[Peetwo]

Not sure why but in recent times I've become an avid reader of 'The Mandarin' , for some reason I find many of the articles fascinating???

Maybe it is because many of the excellent posts from the Mandarin journalists - such as Stephen Easton & Harley Dennett - look at transparency & accountability within Government Departments. Which in my mind parallels many of the IOS concerns within the Aviation Bureaucracy; i.e. the Department, CASA, the ATSB & AirServices.

Strangely to this point in time the Department & these agencies seem to have escaped scrutiny from the Mandarin. Maybe - with a Senate Inquiry pending into ASA - this could change within the foreseeable future??

This thread is a tribute to the Mandarin in better explaining the strange machinations of the Public Sector & the bureaucracy of Federal, State & Local Government.

To kick it off there was today - from Stephen Easton - a post on the recently held Forum on the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act , which replaced the old FMA Act :

PGPA forum: link budgets to corporate plans, learn to live with risk

---

by
Stephen Easton
24.06.2015
Just meeting your budget isn’t good enough in the Australian Public Service anymore. Managers will need to show how that spending achieves corporate plans, and they’re expected to work with other portfolios and outsiders more than ever.

Some federal bureaucrats see the relatively new Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act as pretty much an update on the financial management legislation that preceded it. Department of Defence chief operating officer Brendan Sargeant would disagree.

“I’ve heard it said that the PGPA is just the FMA Act with a few tweaks, but I don’t think anything can be further from the truth,” Sargeant said last week at a forum hosted by the IPAA ACT branch, where he spoke of his department’s experience implementing the changes over the past year. “It takes us into a very different world.”


Brendan Sargeant

The march of the public management reforms ushered in by the new act is slow and steady. At its destination awaits a new performance framework which enhances accountability by strongly linking budgets to organisational goals.

“Like all reform, it can be embraced or marginalised in the implementation,” warned Sargeant. “At it’s heart is a very simple idea: performance is the extent to which resources have been or are being used effectively to support an entity’s fulfilment of its purpose. The PGPA asks us to understand and account for performance by focusing on the relationship between goal-setting and resource usage.”

“It’s no longer sufficient to say: ‘I’ve achieved; I’ve spent my budget.’ The standard is higher.”

“It’s no longer sufficient to say: ‘I’ve achieved; I’ve spent my budget.’ The standard is higher.”

Defence’s COO says the PGPA could also be seen as the latest phase in the financial devolution reforms that began in the public service of the 1980s, giving more financial decision-making to line managers, like himself at the time. He recalls it as a “very liberating process” that intended to improve decision-making, in terms of innovative resource use and responsiveness to local conditions or the ability to deal with “real problems not necessarily visible to the centre”.

“The problem with devolution lay in its implementation,” said Sargeant. “It did not integrate budget development and management with the normal day-to-day planning and implementation of activities in organisations. And in those days, planning was pretty ad-hoc and not many places actually had corporate plans.”

The “default settings of Commonwealth budgeting culture” prevailed, with budgeting and resource allocation separate to the patchy corporate planning that was done.

“There has, of course, always been a relationship between goal-setting and budget, but it’s not been tightly coupled enough to support strong judgements about the effectiveness of resource decisions or policy goals, except at relatively high levels of generality. The consequence has been low levels of real accountability to decisions made by managers,” Sargeant continued.

“In this sense, devolution weakened the centre’s financial control, but did not necessarily result in better financial decision making or increased accountability. Nor did it necessarily give team managers a better sense of the strategic impact of resource decisions.”

“The thing that is fundamentally different about this one is this one says you do not have a choice. This one says you will pay attention to performance, you will pay attention to risk, and you will put that at the centre of how you go about your work.”

“The thing that is fundamentally different about this one is this one says you do not have a choice. This one says you will pay attention to performance, you will pay attention to risk, and you will put that at the centre of how you go about your work.”

The performance framework created by the PGPA would change that, he explained.
“It’s no longer sufficient to say: ‘I’ve achieved; I’ve spent my budget.’ The standard is higher. The question has become: ‘Have I achieved my budget in a way that optimally supports the goals and objectives I’ve set myself through my planning process?'”

As time goes on, the questions that Defence higher-ups ask of line managers would become “more searching and more complex” as standards of accountability become tighter, Sargeant suggested.

“Were they the right goals, pursued in the most effective way? Were there other choices that might have been explored in establishing both those goals, and the means by which they might be realised?

“So, we’re asking people to think more deeply about what they do, and to think more innovatively about the choices before them in how they do that.

“These questions are hard to ask in the current management environment. In many ways, in many areas, the relationship between resource allocation and goal setting is either imprecise, tenuous, or operates at a level of generality that makes such questioning difficult or meaningless as a guide to a judgement about performance.”

“Indeed, the strategic lesson from our experience of corporate and annual planning, since the Black review, has been the complexity of developing meaningful goals and useful performance measures — let along linking them meaningfully to resource input.”

Risk and the new government paradigm

Stein Helgeby, the Department of Finance’s deputy secretary with responsibility for governance and resource management, opened the forum by reiterating that the PGPA reforms broadly support the shift towards “smaller government”, increased contestability, standardised systems and consolidated service delivery — in many cases enabled by increasing use of digital platforms.


Stein Helgeby

Helgeby said the Commonwealth bureaucracy was currently too complex to take advantage of its massive scale. The only way to do so — and achieve greater impact, efficiency and innovation — was to “standardise” but for too long, he argued, the public sector had accepted this inefficient complexity as a fact of life. It was simply another way the public service was different to the private sector.

The PGPA Act also aims to put risk management front and centre in all areas of public sector management. According to a chart that Helgeby showed the forum, Comcover rates the “risk maturity” of most federal agencies towards the upper end of a spectrum ranging from “fundamental” to “optimal”, but there is still work to be done.

One agency was rated at the lowest end, 13 have a “developed” risk management framework, 45 were at the “systematic” level and 64 have “integrated” risk management. The chart rated 32 agencies as “advanced” and just one at the “optimal” level.

In his presentation, Sargeant said the PGPA reforms had brought risk management into “sharp relief”.

“Every decision to establish a goal and allocate resources is a decision to approve risk,” he told the forum. “The PGPA brings risk into view because it makes visible the reality that all goal-setting and resource allocation is choice-making. And choice-making is concerned with understanding and managing degrees of actual or potential risk.”

Defence is in the planning phase of sweeping changes recommended by the recent First Principles Review. Among other things, the generational reforms include development of a single planning framework, and Sargeant says the department is “embracing [the PGPA Act] as a tremendous opportunity to drive reform”.

Another “biggish organisation with a significant presence around the place” that is also undergoing a major restructure offers a good example of how to implement the reforms, according to Helgeby. Instead of asking how the PGPA Act would force the organisation to change, it was looking at how it could take advantage of the PGPA Act to support the changes it wanted to make, he said.

As Defence moves to the simpler structure recommended by the First Principles Review, the PGPA Act empowers it to establish the new system of accountability that is needed, with clear expectations for managers at all levels.

“The art of PGPA implementation in Defence lies in adapting this architecture to defence processes and systems in a way that strengthens accountability and performance,” said Sargeant.

“It will be a very big cultural as well as administrative change, but for me, the cultural dimensions are much bigger than the administrative changes that will flow.

“At present, this implementation is primarily through the development of the new corporate plan but should not be simply seen or treated as a corporate-level initiative. I believe that there’s an opportunity for SES managers to review and renovate their management practice in their work areas against this broader framework.”

The biggest challenge for Defence has been actually figuring out meaningful, organisation-wide performance measures that link planning to resource allocation, he added.

“And it gets very challenging when you reach into the higher levels of the organisation and you have a goal which spans right across and which many different parts of the organisation contribute to, and develop a performance measures that are meaningful and allow people both to position their work and to make judgements about the effectiveness and relevance of their contribution.”

Sargeant said Defence still had a way to go on this challenging journey, but told the keen public servants in the IPAA audience it was work that was very much worth doing.

