Why – Indeed.
The first class SAAA submission to Sterlo's aviation inquiry (post above) could have been reduced to one simple sentence:-
“Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”
'Cui Bono' could have been added – just to pad out the questions. Questions to which the answers are self evident, writ large and crystal clear. The evidence to support may be found in over three decades of Hansard.
There is well trodden footpath leading to the venue for multiple, very expensive 'inquiries'. There exists an impressive list of very highly qualified, intelligent industry experts who have trodden that path with great hopes that the unimpeachable logic and solutions presented will result in a world best practice system being produced. Those same people have trodden that footpath away from an 'inquiry' to await the outcome – and been left disillusioned and disappointed; not by the response to the inquiry – but by the official response to that inquiry.
The Pel-Air inquiry was a classic; David Forsyth and some of the very best minds within the Senate committee drafted an extensive list of recommendations. These have been treated with disdain and deemed to be 'opinion'. The total cost of that inquiry came from the public purse. It achieved nothing, it even failed to impact on the underlying reasons for the accident; missed the heart of the matter by a country mile. Go back to the Lockhart River inquiry; the Seaview inquiry or any one of the many 'inquiries' – read the submissions; read the Inquiry response then quantify the material changes. The results will shock you; those results should shock the government into positive, bipartisan action. Alas, there is a conga line of ineffectual ministers who will cheerfully allow, even encourage the administrator to hold a steady course. That course is destroying what should be a vibrant, productive national asset.
And so, we read yet another positive, sensible 'submission' based on expert industry knowledge and mourn its passing into insignificance, destined to join the warehouse full of equally astute submissions, mouldering away; insulted, dismissed and ignored.
There is a humorous side, albeit a dark one, just imagine the DPM and Ms. Spence trying to sort it all out - before Christmas – we did. It would be bloody hilarious if it wasn't so ducking tragic.
Selah.-.
The first class SAAA submission to Sterlo's aviation inquiry (post above) could have been reduced to one simple sentence:-
“Expressed in many ways and in many forums, the essence of the question has been quite simply “Why?”
'Cui Bono' could have been added – just to pad out the questions. Questions to which the answers are self evident, writ large and crystal clear. The evidence to support may be found in over three decades of Hansard.
There is well trodden footpath leading to the venue for multiple, very expensive 'inquiries'. There exists an impressive list of very highly qualified, intelligent industry experts who have trodden that path with great hopes that the unimpeachable logic and solutions presented will result in a world best practice system being produced. Those same people have trodden that footpath away from an 'inquiry' to await the outcome – and been left disillusioned and disappointed; not by the response to the inquiry – but by the official response to that inquiry.
The Pel-Air inquiry was a classic; David Forsyth and some of the very best minds within the Senate committee drafted an extensive list of recommendations. These have been treated with disdain and deemed to be 'opinion'. The total cost of that inquiry came from the public purse. It achieved nothing, it even failed to impact on the underlying reasons for the accident; missed the heart of the matter by a country mile. Go back to the Lockhart River inquiry; the Seaview inquiry or any one of the many 'inquiries' – read the submissions; read the Inquiry response then quantify the material changes. The results will shock you; those results should shock the government into positive, bipartisan action. Alas, there is a conga line of ineffectual ministers who will cheerfully allow, even encourage the administrator to hold a steady course. That course is destroying what should be a vibrant, productive national asset.
And so, we read yet another positive, sensible 'submission' based on expert industry knowledge and mourn its passing into insignificance, destined to join the warehouse full of equally astute submissions, mouldering away; insulted, dismissed and ignored.
There is a humorous side, albeit a dark one, just imagine the DPM and Ms. Spence trying to sort it all out - before Christmas – we did. It would be bloody hilarious if it wasn't so ducking tragic.
Selah.-.