[Peetwo]

P7 - "..Very canny Joe; that MoU has been a puzzle to many of us, for a long while.  It is of course well out of date.  It begs the question – did Staib ever read it?  If it was read, why wasn’t it shredded and new one brought in? The Staib version, without the Russell signature.  Passing strange I’d call it, unless the MoU was the watershed where the clash of opposition camps occurred.."  

Yes very canny FJ, I to wonder why it is that the 2010 MoU between the bureau & ASA hadn't been repealed long before now - Memorandum of Understanding between the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Airservices Australia:


You'd of thought that when 'Staibbed in the dark' was first appointed by the Board - after the previous CEO controversy - she would have been given strict instructions to rid all references with GPR's moniker on it ASAP. I would also have thought it prudent to bin the old MoU even without wholesale changes, because it reflects that the new CEO is going about making much needed cultural changes to the old regime. And in PR terms perception of change is quite often far more important than real cultural change. 

Oh well opportunity missed and on a casual read of the MoU it is somewhat unsurprising that it is almost identical in structure to the former CASA v ATSB 2010 MoU. Which, as we all now know, was originally authored to purpose by Doc Aleck with the main objective to maintain and reinforce the Iron Ring status quo, so it is with this ugly responsibility obfuscated, word-weaselled, piece of shite...

Note to P2 - On the ATC retro thread, the first video; Heff was looking for Jason Halfback : even seemed to want a piece of him, back then.  Does it explain some of the venom and a long standing 'interest' ?  Curious, ain't it.  HERE - @ 13.54.36

Here is the Hansard for that session to which you refer Ferryman - ASA 28 November '14 - well worth a re-hash if you've got the time:

CHAIR: Is Mr Jason Harfield in the room?

Ms Staib : No, he is not.

CHAIR: I would have liked him to have been here. Senator Xenophon has some questions.

Senator XENOPHON: Given the controversy in relation to the former CEO's use of credit cards, I presume there has been a substantial rethink and change of protocols with regard to the use of credit cards—is that a fair summary?

Mr Clark : Certainly over the last two years we have made modifications to the credit card policy and procedure for a whole range of reasons. As it relates to who signs the chief executive's credit card, who authorises annual leave et cetera for the chief executive, there have been a range of changes that have been made since that time.

Senator XENOPHON: And it has been reduced to a document?

Mr Clark : It has been reduced to a document.

Senator XENOPHON: Have we got a copy of that? Has the committee got a copy of that new document? It might be useful. I do not know whether Senator Gallacher will find it useful—

Senator GALLACHER: We have asked for that on notice, but that will be 10 December.

Senator XENOPHON: So it has already been asked for, as I understand it, so it is on its way?

Mr Clark : 'Yes' would be the answer, if you have asked for it.

Senator XENOPHON: And you can show us, by contrast, what the previous protocols were in respect of credit card use?

Mr Clark : Yes, I can do that as well. So if you would like to see how the credit card policy has been changed and/or amended over the last X years, I am more than happy to do that.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, that might be useful. Was there any referral to the authorities, to the Federal Police, in respect of any questions over credit card use in the past?

Mr Clark : I think we have already answered that, and the answer is 'yes'.

Senator STERLE: Mr Clark, you are right: you are a $1 billion company with absolutely no competition. Ms Staib, I want to put some questions to you, and I want to go back to Senate estimates. Firstly, and I do not want to know the ins and outs of the last one—who it was; nothing like that—but who would have known that there was credit card fraud or misuse or whatever you want to say when I asked you in Senate estimates about this matter? Who would have known?

Ms Staib : As I said, we have a fraud and ethics committee—

CHAIR: Just pausing there, if we could. Can you tell us who is on the fraud and whatever committee.

Ms Staib : It is not chaired by me, but my fellow executives are on that committee.

CHAIR: Could you name the individuals?

Ms Staib : Dr Weaver is co-chair with Mr Boyd, who is head of HR.

Senator STERLE: Anyone else?

Ms Staib : The CFO and Mr Hood—

Senator STERLE: Keep going.

CHAIR: Did you say Mr Boyd is on—

Ms Staib : Fraud and ethics, yes.

CHAIR: And he is pretty good mates with Mr Rodwell?

Ms Staib : I cannot speak to that. We are all work colleagues.

CHAIR: In recent times have you been concerned about leaks out of Airservices?

Ms Staib : In recent times I have been. It concerns me when people cannot bring questions or concerns to me. In fact, we had a discussion; I think it was two Senate estimates ago, when Senator Xenophon asked me a question about one of our technology projects. We did talk about that.

Senator XENOPHON: That was INTAS.

Ms Staib : INTAS.

Senator STERLE: Chair, come back here; I want to get back on air.

CHAIR: I know. I am just trying to get my head around a couple of matters for later on. You are relatively new to the job?

Ms Staib : I have been—

Senator STERLE: A couple of years?

Ms Staib : Two years, Senator.

CHAIR: And some of these folks have been there for ages under Greg. Are you aware of some of the tension in the office between various individuals?

Ms Staib : We have nine executives. We are a team. There are at times robust discussions on matters.

CHAIR: Does it concern you that there is a fair bit of tension?

Ms Staib : We are working as a very effective team. There are some tensions on occasion around different issues.

CHAIR: Okay, that is all. I just wanted to confirm what—

Much like the Doc & Murky, old bully boy JH has been the one constant in the ASA Executive basically since it's inception {Q/ Kind of makes you wonder if maybe JH was also one of the original founding members of the Iron Ring??}. Therefore JH has also been around the periphery of the Thales Oz & ASA long standing, possibly incestuous, contractual relationship(s) probably since day dot??