“My view is that really understanding [that] performance is built out of [all] the different parts of our management process, is where implementation of the PGPA is going to either live or die.”

Helgeby also tried to set the PGPA reforms apart from those of the past, pointing to the much stronger mandatory corporate planning requirements that take effect from next year.

“You might ask, why would you put a lot of [new] planning in place when all it does is become another bundle of paper? I think we’re doing something different here,” he said. “I think what we are actually doing is we’re trying to make a system that works better because you can see through it from the beginning to the end.”

As opposed to the last “30 or 40 years” of Commonwealth performance frameworks, the new one turned guidelines into mandatory duties, he explained. Rather than defining a high standard and saying it would be nice if everyone could meet it, the new system had “some steel behind it”.

“The thing that is fundamentally different about this one is this one says you do not have a choice. This one says you will pay attention to performance, you will pay attention to risk, and you will put that at the centre of how you go about your work.”

Breaking down boundaries

While the changes are difficult to implement for some of the organisations formerly known as FMA agencies, the benefits are starting to emerge from the increasingly large holes being punched in the walls between silos.

“Anecdotally, there’s a lot of sharing of information going on, there are a lot of ideas being spread around the place,” said Helgeby. “People are doing innovative things they would never have thought of. So people who are neighbour organisations, not in a portfolio, but physically, are sharing audit committee meetings, or thinking about doing that.

“People are sharing information about their planning arrangements and how they’re going about doing that. There’s a lot of sharing going on and the communities of practice, I think, will be a big part of how the change continues.”

“I believe that there’s an opportunity for SES managers to review and renovate their management practice in their work areas against this broader framework.”

“I believe that there’s an opportunity for SES managers to review and renovate their management practice in their work areas against this broader framework.”

For government to be as effective as possible, its public service organs must also look beyond their own patch for opportunities to collaborate, and the PGPA Act explicitly demands they do so in a more open-minded way. The APS will be expected to play nicer with companies and not-for-profits as well as their state and territory counterparts.

“From a policy perspective, the thinking here is that we don’t have a monolithic public sector and a monolithic private sector, or even a monolithic non-government sector,” Helgeby explained in response to a question from the audience. “What we have is a continual series of relationships between these things.”

Just about any of the really big problems confronting governments cross these sectoral boundaries, and all participants in solving those problems should feel they are playing by the same rules.

“I think the experience so far has been typically the side which has got the money ends up imposing a whole series of constraints through contractual or other means that go to undercut, if you like, some of the more productive or cooperative relationships that could exist in these kinds of arrangements,” Helgeby added.

“The intention here is to work through these problems of joining up, in such a way that we allow a little less of the pure contractual kind of stuff, and a lot more of the joining together around a common purpose and applying resources in a way that’s flexible against that purpose.

“We can’t just run government in such a way that we create boundaries that are really unproductive.”

And parliament is watching, he reminded the audience, with the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audits running an inquiry into the new performance framework. Helgeby, who has spent considerable time in the committee’s hearings, expects a lot more attention on the public management changes in the months ahead.

Okay so why is this relevant?? Well recently the miniscule released his SOE to CASA, & in that at bullet point (3) it states:

3.        ensure that CASA, in performing its functions:

(a) acts in accordance with the Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation;

 
I wonder then where CASA rated...

 "..One agency was rated at the lowest end, 13 have a “developed” risk management framework, 45 were at the “systematic” level and 64 have “integrated” risk management. The chart rated 32 agencies as “advanced” and just one at the “optimal” level.."

However what I'd really like to know is how CASA - exemplified through the 2300 (at least) page horror reg Part61 - is allowed to seemingly thumb it's nose at the Coalition Government policy of red tape reduction, as outlined & guided by the PM's own Department - OBPR (The PMC Office of Best Practice Regulation)??

This policy was further highlighted as a priority to CASA in the miniscule's SOE. Quote from the Oz article - CASA must consider cost of regulation: Warren Truss :

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will be required to consider the economic and cost impact of regulation as well as implement the Forsyth review in a timely manner as part of a long-awaited statement of expectations sent by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.  

   
& from the SOE:

...10.    work with the Department in the preparation of a new long term funding strategy for CASA to be reflected in the 2016-17 Portfolio Budget Statements to provide ongoing financial stability for CASA and examine opportunities for reducing the costs of regulation to the aviation industry...

...15.    consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes.

MTF...P2

    

[Gobbledock]

P2, sounds very much like the ATsB and CAsA;

Breaking down boundaries
"While the changes are difficult to implement for some of the organisations formerly known as FMA agencies, the benefits are starting to emerge from the increasingly large holes being punched in the walls between silos.
Anecdotally, there’s a lot of sharing of information going on, there are a lot of ideas being spread around the place,” said Helgeby. People are doing innovative things they would never have thought of. So people who are neighbour organisations, not in a portfolio, but physically, are sharing audit committee meetings, or thinking about doing that"

One of my favourite 'other' forums is ZeroHedge. There is an interesting article on there at the moment titled;

"Keeping Government Bureaucrats Off the Backs Of The Citizenry: The Supreme Court Responds".
It makes for an interesting read, amongst many other good articles for those who like to see the rotten core of the worlds bureaucratic, political and financial systems exposed. As follows;

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-23...t-responds

[Peetwo]

From the Mandarin 25 June 2015...

Federal agency takes on The Australian over executive pay

by

Stephen Easton
25.06.2015


Airservices Australia maintains its reputation is being dragged through the mud and that information about executive remuneration from its annual report is being misrepresented. The stakes are not trivial; a Senate inquiry into the agency’s performance remains ongoing.

Airservices Australia has taken on one of the nation’s most influential newspapers over a series of recent articles suggesting its senior staff received unusually large payrises and bonuses in recent years.

In two letters to The Australian editor Clive Mathieson, the air traffic control agency’s executive general manager of corporate and industry affairs, Mairi Barton, has accused the newspaper of repeatedly making false claims. She says the journalists misread the organisation’s annual report.

Barton maintains it is inaccurate and misleading for The Australian to report the agency’s “salary pool” for executives had grown by more than 40% to nearly $4 million last finan­cial year, and that a “bonus pool” had grown by 60% to almost $800,000.

The claim was first made in a June 15 article, and Barton says Airservices Australia advised the journalist that it was incorrect in the agency’s view, prior to publication. In her first letter she said the average increase to senior executive remuneration was 2.25% in the period in question, between 2012-13 and 2013-14, and added:

“We also advised prior to publication that during the two-year period in question, there were several changes to the composition of the executive and it is not accurate to do a simple dollar comparison from year to year. This includes partial year data for new members of the executive in 2012-13, while the 2013-14 remuneration data includes one-off entitlements such as accrued leave and long service leave paid to a departing long-serving member of staff in 2013-14.”

Barton said the figures were also explained by the fact there were only eight executives included in the 2012-13 data, while the 2013-14 data covered 11 executives. “Other considerations include that the CEO was only employed for part of the 2012-13 year compared to a full year of remuneration in 2013-14,” she adds.

But it seems unlikely The Oz is going to back down at this stage, at least based on comments from corporate accountant John Leece included in the June 15 story, which state the agency did not answer questions “which could have sorted out the inconsistencies” and that the responses it did provide were insufficient to explain how the newspaper’s reading of the annual report was wrong.

After the June 15 letter fell on deaf ears, Barton wrote to Mathieson again last Friday:

“The information that you have relied on from our annual report relates to remuneration data that is presented in accordance with required accounting standards and it is not a salary or bonus pool.
The number of executives included in the reported figures was different between 2012-13 and 2013-14 and it is inaccurate and misleading to make a direct comparison between the two years and imply this is a change to a ‘salary pool’, ‘bonus pool’ or to imply that individual members of the executive have had big salary increases.”

Barton also took issue with two other points in the article published by The Australian last Friday. Firstly there were these two lines:

“Airservices initially claimed the average rise in “remuneration” was 2.25%, but under further questioning yesterday admitted this only covered base salary. With the rise in bonuses, it now claims total average remuneration rose by 5.2%.”

