mills, I have absolutely no confidence that AMSA has done everything that it could have done to secure safety. I've got no confidence about the safety of workers or members of the public on other vessels. You could say that you've inherited a system that is a basket case, poor safety culture—all of that. What I don't understand where the plan is to improve this situation is. Looking at these numbers, they have got to be about the same as, or worse than, other dangerous industries, and it has been a priority industry for focus and action for Safe Work Australia. They have industry plans; they have safety codes of practice. I ask: where is your action and focus? All I see is vessels cobbling together—in my own words—their own safety management systems. I believe a lot of rules are made up, and they put as many people as they like on a vessel. If they don't like the basic rules that are there, I'm told they can go and talk to their mates on the AMSA board and get an exemption. When they do get in trouble or someone is killed, in my view, AMSA looks the other way.

I looked at your annual report hoping to find something to indicate that you have a plan. I'll talk about the chairman's report. I see that you have a new computer system, that there are plans to maintain your workforce, to deal with oil spills, for ship-sourced garbage, for new navigation systems, and that there have been important meetings in London. There is nothing about fatalities until you get to page 54. On page 54 it tells me that there were nine fatalities just last year, and this is not a huge industry. This was in your KPIs, coded amber, which I saw on page 12 is classified by AMSA as a 'minor' issue. There's nothing in there about what you're going to do to fix it. On page 23 it says that operators will be encouraged to take responsibility for safety outcomes. I can tell you all that that's not a plan to save people; that's a plan for more deaths, like the unfortunate death of Mr Mills.

People are dying and it looks to me like no-one is held accountable and, worse, no-one thinks that it's a problem that should be fixed. I hope that you're not willing to look the other way. I believe the minister has been trying to look the other way—that's my view, not the committee's—but I'm not going to look the other way and I know that the committee won't either. Election or no election, as I said earlier, we will get to the bottom of this. We will be looking at your marine orders, your legislation and your operation—everything that you do or don't do—and we will fix this. I'll leave it at that.

That concludes today's hearing. With the approval of my colleagues, we've set 15 April for questions on notice. Thank you very much.

Also from the RRAT committee AMSA Inquiry webpages:

Quote:AMSA (PDF 839 KB) 

&..