Reference from AQON 10 (pg 125) of QON 28 Nov '14:

CHAIR: Just pausing there—because this note I have has your name attached—can you tell us how much

it costs to do those changes? Is it a fairly generous deal, in terms of money, that Thales get out of whatever

they do? Could you please give us the financial details of Thales's arrangement.

Mr Rodwell: I would need to have a look at that.

Answer:

The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) contract with Thales Australia Limited was executed on 7 February 1994 and expires on 31 December 2018 with an option to extend as Airservices directs. The contract includes strict provision relating to the disclosure of commercial- in-confidence information, including financial information.

  
Moving on and while on the subject of AQONs, I notice that just yesterday the Senate RRAT committee Secretariat have published the AQONs for QON from the last special hearing on the 18th of August. Again this shows that when strongly motivated the bureaucrats in these agencies can get mobilised quite quickly, certainly makes a mockery of Murky Mandarin's obfuscating tactics with QON from Budget Estimates - FCOL...

Anyway here is a link for yesterday's ASA released AQON - QON 18 Aug '15 
    
{NB Full AQON not necessarily included} 

Question no. 1

Senator XENOPHON: How much are you paying Mr Bradford?

Mr Harfield: We are paying a daily contract rate but I will have to take on notice what the daily rate is.

Senator XENOPHON: Yes, roughly.

Answer:

The daily rate contracted for Mr Bradford’s services is $4,500 plus GST. Mr Bradford is the Managing Director of HC Bradford and Associates, an associate partner of the International Centre for Complex Project Management (ICCPM), and his services are contracted through ICCPM...

        

Question no. 2

Mr Harfield: As we said, we are trying to arrange for the tender evaluation or probity plan associated with the program. That puts in the systems and processes to manage whether there was conflict of interest in the process. There is a tender evaluation plan for how the tender evaluation is to be assessed. That is endorsed by the Airservices board, and the tender evaluation process then continues and is run by the tender evaluation organisation.


Senator XENOPHON: You can provide us with copies of those, can't you?

Mr Harfield: Yes. I just need to take advice on the tender evaluation plan, but I will take it on notice.

Senator XENOPHON: Why wouldn't we be able to see that?

Mr Harfield: Because of the sensitivity of it. I just need to take advice on it. If I can provide it, I will.

Answer:

The Tender Evaluation Plan for the joint civil-military air traffic management system contains commercial-in-confidence information of both Airservices and the Commonwealth (Department of Defence) and disclosure could damage the negotiating positions as the contracts for the full scope of the OneSKY program have not been awarded.

The Plan was developed and approved by Airservices and Defence as well as Ashurst Australia as the Program Probity Advisor. As part of the establishment of robust governance processes for the procurement program, the Airservices Board noted the Tender Evaluation Plan in October 2013 before tenders were received.

The Airservices Board did not play a part in the tender evaluation, which was the responsibility of a joint Tender Evaluation Board (TEB) chaired by the Airservices CEO and comprising of Airservices and Defence executives....

Question no. 3

Senator GALLACHER: Can you tell me why you spent $7 million on separation and redundancies, in the 2013-14 year, in an environment where you were putting people on and growing?

Mr Logan: I would have to take that question, in detail, on notice.

……

Senator EDWARDS: How many redundancies have there been over that period?

Mr Logan: I would need to take that on notice. The numbers that we were discussing before were about $4 million, I think, a couple of years ago and maybe $7 million the year before...

Question no. 4

..Senator XENOPHON: Not necessarily specific to ADS-B, but part of the package of rolling out certain technologies and rolling out certain things, including ADS-B, would be relevant in terms of that at-risk component of the remuneration.


Mr Harfield: For example, part of our delivery of our capital program is introducing more ADS-B antennas around the country. We have a program called enhancement for ADS-B and rolling out the antennas, and that would form a part of an executive's performance because it is part of the capital program and delivery of the capital program.

Senator XENOPHON: What I am worried about is that I speak to small operators who are worried sick about this. They say that it is going to mean the difference: either it will break some of them or, more disturbingly, some people, because of the financial pressures of this rollout, may cut corners. That is what I am worried about. That raises all sorts of other regulatory risks. Is there any aspect of this at-risk component of remuneration that is linked to the rollout or implementation of programs such as ADS-B?

Mr Harfield: I will have to take that on notice. 

Answer:

Since 1 July 2014, performance payments for the at-risk component of remuneration for Executives have been made with reference to:

 Corporate Performance (Airservices performance as a whole) - 20%

 Business Group Performance (Performance against key indicators and initiatives for which the Executive’s Business Group has primary accountability) - 60%

 Individual performance - 20% 

  

Question no. 5

CHAIR: How did Ashurst get the job? What was the process that gave them the job and not billy blogs?

Mr Harfield: Ashurst came through because of their skills and through a normal recruitment process.

CHAIR: Was there a list of people to choose from when you picked them, or did you think, 'They'll do'?

Mr Harfield: There would have been a choice of firms to choose from and we took their experience in that matter.

CHAIR: Could we have that list?

Mr Harfield: Yes, we can provide that. I do not have that on me right now but we can provide that list.

Answer:

Airservices conducted an open market tender exercise in 2010 and established a panel of legal service providers comprising Ashurst Australia, Minster Ellison and Clayton Utz.

Following a selective tender from the three panel firms, Airservices engaged Minter Ellison to provide legal services on the OneSKY program in 2010, with Defence engaging Clayton Utz as its legal adviser. Airservices also appointed Ashurst as its Probity Adviser.

In 2012, Ashurst was appointed to act as the joint probity adviser for both Airservices and Defence for the OneSKY Program.

Finally here is a link for this evening's viewing - Watch Parliament (2nd from bottom of 'Today' list)
MTF..P2