The agency says this assertion is “wrong” because it never made a statement to that effect. At this point, it may be a game of semantics, but, according to Barton’s most recent letter to the editor:

“We maintain that prior to the pay freeze, the executive remuneration increase in 2013-14 was 2.25% on average. Subsequently, Airservices implemented an executive pay freeze for the 2014-15 financial year and for the upcoming 2015-16 financial year. This pay freeze continues the restraint in executive remuneration by Airservices for many years.”

Barton also questions the way The Australian has reported on a case of credit card fraud in the agency that was not reported to police. The June 19 article refers to a now months old and misleading discussion in a Senate Estimates hearing last October, when an Airservices Australia manager thought, from memory, that “$10,000 to $20,000″ could have been stolen — but soon after confirmed the fraud amounted to less than $2500.

The performance of the agency is the subject of a current inquiry by the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which last held a hearing in late November, 2014.

Airservices Australia has asked The Australian to refrain from repeating what it says are variously incorrect, inaccurate and misleading claims, and to publish corrections. One hopes its executive is not collectively holding its breath.

Interesting how in less than 24hrs after this Steve Easton post, The Australian's 'Editor at large' Paul Kelly writes an article on behalf of Angus Houston, see my post - P2: "Angus burger thanks with pickles & Dick's tomato sauce! 

So are the two articles in Friday's The Australian in anyway a retraction or correction??

Nah I don't think so..

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

I really enjoy the quality of reporting, factual, to the point, no ‘drama’ other than that which is apparent in the piece itself, top stuff. They seem to be able to get the story out with a minimum of fuss, but maximum impact.

It will be interesting to see how the ASA inquiry fares in the Mandarin; if even half the truth gets out, it’s much more a Sunday tabloid scandal sheet sort of affair; no doubt we shall have the tale told with the usual aplomb. But the CASA tale and that of the ATSB are ‘classics’, there are lots of ‘how not to’ tips there for those in the public service and yet the Senate inquiry managed to avoid the scandal and get the message delivered; not that it has penetrated, but at least the good Senators hands are clean. I wonder will your Mandarin have a little look at those?, Dick is making matters aeronautical ‘topical’ at the moment. We shall see.

Nice catch P2, I shall read the Mandarin with much interest…..

[Gobbledock]

It's always amazing how these bureaucracies like to do SFA about relevant issues, yet they suddenly become proactive, issue statements and provide dates and times when it comes to attempted ass covering over salaries! But mention things past and present like TIBA, LAHSO, credit card fraud, lack/shortage of controllers, poor management, poor training center practises and bullying, and they go to ground or obsfucate.

ASA said;

"The June 19 article refers to a now months old and misleading discussion in a Senate Estimates hearing last October, when an Airservices Australia manager thought, from memory, that “$10,000 to $20,000″ could have been stolen — but soon after confirmed the fraud amounted to less than $2500".

Are you serious? So that makes everything ok does it, it was only a $2500.00 fraud and it was mine/yours/our hard earned money misappropriated, yet no big deal!!! But it was only $2500 and 'months' ago! So what exactly is ASA telling us here - that if it is (in their eyes) only a small amount of theft and happened months ago then all should be forgotten? OMG, this is how taxpayer monies are misused and department heads feel it is 'acceptable'? This raises a major red flag, plus the fact that Staib danced around the subject during the senate inquiry and of course Beefcake Houston until now has tried to remain as quiet as a church mouse about the issue ( rings a familiar bell doesn't it?).

Yep boys and girls, Houston we definitely have a problem...... As P2 would say - MTF

[Kharon]

Between the ledger sheets.

GD –“This raises a major red flag, plus the fact that Staib danced around the subject during the senate inquiry and of course Beefcake Houston until now has tried to remain as quiet as a church mouse about the issue ( rings a familiar bell doesn't it?).”

The notion of Satib ‘dancing’ around anything has developed it’s own ribald, hilarious set of images and one liners which will go down in BRB legend (definitely Not for publication).  But, it’s got me beat how Staib has managed to get through the estimates in one piece, let alone survive this long.  One look at the ‘video’ is enough to raise alarms; but when you get down in the weeds, the story of ASA is, shall we say, somewhat less than salutary.  It does however reflect the ethos and ethics of the big three aviation departments; and shines a light on those who ‘manage’ those departments.  From airport land fills across the whole gamut to persecution of a private pilot, or a prosecution for minor ‘paper-work’ errors; or, another useless ATSB ‘report’.  These departments are a law unto themselves, beyond the reach of law in many cases and almost unaccountable.  

Look at what the ATSB has been allowed to get away with; examine the absolute untrammelled power CASA has prescribed for its own benefit.  I hope the Senate get serious this time; they only need look at the Staib cartoon vision of the world and compare it to stark, cold reality.  Anecdotally, on balance of probability, the corruption and incompetence exists; perhaps the Senators can develop that notion to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.  Then, maybe, the blame may be sheeted home to where it belongs.

Between Tick and Tock, hiatus exists.  Time to start the music.

Toot toot..... ...

[Peter Lovett]

Look at what the ATSB has been allowed to get away with; examine the absolute untrammelled power CASA has prescribed for its own benefit.  I hope the Senate get serious this time; they only need look at the Staib cartoon vision of the world and compare it to stark, cold reality.  Anecdotally, on balance of probability, the corruption and incompetence exists; perhaps the Senators can develop that notion to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.  Then, maybe, the blame may be sheeted home to where it belongs.

Between Tick and Tock, hiatus exists.  Time to start the music.

Toot toot..... ...

Thank you for the laugh Kharon. I needed it badly.

Seriously, do you really think the Senate is going to get serious about anything? This morning, as I read what passes for a newspaper in this god-forsaken outpost, I came across what can only be described as a political advertisement for the Liberal members of a couple of constituencies. It confirmed for me something that I read in something far more worthy than one of Rupert's rags; that we are about to go to an election sooner than later. There is nothing like the prospect of losing one's gravy train to concentrate the mind of a politician on what is essential. Their self-preservation so this is no time to rock the boat.

What we are seeing though is nothing more than the continuation of something for which Australia has become the world leader. Have you really given any thought as to why Australia is one of the world's strongest economies? I know that sounds strange but the reality is that we are near the top of the pile but that most Australians don't or can't believe it. The reason we got there is that the Federal governments (of both persuasions) have been gradually decreasing the services they provide while continuing to tax at the same scale and increase what they charge for the little they provide. Because they can, the Feds have been squeezing the States and because they can, they squeeze local government. Meanwhile the potholes get bigger.

What particularly annoys me is that with the (very) occasional exception, this has gone unremarked by our political pundits who continue to wet themselves over the posturing and manoeuvring of our politicians which is a non-event in reality. I recall some years back listening to a political journalist who, unfortunately, plays only on the web these days behind a paywall, who raised this issue which has prompted my musings over the years. Unfortunately, what it means in reality is that politicians don't care what service the governments they serve provides so long as it doesn't bite them in the bum with the public. As to the public, the decline in services is incremental so while we get bitten we don't complain, or at least we don't complain effectively so that the pollies feel it in the bum.

So lets not expect anything to change with our aviation agencies. So long as they are providing a service for as little cost to the government as possible then they are doing exactly what is expected of them. As to the expectations of the aviation server user groups, the government don't give a fig as to that so long as it doesn't affect the prospects of re-election. How that gets changed, I have no idea. I have written here previously that short of a major crash or damming external review it won't change. I would not like to see either but I can't see other options, unfortunately.

[thorn bird]

Who’s responsible????????? A Sunday ramble, sorry gentlemen, sometimes I despair.

Looking back over the years I ponder how an industry I have spent almost fifty years of my life in and about, finds itself in such a mess.

Under siege from every quarter, being slowly squeezed to a painful death.  

I ponder on, the why, the how, the who, and what their motives were/are and who ultimately takes responsibility.