[Image: pdf.png] Answers to written question on notice requested on 25 February 2019 and provided by Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions on 28 March 2019.
[Image: pdf.png] Answers to written questions on notice requested on 8 March and provided by AMSA on 20 March 2019.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 07-23-2018, 07:54 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-23-2018, 10:28 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-23-2018, 02:54 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-23-2018, 04:28 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 07-23-2018, 08:16 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 07-23-2018, 08:34 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 07-24-2018, 08:20 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-24-2018, 01:10 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-24-2018, 07:41 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 07-24-2018, 07:54 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-26-2018, 08:44 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-26-2018, 03:31 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 07-27-2018, 08:49 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-27-2018, 09:58 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-28-2018, 11:10 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-17-2018, 09:32 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-27-2018, 11:25 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 07-28-2018, 06:42 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 07-28-2018, 02:40 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 07-29-2018, 07:18 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-30-2018, 08:22 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-01-2018, 10:53 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-01-2018, 01:30 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 08-01-2018, 07:12 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-04-2018, 09:17 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-06-2018, 06:55 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 08-08-2018, 06:35 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-08-2018, 08:56 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-10-2018, 12:54 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-11-2018, 09:47 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-17-2018, 11:06 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 08-20-2018, 08:55 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-22-2018, 10:55 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-23-2018, 10:09 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-23-2018, 11:53 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-24-2018, 08:59 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-25-2018, 11:24 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 08-27-2018, 07:18 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-27-2018, 10:03 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 08-28-2018, 07:31 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 08-28-2018, 03:15 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-05-2018, 09:40 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-07-2018, 04:08 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-06-2018, 06:09 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-10-2018, 08:18 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-11-2018, 08:14 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 09-11-2018, 09:43 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-11-2018, 09:51 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-12-2018, 10:24 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 09-12-2018, 06:04 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 09-14-2018, 08:14 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-14-2018, 12:34 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-15-2018, 11:35 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 09-14-2018, 10:01 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-22-2018, 09:57 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 09-22-2018, 02:26 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 09-22-2018, 08:08 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Sandy Reith - 09-23-2018, 03:58 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 09-24-2018, 07:48 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 10-05-2018, 10:39 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 10-05-2018, 07:30 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 10-11-2018, 11:14 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 10-11-2018, 07:59 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 10-17-2018, 09:01 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 10-17-2018, 09:27 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 10-17-2018, 11:20 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 10-20-2018, 07:26 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 10-20-2018, 01:13 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 10-31-2018, 09:59 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 11-01-2018, 06:08 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 11-01-2018, 09:40 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 11-05-2018, 07:06 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 11-30-2018, 09:02 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 12-04-2018, 10:30 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 12-04-2018, 07:35 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 12-14-2018, 12:39 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 12-14-2018, 01:37 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by BRhoades - 12-14-2018, 05:49 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-01-2019, 11:35 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 12-15-2018, 06:04 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 12-17-2018, 09:59 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 12-18-2018, 05:32 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 12-18-2018, 09:05 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 12-18-2018, 11:25 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 12-18-2018, 01:57 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 12-18-2018, 07:52 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 12-19-2018, 09:56 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 12-19-2018, 05:48 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 01-01-2019, 11:06 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-04-2019, 07:50 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-04-2019, 01:16 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-07-2019, 10:36 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-08-2019, 03:36 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-11-2019, 01:33 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-25-2019, 01:26 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-26-2019, 02:22 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 01-11-2019, 06:28 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-26-2019, 08:00 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 01-26-2019, 07:02 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-30-2019, 05:46 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-31-2019, 08:04 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 01-31-2019, 09:25 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-01-2019, 07:38 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 02-01-2019, 12:27 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-01-2019, 02:43 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 02-02-2019, 08:18 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-02-2019, 05:03 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-03-2019, 07:56 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-03-2019, 01:46 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 02-03-2019, 02:49 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 02-04-2019, 07:38 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-07-2019, 10:55 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-07-2019, 04:38 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-08-2019, 08:33 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-09-2019, 07:34 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-08-2019, 10:14 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-09-2019, 10:05 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 02-11-2019, 08:22 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-11-2019, 09:32 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Cap'n Wannabe - 02-12-2019, 11:28 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-12-2019, 05:51 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-12-2019, 05:55 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-12-2019, 06:23 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 02-12-2019, 08:19 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-12-2019, 09:11 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-13-2019, 08:43 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-13-2019, 10:05 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-17-2019, 08:49 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-19-2019, 07:35 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-21-2019, 11:01 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-21-2019, 10:45 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Sandy Reith - 02-22-2019, 03:50 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 02-23-2019, 08:23 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-23-2019, 12:27 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 02-25-2019, 08:32 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 02-25-2019, 09:46 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 02-25-2019, 09:49 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 02-26-2019, 06:29 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 02-25-2019, 10:48 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 03-04-2019, 07:40 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-08-2019, 09:25 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-08-2019, 11:31 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-14-2019, 11:22 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Gobbledock - 03-24-2019, 01:12 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-25-2019, 08:37 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-26-2019, 05:16 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 03-27-2019, 08:13 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-01-2019, 08:35 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-02-2019, 08:15 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 04-06-2019, 07:44 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-09-2019, 08:54 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 04-10-2019, 08:00 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-10-2019, 10:00 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-12-2019, 12:29 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 04-13-2019, 07:36 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-13-2019, 10:09 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 04-13-2019, 11:34 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 05-14-2019, 08:33 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 05-29-2019, 08:38 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 06-13-2019, 10:54 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 06-17-2019, 07:58 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 06-17-2019, 08:07 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 06-24-2019, 07:26 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 06-24-2019, 11:09 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 06-25-2019, 08:33 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 06-30-2019, 11:34 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 06-30-2019, 08:19 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-04-2019, 09:46 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-05-2019, 02:10 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-10-2019, 11:04 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Cap'n Wannabe - 07-12-2019, 05:02 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-12-2019, 12:06 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-12-2019, 11:00 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 07-15-2019, 08:14 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-19-2019, 02:37 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 07-22-2019, 08:16 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-27-2019, 10:25 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-30-2019, 05:50 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-31-2019, 10:34 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 07-31-2019, 11:07 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-01-2019, 02:36 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-05-2019, 08:16 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 08-06-2019, 09:18 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-07-2019, 08:42 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-07-2019, 08:59 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-08-2019, 06:36 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 08-08-2019, 07:18 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-09-2019, 05:35 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 08-11-2019, 09:42 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-12-2019, 09:17 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 08-13-2019, 07:50 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-13-2019, 10:09 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-14-2019, 09:11 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-16-2019, 12:21 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-18-2019, 10:37 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-20-2019, 10:28 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-20-2019, 11:21 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Sandy Reith - 08-20-2019, 11:16 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 08-21-2019, 08:37 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-22-2019, 06:45 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-27-2019, 08:04 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 08-27-2019, 05:09 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 08-27-2019, 05:55 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 09-05-2019, 08:31 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-06-2019, 10:53 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-07-2019, 10:22 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 09-07-2019, 09:09 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-19-2019, 09:03 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 09-19-2019, 08:45 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 09-21-2019, 08:52 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 09-23-2019, 06:10 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 09-23-2019, 09:46 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 09-23-2019, 03:42 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 09-24-2019, 08:52 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by thorn bird - 09-24-2019, 02:38 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 09-25-2019, 09:43 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 10-14-2019, 08:00 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 10-15-2019, 07:58 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - 10-15-2019, 09:24 PM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Kharon - 10-16-2019, 07:21 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by Peetwo - Today, 08:11 AM
RE: Shame or Fame for McCormack. - by P7_TOM - 3 hours ago



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)