[Kharon]

Is this a dagger which I see before me.

Walking home through quiet streets with P7 the normal silence was broken’ “Never had much truck with Pollies” say’s he.  Wondering what’s coming next I say nothing, after a while; “wish the bloody Wallabies could copy the cohesion, willingness to run, an ability to pass at just the right time and get the same sense of purpose those Senators have, that’s a first class team”.  What could I say; they are.   Neither TOM or I are great fans, sure we support our teams when they play and have returned home from many a rugger match with sore throats, but we have never been one eyed ‘tragics’.  This may change, it would change if democracy and parliament system could be made to work half so well as that Senate committee does.  

The next BRB indaba is going to be fun; but I’m betting on a team award rather than a man of the match.  The early betting is so close, I’m almost prepared to declare a draw and vote for a years supply of Tim Tam and a huge round of applause for the committee.  We shall see.  It will depend on your point of view but a study of Hansard just about puts it beyond argument.  There were three distinct phases of play.

The genteel opening gambits, where the opposition was allowed a chance to explain the case, confess the mess and present solutions.  As non of the honourable options were taken, the committee changed up a cog and went in hard.

This took us to the ruck and maul, where confessions and admissions were still a viable, negotiable option, this offer was declined.  This option, despite it being clear to even Blind Freddy that the committee had all the answers was rejected, arrogance triumphed over probity and any chance of salvation went begging.

The final phase was a simple, public flogging and humiliation.  A masterclass of how not to rely on bluff, bluster and bullshit when you are outclassed, out gunned and have no cards left in your hand, carnage is an apt description.  The final humiliation was Hoody sat there stony faced, reading the game correctly, keeping his powder dry (Bravo) and letting Harfi fry in his own juices.  The ‘accountant’ (what’s his name) was too busy trying to pass wind without soiling himself, he stood back and pushed Harfi toward the bus at every chance.  And so, it came to pass that the bus did arrive.  Imagine, the crowd tense and silent as the hapless half back catches the ball, looks down the paddock only to see the entire forward pack steaming in at full throttle, determined to do some real damage and he has no one to pass to, the rest of team have buggered off, out of the way.

For mine, it all goes to hell in a handcart from the Board defence ploy; page 10 Hansard, after the Sterle-Bullock interchange.  I’ve left out the responses, they don’t signify:-

Senator STERLE: Mr Harfield, you said 'the board appointed'. Who chose Thales?

Senator STERLE: Were the board aware of all the links between Mr Bradford and Mr Jenkins—that they were both directors on ICCPM? Were they aware that one of them, Mr Jenkins, is the managing director of the company that was successful, and that they have engaged this other company, ICCPM, to negotiate with Thales? Was the board aware of that?

Senator STERLE: So they are both directors on the board of ICCPM. Airservices Australia, via the taxpayer, is paying Mr Bradford $1 million to negotiate with his mate, who is also the boss of Thales—and this does not look murky?

Senator STERLE: At what stage did the board become aware? After they ticked off, cracked the bottle of champagne and said, 'We've got a good deal here', or was it before?

Senator STERLE: You have to put it in simple terms for me. Before the contract was ticked off for what was allegedly going to be so many hundreds of millions of dollars—we have not even touched on what it is going to blow out to if there is a blow-out—the board was fully aware of the interlinking relationships between Mr Jenkins, ICCPM, Bradford and Thales. They knew all that. That was all in front of them before they said: 'This won't look smelly. We can tick off on this.'

Senator STERLE: Please look me in the eye and say the board knew of all the relationships before the contracts were signed and the agreement was done.

Senator STERLE: So what are you suggesting? If we want to get the root of how it was all done, we should have the board and the chairman in front of us? Is that what we should be doing? It took you three goes to come out and say you could not quite maybe lock in the whole board. This is what has given us some problems with Airservices before. We have all played the game in Senate estimates. We know that, the more questions we ask, the more answers you can come up with. All we want is the simple truth, a simple yes or no. Am I right that you have confirmed with me that you cannot guarantee that the board absolutely knew of the interlocking relationships between ICCPM since 2012 and Mr Jenkins as a director—

Mr Harfield: I cannot confirm whether they understood all the nuances.

CHAIR: I will reflect on my memory. At one stage of the game in your previous role you were in charge of all this?

Mr Harfield: Yes.

CHAIR: So you were actually in charge of the whole game.

From here it’s one way traffic, Harfield may not resign, perhaps Angus will not fire him until the blame game is over; but I’d bet good money the top job is now and forever, out of his reach.

Toot toot.