For sure the GA industry itself must carry some of the blame. Apathy and a failure to grasp the gravity of what is happening to it, close ranks, form a united front, and speak with a uniform voice to fight for its survival is perhaps its biggest failing.  

In mitigation, the tyranny of distance and the attendant costs, (remember the airline duopoly where a one way ticket was a months salary, remember the telecommunications  monopoly, where a three minute call to Perth cost half a days salary?)

This made it difficult for industry to communicate and confederate. It was not easy to get their message out into the wider community, aviation was not newsworthy unless there was a crash, therefore the only picture Joe public saw was negative.

It is a little easier today with the advent of the internet and mobile phones, but perhaps too late to change perceptions.

GA could be described as a loosely knit collection of “Cottage industries” spread across this vast Island Continent, sprouting when a need arose, diminishing as the need declined, only to spring up somewhere else. They employed a lot of people, gave a lot their start in aviation, and contributed to the national wealth by providing a vital service to their communities.  

From the local town aero-club, to the one man band charter company, to the local maintenance shop, these were local industries that served their communities, and served them very well.

GA is diverse, it covers a multitude of disciplines each with a barrow to push, each with its own agenda, and each containing its share of ego’s.  For as long as I’ve been a part of it, GA’s businesses have generally been owned and managed by passionate enthusiasts, generally under resourced, undercapitalized and very sensitive to price pressures.

It could be said, those that sought to manipulate and control the industry knew very well those weaknesses and exploited the “divide and rule” principle to the fullest.

This one simple weakness facilitated the rot that set in.

Who decided to take the words ”Foster and promote” from CAsA’s charter?

Was it deliberate? If so, why? and where were wiser industry heads and political leaders, who should have seen the dangers of giving bureaucrat’s unfetted power.

Back thirty years or so ago someone decided that our Reg’s were in need of reform.

Sensibly, since most of the aircraft we operate are manufactured and certified in the USA, a decision was made to align us with the FAR’s.

A start was made, working committees formed, with expert industry participation. Rule sets were written to mirror arguably the safest aviation industry on earth and most certainly the biggest.

In the US, regulation was born from the civilian side, not as an extension of the military. Rules were written to promote safety, therefore they had to be written in plain English, because the imperative was the regulated must understand them, but always there was an eye on the impact those rules would have on the health and well being of the industry, “Foster and Promote” was the mantra that sat at the core of aviation regulation, recognizing that expertise lay within the industry, not the regulator, clear unambiguous rules, education and mentoring would produce the best safety outcomes. The irrefutable truth is they were right, the US has the safest aviation environment in the world.

Unfortunately someone here decided to bin all the work that had been done to aline with the US rules and start again, embracing a flawed EASA rule set.
Why? nobody will say. We think we know who, but the jury is still out on that one.  

Ultimately that flawed rule set destroyed European General Aviation and is about to do the same to Australia.

Our regulator set off on the EASA path, copied the headings but deceitfully filled in the content with our very own prescriptive, complicated, legalistic unworkable rubbish.

Predictably Australian General Aviation is suffering the same fate as our European colleges.

Who was responsible and why?

Our Industry directly and indirectly pay for our regulator. Those in its upper echelon are paid handsomely to manage competently and be responsible, they are most certainly not employed to bring the industry to its knees, regardless of the myth of the Safety Mantra they have used unmercifully to denigrate the industry and promote their own perception as savers of the Australian Public.

Can anyone remember when a positive statement has ever been heard from CAsA about the GA industry?    

Destroying the GA industry is not stated government policy, we pay, so indirectly they are responsible to us, we are not paying to have them destroy us.

Whenever CAsA is held to account all we hear is excuses, such as, “We are only required to consider safety” or “I was in Montreal” or “I wasn’t at CAsA at the time”.
They take OUR dollar, they should earn it, but more than that, they should pay a price for incompetence, especially where malfeasance is established .

I particularly hate the excuse “we are only required to consider safety”.
It is a very cheap copout!

It’s not so long ago we were called “customers”. Being a customer implies, having a choice to not reward incompetent service by withdrawing our custom.

Difficult when you are dealing with a monopoly.

Today we are referred to as “Stakeholders”, which implies we as an industry have a vested interest in how things are done, yet we are dismissed with contempt and disrespect.

Regardless of how they want to refer to us, or what they want to imply with weasel words, the fact remains, we pay and we should be entitled to have a say and receive competent service.

Ours is a service industry, where there is a need, we provide the service. If we screw up, we pay the price and must accept responsibility.

Why should we have to accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?
Or, perhaps more to the point, why do WE as an industry accept a service that ultimately sends us broke?

When GA is no more, will anyone in Government, or the bureaucracy pay a price?

Who decided to move aviation regulation into criminal law?

Which let loose the lawyers to write indecipherable regulation that absolve incompetence by the rule writers, absolve the regulator from any liability for anything and makes criminals of everyone on the Industry side.

Regulation for “Liability” not regulation for “Safety”

Who decided to flog off our airports to Property sharks and why?

Was there nobody in the bureaucracy with the acumen to counsel that this may not be a good idea?  If there were naysayers, why were they ignored?

Our primary Airports are a national disgrace, with third world infrastructure, continually voted at the bottom of the world pile.

Our secondary airports are disappearing, as ever larger chunks are removed for any future aviation growth, for the immediate profits of development sharks, the airports utility diminished to unsafe levels and where it impinges on their viability as airports.

Perhaps this was the goal, billions of dollars of greenfield real estate too much of a temptation?

Who decided that a person, who, if you believe published information, displayed disturbing sociopath tendencies be employed as DAS? Despite evidence from overseas, thus unleashing a five year reign of terror on the GA industry and creating a culture within CAsA as policemen rather than partners in the promotion of real safety, not enforced embuggerance.

This culture is still in place today and will take a concerted effort and maybe years to change.

The current DAS will need a lot more than platitudes to convince industry that the same deceit, lies, corruption and incompetence will not continue under his watch.  

If he started to atone for the sins of the past, and make restitution it would be a good start.

Unfortunately all the current signs point to Skidmore being a Mc Comic, Mini Me, sans the screaming.

[Kharon]

Potted politics.

Pete, you have identified problems which have existed pretty much since the cave.  Part of it is down to human nature, part to apathy.  The apathy is fostered and promoted – a well off ‘middle’ class with just enough insecurity built in to keep it on the treadmill and laying it’s golden eggs for the government to use as you describe.  Not much can be done to change that.

But, to continue the line, the ‘middle’ of aviation is capable of providing many more golden eggs for the ogre of government.  Once it is clearly understood that by unburdening the aviation sector and curbing the excesses of those who gorge at the trough of diminishing aviation returns, there will be more available.  You have seen the movies, where the accountant has been skimming from the mob take; well – if you think stealing from the mob is dangerous, try stealing the governments money; that is a high risk venture.  Yet the ‘agencies’ are ripping off the governments gravy train; any one of our aviation services could do much more, with a lot less; and, without that burden, aviation could earn and provide more.  Seems silly to me to kill off the geese which lay the golden eggs and leave the fox in the shed.

Imagine a small company struggling to operate two or three aircraft being slowly driven into the ground versus the same company released from the toils of the regulator being able to upgrade and employ.  No brainer;  

Can the Senate do anything – looking back at the Pel-Air inquiry and the Forsyth report it would seem they are powerless.  But the ASA imbroglio is about money wasted, allegations of fraud, whispers of corruption related to serious income for the government; who knows, maybe that will get someone off their arse long enough to see the carnage and havoc.  Then again, perhaps not.

Meanwhile, apathy and acceptance is not a viable stance; can’t score runs in the pavilion.

Stopping here, politics do my head in; I’ll never understand it – or them as does.....

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

From the Mandarin 25 June 2015...

Federal agency takes on The Australian over executive pay

by

Stephen Easton
25.06.2015


Airservices Australia maintains its reputation is being dragged through the mud and that information about executive remuneration from its annual report is being misrepresented. The stakes are not trivial; a Senate inquiry into the agency’s performance remains ongoing.

