[Kharon]

The pledge, where magician shows you something ordinary.

Page 10 - CHAIR: But there would be other issues besides this damn invoice.

Mr Harfield: No, that is the only issue to do with Mr and Mrs Hind. That was it and, as I said, that was picked up.

Senator BULLOCK: I get the feeling that it is the attitude of Airservices that once the matter hits the conflicts register there is nothing further to be done.

Sir Angus Houston: The point that I would make is that the board is addressing all of these probity issues. Again, I reinforce the point that we will be back with that report and it will look at all of these things in fine detail and it will be accompanied by recommendations that we will implement.

Senator GALLACHER: I accept everything you are saying. You get an investigator and you come back and fully disclose, but Mr Harfield seems to think that there is nothing wrong, that as long as you disclose that you are paying your wife you are good to go. Conflict, and managing it, is about perception.

Sir Angus Houston: Absolutely.

Senator GALLACHER: And that is just dumb. If I make a file note saying I am paying my missus a million dollars, that does not make it right. That does not remove the perception. But, Mr Harfield, you seem to think it does.

The turn -  the magician takes the ordinary something and makes it into something extraordinary.

Senator GALLACHER: Everybody on this side of the table would have just walked away and said, 'Someone else please make that payment.'

Mr Harfield: It was a quotation. The payment was not made by Mr Hind; the payment was approved by the Chief Executive Officer of Airservices at the time—they were not the financial delegate. There is a difference there; it is about understanding what the process was. The fact is that the issue was picked up, mitigated and managed. Real conflict of interest is about perception. These things can occur from time to time and it is about having the processes in place to manage those and mitigate those to ensure that it does not turn into an actual—

CHAIR: Can I just pause you there. The husband—Mr Hind, or whoever he is—he wrote the thing to authorise the thing to be paid further up the trail.

Mr Harfield: No, he did not.

CHAIR: So what did he sign?

Mr Harfield: What he signed was a quotation that had come in from ICCPM—

CHAIR: He approved it to be paid?

Mr Harfield: and signing a memo to the chief executive officer saying, 'This is the quote.' The chief executive officer then signed to say, 'This is okay.'

CHAIR: And the quote came from his missus's side of the fence?

Mr Harfield: Correct. The negotiation of that quotation was not done by Mr Hind; it was done by another member of the Airservices staff.

The prestige.  Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"

Page 11 -Senator XENOPHON: But would Mr Hind have had access to any of that information, in respect of the quotation, in respect of the negotiation? That is the obvious question and that is where the risk arises. 

CHAIR: You mean over tea, when you go home and have a yarn?

Mr Harfield: This was a quotation for services for two individuals based on utilising their services for the next six months. That is what the quotation was on, for services for two individuals saying, 'What would it cost for the next six months?' That was the quotation negotiated by another Airservices staff member. That quotation came in and then that quotation—

Senator XENOPHON: That was not my question, though. This is a matter that is being traversed by Senator Bullock as well. In respect of the negotiations, what safeguards and guarantees were there that the information between the related parties on different sides of the negotiating fence was not, in any way, conveyed to them and that there was not any leak of information? That, to me, would pose a very serious issue. Would you agree with that?

Mr Harfield: Senator—

Senator XENOPHON: Do you agree with the proposition that there is a potential there for a significant conflict while they are involved in negotiations? Because they are husband and wife, on the opposite sides of the commercial fence, there is a potential there for information to be leaked from one to the other. I am not saying it was, but how do you deal with that?

Mr Harfield: What negotiation are we talking about? We are not talking about OneSKY negotiation; we are not talking about anything to do with this. This was a quotation for services, for two individuals, for the next six months.

Senator STERLE: What was the value of it?

Mr Harfield: Off the top of my head, I think it was about $800,000 in total for the services of the two individuals over six to 12 months. I would have to take it on notice.

CHAIR: A person at the back of the room just said to me, 'I went home and saw mummy tonight and said, "By the way I signed off on that thing, $800,000 worth. I sent it up the line for you today."'

Mr Harfield: He did not sign off the approval for $800,000.

CHAIR: No, I understand what you are getting at. Say it again.

Mr Harfield: What I am getting at is that, for example, if you went out and said, 'I want the services of two individuals and I need a quote on how much that would be,' you would get a quote. That quote came in and the discussion about that quote was dealt with by another Airservices employee and then the individual signed off that quote and sent it to the financial delegate to decide whether it would be approved or not. That is what has actually occurred.

Senator WILLIAMS: It has a bad smell to it, doesn't it?

Mr Harfield: As I said, there is a perception thing and that is being reviewed, making sure that it does not

You know, I’m not sure which is worse; that the situation was allowed to develop whether by intent or accident being immaterial; or the strenuous efforts being made in an attempt to justify either.  The old cleft stick; damned and looking foolish for allowing the situation, the alternate damnation coming from being caught behind, on a 'perceived' dodgy, dirty, incestuous little deal (or two).

No matter, the Harfwit tirade, bluster and discomfort made it all worthwhile for me.  Cage rattled? Oh, you bet.

Perhaps I can impose on P2 and ask for the DVD part where anger management fails, to be posted.

Toot toot.