Airservices Australia has taken on one of the nation’s most influential newspapers over a series of recent articles suggesting its senior staff received unusually large payrises and bonuses in recent years.

In two letters to The Australian editor Clive Mathieson, the air traffic control agency’s executive general manager of corporate and industry affairs, Mairi Barton, has accused the newspaper of repeatedly making false claims. She says the journalists misread the organisation’s annual report.

Barton maintains it is inaccurate and misleading for The Australian to report the agency’s “salary pool” for executives had grown by more than 40% to nearly $4 million last finan­cial year, and that a “bonus pool” had grown by 60% to almost $800,000.

The claim was first made in a June 15 article, and Barton says Airservices Australia advised the journalist that it was incorrect in the agency’s view, prior to publication. In her first letter she said the average increase to senior executive remuneration was 2.25% in the period in question, between 2012-13 and 2013-14, and added:

“We also advised prior to publication that during the two-year period in question, there were several changes to the composition of the executive and it is not accurate to do a simple dollar comparison from year to year. This includes partial year data for new members of the executive in 2012-13, while the 2013-14 remuneration data includes one-off entitlements such as accrued leave and long service leave paid to a departing long-serving member of staff in 2013-14.”

Barton said the figures were also explained by the fact there were only eight executives included in the 2012-13 data, while the 2013-14 data covered 11 executives. “Other considerations include that the CEO was only employed for part of the 2012-13 year compared to a full year of remuneration in 2013-14,” she adds.

But it seems unlikely The Oz is going to back down at this stage, at least based on comments from corporate accountant John Leece included in the June 15 story, which state the agency did not answer questions “which could have sorted out the inconsistencies” and that the responses it did provide were insufficient to explain how the newspaper’s reading of the annual report was wrong.

After the June 15 letter fell on deaf ears, Barton wrote to Mathieson again last Friday:

“The information that you have relied on from our annual report relates to remuneration data that is presented in accordance with required accounting standards and it is not a salary or bonus pool.
The number of executives included in the reported figures was different between 2012-13 and 2013-14 and it is inaccurate and misleading to make a direct comparison between the two years and imply this is a change to a ‘salary pool’, ‘bonus pool’ or to imply that individual members of the executive have had big salary increases.”

Barton also took issue with two other points in the article published by The Australian last Friday. Firstly there were these two lines:

“Airservices initially claimed the average rise in “remuneration” was 2.25%, but under further questioning yesterday admitted this only covered base salary. With the rise in bonuses, it now claims total average remuneration rose by 5.2%.”

The agency says this assertion is “wrong” because it never made a statement to that effect. At this point, it may be a game of semantics, but, according to Barton’s most recent letter to the editor:

“We maintain that prior to the pay freeze, the executive remuneration increase in 2013-14 was 2.25% on average. Subsequently, Airservices implemented an executive pay freeze for the 2014-15 financial year and for the upcoming 2015-16 financial year. This pay freeze continues the restraint in executive remuneration by Airservices for many years.”

Barton also questions the way The Australian has reported on a case of credit card fraud in the agency that was not reported to police. The June 19 article refers to a now months old and misleading discussion in a Senate Estimates hearing last October, when an Airservices Australia manager thought, from memory, that “$10,000 to $20,000″ could have been stolen — but soon after confirmed the fraud amounted to less than $2500.

The performance of the agency is the subject of a current inquiry by the Senate’s Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which last held a hearing in late November, 2014.

Airservices Australia has asked The Australian to refrain from repeating what it says are variously incorrect, inaccurate and misleading claims, and to publish corrections. One hopes its executive is not collectively holding its breath.

Interesting how in less than 24hrs after this Steve Easton post, The Australian's 'Editor at large' Paul Kelly writes an article on behalf of Angus Houston, see my post - P2: "Angus burger thanks with pickles & Dick's tomato sauce! 

So are the two articles in Friday's The Australian in anyway a retraction or correction??

Nah I don't think so..

MTF...P2

Further confirmation from Ean Higgins (01 July 2015) that the Oz will not be making any retractions or corrections anytime soon...

Airservices boss Angus Houston declines to explain exec bonuses  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 01, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney

Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston has declined an opportunity to justify almost $800,000 in bonuses to 11 executives for their performance in 2013-14 as profits halved, key air safety indicators deteriorated and employment of women, indigenous people and the disabled moved backwards.  

The bonuses will be examined by a Senate committee that is also investigating a corporate credit card rort and claims, which have not been denied by Airservices, of some executives being on travel allowances of $90,000.

Senators have questioned how a government-owned monopoly that runs the nation’s air traffic control system with no competitors can justify private sector-style performance bonuses.

The committee will call Sir Angus to appear at hearings in coming months. In an interview published in The Australian last week, Sir Angus said that all pay policies went through the Airservices board and “our policy has been to constrain executive remuneration”.

He said the average rise in executive remuneration last fin­ancial year was 2.25 per cent.

The total value of senior executives’ salaries reported by Airservices rose more than 40 per cent between 2012-13 and 2013-14 as bonuses rose almost 60 per cent to $778,000.

Airservices says the increase in salaries reflected an expansion in the senior executive team from eight to 11 in line with historical staffing levels.

An analysis by Airservices found that, comparing the total ­remunerations of those eight and 11 executives from one year to the next, average performance bonuses rose 14.3 per cent to $70,727, and average total ­remuneration rose 5.2 per cent to $355,454.

However, Airservices said those figures were skewed by shifts in the composition of the executive, and claims its preferred 2.25 per cent figure remains the relevant one.

Airservices says chief executive Margaret Staib, a former RAAF colleague of Sir Angus ­who was appointed in October 2012, received a performance bonus of about $100,000, in a total remun­eration package of $602,000.

Ms Staib said her bonus, for her performance in 2013-14, was “linked to delivery of industry-supported outcomes” including “the successful introduction of ­advanced technology along with new infrastructure and services”.

Airservices’ annual report shows the organisation’s profits fell from $45.5 million in 2012-13 to $21.3m in 2013-14. “The after-tax return on average equity was 3.9 per cent, which was 2.2 per cent below target,” it says.

Expenses rose 11.2 per cent to $994m, with employee costs rising $80m, “due to salary increases and increases in staff numbers”. The increase in staff was “associated with delivering the capital works program and increased delivery of regional services”.

The 2013-14 financial year saw a higher rate of aircraft under air traffic control failing to keep a safe distance apart. The loss of aircraft separation rate under national air traffic control rose from a three- year average of 1.41 per 100,000 flight hours to 1.48 in 2013-14. Loss of separation due to failures of airport control tower operations rose from a three-year average of 0.53 per 100,000 movements to 0.57.

Airservices moved backwards in its stated goal of increasing the number of women in “non-­traditional roles” and participation of indigenous Australians and disabled persons, workplace diversity declining 0.62 per cent compared to a three-year aver­age improvement of 2.2 per cent.

In response to questions from The Australian, Sir Angus did not comment on the bonuses, financial results or the decline in workplace diversity.

On the safety issue, he said: “Outcomes referenced by The Aus­tralian reflect marginal changes that are statistically insignificant. The key performance ­indicator outcomes compare favourably with world’s best-practice and reflect Airservices performance excellence.”

 
MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Oink oink;

The bonuses will be examined by a Senate committee that is also investigating a corporate credit card rort and claims, which have not been denied by Airservices, of some executives being on travel allowances of $90,000.

Not bad if you can get it, $90k per year travel allowances. Especially when lower and middle class Australia are being raped and gouged financially by Government. So that's where our taxpayer money goes!!

ASA footstool part 1;

“We maintain that prior to the pay freeze, the executive remuneration increase in 2013-14 was 2.25% on average. Subsequently, Airservices implemented an executive pay freeze for the 2014-15"

So let's say you are on $550k per year, that means according to ASA's spin doctor the subsequent payrise would have only been around $13k give or take! Still not a bad effing payrise. These people really do reside in la la land don't they?

ASA footstool part 2;

[b]"Subsequently, Airservices implemented an executive pay freeze for the 2014-15 financial year and for the upcoming 2015-16 financial year. This pay freeze continues the restraint in executive remuneration by Airservices for many years.”[/b]

Again we have more spin doctor smoke and mirrors. To start with, I would be very happy to have my salary capped at $600k or thereabouts!!! Secondly, this does not mean that bonuses are capped, allowances are capped, or that other fat isn't put into their contracts such as retainer fees or sign on fees etc. Nope, you can't fool this old dog that easily. These muppets always know how to extract more for their own pockets by spinning the numbers and creative accounting.

Then this bit by 'he who likes to run and hide' -

[b]"Sir Angus said that all pay policies went through the Airservices board and “our policy has been to constrain executive remuneration”.[/b]

Hahaha. That is pure gold. Of course the Board is going to approve pay policies that fatten the Executives pockets. And the bit about constraining remuneration, well that is the biggest load of shit I have seen in a long time. Angus should hang his head in shame if he thinks the taxpayer is so gullible and stupid so as to believe that crock.

[b]"Airservices’ annual report shows the organisation’s profits fell from $45.5 million in 2012-13 to $21.3m in 2013-14. “The after-tax return on average equity was 3.9 per cent, which was 2.2 per cent below target,” it says. [/b]

Wow! Yet they still received bonuses? I can't imagine someone in private enterprise paying executive bonuses based on those sort of figures. Then again, bonuses are easy to pay when you use taxpayer monies!

Finally, a standard reaction from Sir Beefcheeks;

[b]"In response to questions from The Australian, Sir Angus did not comment on the bonuses, financial results or the decline in workplace diversity".[/b]

Angus Angus Angus, time to grow a set mate. If you have nothing to 'cover' or 'hide' then answer the question transparently, succinctly and truthfully, NOW. Yep, didn't think you would.

"Safe massaging of numbers for all"

P666

[Peetwo]

The Oz v ASA war continues apparently unabated; & word is it could be the tip of a very big Hindenburg... - see on ASA thread here  

Here is the latest Higgins article in the Oz today:

Flyers burnt by air safety U-turn  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 08, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Brad Edwards at Ballina airport in northern NSW. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: News Corp Australia

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority promised charter aircraft operators an exemption from having to install a cripplingly expensive new air navigation system, but backed down after Airservices Australia reversed its position and insisted on no such breaks.  

Documents obtained by The Australian show that two years ago, the then head of CASA, John McCormick, told one charter ­operator, Brad Edwards, that CASA as the safety regulator had reached an understanding with Airservices, the government body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, for exemptions to a mandate requiring the installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.

ADS-B is an advanced air navigation system based on satellite GPS, which relays aircraft positions via ground stations to air traffic controllers.

Airservices has sought to have all required aircraft carry the new system by 2017, three years before its full introduction in the US.

Aviation figures say that for smaller general aviation operators, the cost of installing ADS-B is at present prohibitive, because it requires aircraft owners to do complex engineering work.

Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.

“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr ­Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”

Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.

Mr McCormick met Mr ­Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.

Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the ­approach they have spoken of ­between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to ­accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.

Mr Edwards said once he ­received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”

But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude ­because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.

Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.

“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.

He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ­response to what had happened to his promised exemption.

He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the ­exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote:

“CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety ­arguments against exemptions.”

Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?”

A CASA spokesman said: “CASA assesses all relevant information in making a decision about exemptions. In this case a relevant safety argument was made by Airservices that was accepted by CASA.”

Mr Edwards said, in all, he had been forced to spend $250,000 to equip his aircraft with ADS-B, with none of the benefits CASA and Airservices promised, such as more direct routes for aircraft.

“It’s had a very big impact of the viability of this business,” Mr Edwards said.
A spokesman for Airservices said CASA had put in the ADS-B mandate “following comprehensive consultation and support from key sections of the aviation community”.

“We have also spoken individually to a number of operators, including Mr Edwards,” the spokesman said.

Which was followed up by a couple of excellent well informed comments

Alexander

6 hours ago

Situation normal, this is just a tip of iceberg story. The decline of General Aviation is due to the dysfunctional and self serving bureaucratic systems of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia. The rot set in when, many years ago, the Commonwealth decided to distance itself from potential problems by creating these separate statutory 'government' business units. It was thought that the Government would also save taxpayer money by instituting 'user pays'. This abrogation of Ministerial responsibility, and the attempt to save taxpayer dollars have been dismal failures of the worst kind.

Mr. Edwards has been brave enough to come forward and state his case, he is to be congratulated. He treads where few others dare, the draconian powers of CASA are, in most cases, more than enough to silence criticism. Too bad Australia, Canberra rules supreme, your taxes are wasted and a whole industry is down the drain, a shadow of what it should be.

Graham

6 hours ago

I love these bureaucrats who say to do it because it 'says so in the book'. Any reasonable risk assessment would blow this sort of stuff out of the water, but because it says so in the book, you have to comply. Never mind that the mans business is ruined, just do it. These blokes should be put in the same place, and see how they like it.
 

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Game on I’d say; and about bloody time too. Now if we can only get the ‘alphabet’ groups to stick together and the AOPA successfully completes it’s long overdue turn around; we may see some change yet. Well, recommended changes, which will, no doubt, be sat on, while Skidmore does more ‘research’ into the blindingly obvious, before rolling off the top into a long slow death spiral; with the rest of us. Hope he’s got an air bag, but wait, ain’t he surrounded by ‘em.

[Peetwo]

On behalf of Onslope:

Dear Harley,

In reference to your excellent article:

Complaints patterns must reach agency heads: ombudsman

---

by
Harley Dennett
12.01.2015



Annual report season is over and agencies may take pride in fewer public complaints than previous years. But new guidance says complaints need more attention in 2015.


Colin Neave

Commonwealth ombudsman Colin Neave has concluded his investigation of complaints handling in government agencies. He sat down with The Mandarin to discuss the trends, best practice and what improvements agencies can make in 2015.

In the public sector, complaints handling has improved but can still be rote, officious and — without outside attention — invisible to leadership. If an agency’s complaints are down, it might mean there are fewer issues, or invaluable public feedback about systemic problems just isn’t getting through.

Neave says treating every complaint from the public as if it could represent a systemic issue is one area the private sector has led best practice.

“I think a secretary of a department should get reports about complaints,” Neave said.

“The same way I know in the banking sector, a lot of chief executives in banks get reports about what people are saying about them.

“Complaint handling is a very important part of getting feedback on the way you’re doing business. You may need to refine the way you’re doing business based on the feedback you’re getting from in effect your customers. Complaints should be valued, they should be looked at very carefully.”

Some of the best examples in the private sector have been where the person receiving the complaint, for example in a call centre, could press a button to flag the engagement as relating to a possible systemic issue. Then a small team of more experienced employees would examine those reported engagements to determine if they were in fact related to a systemic issue. Neave, who has previously served as an ombudsman to the financial sector, says he stopped having to deal with systemic issues in one of the big four banks once it used this approach to identify and address them in-house.

“Having quite senior people in that space is a very good way of doing business.”
 
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is one example of a public agency that has independently adopted this approach. “CASA has a very good system that we were most impressed with,” Neave said. Where a complaint is resolved, a report is done to summarise how the complaint was resolved, what the complaint was, and also whether it raised a systemic issue. That then is provided as feedback to senior management, which could in turn lead to more effectively doing the work in the future.

“Having quite senior people in that space is a very good way of doing business,” he said.

“Often employees within a call centre environment are trained up to a point, quite appropriately they’ve got screens to tell them what to say, but the people who have more experience in the business are the ones who are best able to see if something might be a systemic issue.

“We shouldn’t interpret systemic issues too narrowly. We need to think about improving processes and services delivered to the public, so anyone within an organisation is encouraged to make a comment about this, and not just see the way business is done now as the be-all-and-end-all, rather, sometimes we need to look differently at how we deliver services.”

With the public sector talking change, really it should be a natural part of what they’re doing, says Neave. Making employees comfortable with change and giving a vision can be helpful for minimising complaints and “things going wrong in government”.

The five areas of focus for 2015

The existing published advice for public sector agencies — the Ombudsman’s Better Practice Guide to Complaint Handling — had its genesis 20 years ago. Although periodically updated, the research premise of the advice, fundamentally, comes from a time before the sophisticated digital tools that assist today, or the shift in thinking that affirmed complaint handling as a necessary component to service delivery.

Having recently completed an investigation of complaint management in Commonwealth and ACT agencies, Neave is in the process of re-writing the rulebook with his latest findings. He identifies five areas that agencies need to focus on in 2015.

The first is ensuring vulnerable people not only have access to the complaints process, but understand it and can access assistance. Neave says it would be a mistake to assume that technology and better attitudes have made this redundant.

“You can’t assume everyone has access to a computer,” he said. You have to provide telephone services, and sometimes you have to provide in-person services within offices that people can go in and talk about things. A lot of people have difficulty writing a letter, so they need to be able to talk about whatever the problem might be.”

Staff should also be able to tailor their responses to vulnerable people. The ombudsman’s office walks the talk, too, regularly visiting remote indigenous communities to listen.

“Sitting in the dirt and talking to people,” Neave explained, “because the use of the internet and technological advances that we see as absolutely essential here are not necessarily available across Australia.”

Welcoming complaints should also be a priority, because it’s free and valuable advice.

“Human beings don’t like being criticised, no doubt about it,” Neave acknowledged. “There’s a natural aversion to that, but you can work with staff. The culture of an organisation ought to be to welcome complaints, that means it’s engaged with the community they’re in. Having a culture in an organisation that denies complaints exist is not in the end good for the organisation.”

Organisations that have complaint handling departments should also share the expertise.

Neave hopes that eventually government bodies will have a community diaspora of complaint handlers, which has been effective in private sectors. Linking departments can also prevent systemic issues falling through inter-agency cracks.

Neave recommends public servants consider complaints management from a “risk-based perspective”, including admitting liability and correcting it. “There’s a general aversion within organisations due to legal departments,” he notes, but management responsible for complaints should be taking over, not the person who made the mistake.

“You can remove part of the anger on the part of the person complaining if you say ‘yes, we mucked this up’. It’s harder on government departments because you’ve got an issue of ministerial responsibility. Quite often in the head of someone in a state of denial, they don’t want to risk a minister being criticised or embarrassed. That’s part of the risk assessment process,” he said.

The fifth recommendation is to capture those systemic issues and make sure reporting reaches all relevant business areas, including senior leadership.

Contractor complaints are your responsibility

With external contractors offering the most contestable and cost-effective way of delivering some government services, it’s important to consider how outsourcing will impact on quality and complaints from the public. Neave warns that sometimes they may have to modify their systems to ensure services are provided to the most vulnerable.

“If a contractor is doing the work of a government department we think the level of service should be the same as if a government department had actually delivered it. Government agencies have got to take responsibility for the actions of their contractors. We will not tolerate agencies saying, by implication, ‘no that was done by a contractor’,” he said.

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection and its external contractors was the focus of one of the ombudsman’s most publicised reports in 2013, addressing suicide and self-harm in the Immigration detention network. Neave says there really wasn’t any other way to provide those services. “Considering the difficulties that Immigration have been operating under, they’ve done a remarkable job with contractors.

There has been the odd problem with a contractor, and I know Immigration have changed contractors in certain areas which seems to have led to some improvement.

“I was very impressed with the way Immigration dealt with it [the report] when it was released. They were very receptive to changes, but it was controversial and in a highly political area. It was a body of work that our people did a terrific job, but also the Immigration response was very measured and reasonable.”

The Commonwealth Ombudsman isn’t as well-known an interested player in systemic issues as the Auditor-General for instance, or commissioners in specialist areas. Neave says public servants can sometimes be frightened of the scrutiny. But improving cost efficiency is something agencies are increasingly eager to hear more about.

“We don’t see ourselves as a big-stick organisation.”
 
“We don’t see ourselves as a big-stick organisation,” he said. “We like to go along and talk to people and convince them that that what we’ve recommended or are going to recommend is acceptable as far as they’re concerned.

“We would welcome departments coming to us and asking ‘would you do an investigation into an area of our activities because we are interested in knowing what you think’.

Because within an ombudsman’s office you’ve got enormous experience — the office has been going for nearly 40 years — know-how and approaches to problem solving become part of the DNA of an organisation over a period of time and that can be quite helpful as far as government departments are concerned.”

In some parts of the world, the ombudsman is known as the “defender of the people”. Neave says his office provides assurance to the community that they have a safety net.

“It’s important that the ombudsman be seen in the middle, between government and the community,” he said. “The ombudsman must be careful not to come across just as an advocate. It’s really important for an ombudsman not to take just a philosophical position, rather it should be based on good evidence.”

  
Harley, that article inspired Onslope to write to Colin Neave & subsequently post his letter on Aunty Pru  - The noble Art - Embuggerance. #2
    

Email   sent to   Colin Neave re his article in the " Mandarin"  

5 February 2015



Dear Mr Neave

Great story in the Mandarin "Complaints pattern must reach agency heads: ombudsman advice". I believe you need to look and act on what has happened in your own office.

After complaining to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about CASA  I was astounded by the handling of my case, that was until under FOI I received the following along with hundreds of other damming pages.  

The CO officer states in an email to one of his buddies  “Either through collusion or strange coincidence, we have had at least three CASA complaints all involving complaints about ......(CASA officer)”.(FOI)

I  know that it was not collusion on my part and no evidence was ever provided that it was collusion and I do not believe in strange coincidences (fit and proper person and all). This was the actions of someone who needed investigating however the Ombudsman officer asserts that the people bring the complaint are colluding. They shoot the messenger/ s. They didn't think that it may be a systemic issue even when my complaint went up through the CO.

Next a subject of my complaint rings a previous employee now working at the Ombudsman's office and within a week that officer is handling my case.(FOI)

After my complaint reached its conclusion I requested a review. An officer involved in the review was prevented from accessing information in relation to the case  by a senior officer. (FOI)

These  and the many other pages obtained under FOI will continue to make a mockery of the Ombudsman's comments. "What a safety net we have in the Commonwealth Ombudsman" and " Its really important for an ombudsman not to take just a philosophical position, rather it should be based on good evidence".

This is how the Federal Ombudsman handles complaints against CASA. The same CASA that you are referring to when you say  "CASA has a very good system that we were most impressed with.  I think you need to talk to the people who had a complaint against CASA and find out what they thought . You only  need to look at the recent Aviation Safety Regulation Review and the recent comments in the Senate by Senator Xenopon 29/05/2013  "One of the common threads in each inquiry, which was raised specifically in the most recent report, is a prevailing fear of retribution from CASA for speaking out, particularly in the most recent inquiry".

Since being notified on  9th May 2014 your office has failed dismally to even set timeliness standards  "If a matter is complex and will take longer than normal to resolve, the agency should regularly update the applicant on progress of
its investigation."


Regards
.....................  

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage

Keep up the good work Harley...
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Thought this post would be more appropriate here...

Mystique of Aviation Safety strikes again

Birds of a feather flock together - From PSNews on the Frau Staib bullshit missive to the Oz, where the bollocks headline says it all - FCOL :

Airservices grounds ‘misleading’ claims




The national aviation Agency, Airservices is defending itself from an apparent campaign of ill-informed and unfounded criticism in The Australian newspaper.

In the past week, the Agency has refuted incorrect and misleading reports in the newspaper that the Gladstone (Qld) and Ballina (NSW) airports were unsafe for landings, that radar systems were being switched off, that weather services for pilots were inadequate, that the Agency ignored safety regulations, and more.

Chief Executive of Airservices, Margaret Staib (pictured) said passengers flying into regional airports should be assured that all passenger flights in Australia were supported by continuous air traffic services throughout their entire flight, with highly trained and professional air traffic controllers helping to keep them safe at all times.

She said The Australian was making inaccurate and misleading claims that were damaging to the good reputation of Airservices and its Chairman, Sir Angus Houston.
Ms Staib said the level of air traffic service for each airport was determined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and was based on a detailed risk assessment that considered the number and type of aircraft using the airspace.

Aviation Agency corrects newspaper

“Sir Angus’s statement to The Australian makes the point very clearly that a person providing air traffic information to pilots must be qualified, that our firefighters are not, and that we consider this would detract from their primary role,” Ms Staib said.

She said the full statement that Sir Angus had made on this matter was:

“The regulator (CASA) has decided that if anybody is to provide air traffic information to pilots in a regional context, they must be suitably qualified people. Our fire fighters are not trained in that way. Moreover, we want our firefighters ready to respond to any incident or rescue requirements, not handling the radio.” (“Dick Smith is wrong on air safety: Houston”, The Australian, 26 June 2015)

Ms Staib said the newspaper had also misrepresented Airservices in relation to the provision of weather services to pilots both generally and in relation to Ballina Airport.
“Comments provided by Airservices in relation to weather have been reported out of context and selectively quoted to create a false and misleading impression,” she said, referring to the story entitled “Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies” (Weekend Australian, 11 July 2015).

“Airservices never claimed, in relation to Ballina or any other airport, that automated weather stations alone are a comprehensive solution,” Ms Staib said.

Rather, she said, these stations formed part of a comprehensive suite of weather services and additional weather information was available from controllers on request.

“Safety is, and will always be, Airservices number one priority,” Ms Staib said.

Well I guess the PS news will always stand up for Public Servants, even if they happen to be fat cat Mandarins feeding off a massive taxpayer funded trough. Perhaps the PS news would do well to view this poohtube video before publishing such blatantly one-eyed bollocks...

 

 MTF...P2   

[Peetwo]

REIN in the REGS!

Stan found this excellent article from breitbart.com in the US, & P9 has also posted a link on the Senate Estimates thread:

Bureaucracy anyone?


The answer to the question ‘are we alone in the universe’? has been answered.  No we are not.  The article – HERE – is well worth the reading and IMO shows just far we have become removed from the rule of law.  Anarchy lives and thrives through a bureaucracy, near you. 

 
However as it is very much in the realm of the Mandarins & Minions thread for easy reference here it is ...

Mike Lee: Don’t Accept 80,000 Pages A Year of Unelected Bureaucrats’ Laws




by Michelle Moons14 Jul 2015 Phoenix. Record
0
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) drilled down on the crushing burden of regulatory compliance in the United States, implemented by unelected bureaucrats, during a presentation to hundreds of Freedom Fest attendees in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Lee opened with the story of John Wilkes. Wilkes became subject of a general search warrant after criticism of the governing authorities in the publication of North Briton Number 45, critical of King George III. “John Wilkes knew that his rights as an English citizen had been violated.”

“And so he fought, he fought back and he fought back knowing that the people were on his side. Eventually John Wilkes won his freedom.” Wilkes then brought civil suit against the ministers of King George III and won. “John Wilkes became a hero. His name became synonymous with the cause of liberty, not only throughout England, but also throughout America.”

The event, Lee noted, inspired the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
Lee touched on the Patriot Act and bulk data collection of phone records calling it analogous to the story of John Wilks.

He detailed the intended functions for each branch of government: executive, legislative and judicial. “Even if we have a President who happens to have a pen and a cell phone the executive branch doesn’t make the law,” Lee emphasized. As for the judicial branch, “it’s not their job to make the law either.”

“Both of these structural protections have been weakened.”

Lee keeps two stacks of documents in his office. One, the smaller, consists of all laws passed in Congress last year and is but a few inches tall. The other, eleven and a half feet tall, 80,000 pages long, consists of last year’s federal register. The federal register is the “cumulative index of all new regulations that are issued each year by our executive branch bureaucracy,” he described. “Legally binding documents.”

80,000 pages of law produced each year. These laws are produced not by men and women who are elected for a limited number of years to make laws; they’re issued by executive branch bureaucrats who don’t work for you, who can’t be fired by you and don’t really work for anyone, at least directly, who is subject to an election.

Citing article 1, section 1 of the Constitution Lee indicated the unconstitutional nature of such lawmaking.

“It will be of little avail to the American people that their laws may be written by men of their own choosing if those laws be so voluminous and complex that they cannot be read and understood by those subject to them,” Lee roughly quoted from James Madison’s great warning in Federalist 62.

Lee informed the audience that these bureaucratic, regulatory laws cost the American economy an estimated $2 trillion per year, some two-thirds of what the tax system costs.

Everyone, but especially the poor and middle class are paying for this “back door, invisible tax” as goods and services become more expensive and wages are diminished he said.

He then introduced the REINS Act (Regulations In Need of Scrutiny) as a solution. The Act would require “any time an executive branch bureaucracy issues a new major rule, a new major piece of quasi-legislative text that governs the people, it cannot, it will not, it must not, it may not take effect unless both houses of Congress first act, pass it affirmatively into law and it gets signed into law by the President.”

Lee then launched into a series of “Don’t settle” and “Expect” statements:

My fellow Americans, you’ve been asked repeatedly by your government in Washington to simply settle, to expect less from your government in Washington. You’ve been asked to settle for anemic economic growth of 1 percent or even less. You’ve been asked to simply accept that this is the new normal, to just accept a government in Washington that doesn’t follow the rules and that punts the task of lawmaking to unelected bureaucrats.

I’m here to ask you, to invite you, to challenge you, do not accept less, do not settle. It is not time to expect less, it is time to expect more.

In short, don’t settle for a President who wants to make law with a pen and a cell phone. Expect that Congress does its own job.

Don’t settle for a national government that projects overbearance and hyperintrusiveness at home and weakness abroad. Expect a government that does what it is supposed to do and leaves the other things alone.

Don’t settle for trillion dollar annual deficits, expect balanced budgets.

Don’t settle for a government that thinks it’s its job to spy on you, to lie to you, to target you for its own nefarious, partisan, political purposes.

Expect a government that will respect you, honor your constitutional rights and honor your divine right, your divinely granted right as a son or daughter of God to live in peace and to live free from excessive government intrusion.

Don’t settle for the kind of government that says if there is a constitutional defect we will let the courts find that out. Expect your elected senators and representatives to zealously defend the Constitution with every single vote they cast.

It is time, my fellow Americans, to expect more. It is time to expect freedom.

REINs Act hey? I get the feeling that this Act will be slightly more proactive than the Abbott Government's Red Tape Reduction program...

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Good article P2. It goes to show how Governments are nothing short of dysfunctional clusterf#cks. What we need in Australia is Nick Xenophon, and if we can steal him we should have former US Congressman Ron Paul (not to be confused with son Rand Paul). Two champions of the people who aren't afraid to expose the rot and the vermin in power.

It doesn't hurt to dream does it?

Tick zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[P7_TOM]

Well, it’s been a ‘Bugger me’ week all around.  Thought the Gobbledock might enjoy this one: posted without comment.

Link

Media Contact:

Greg Russell                Chair         E: grerussell@yahoo.com      PH :  0427 707 733

The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has announced that a new Honorary Chair of the 
Forum has been appointed. Mr Greg Russell was unanimously endorsed by Forum members and brings a  strong background in management, aviation services and knowledge of the agencies involved in the regulation of aviation in Australia.

The Forum moved a vote of thanks and deep gratitude to the inaugural Chairman of the Forum, Mr Chris Manning, for the guidance and wise counsel he provided to the Forum members since 2008.

The Forum, meeting in Canberra, also met with the new Chair of CASA Mr Jeff Boyd and the Director of Air Safety Mr Mark Skidmore to discuss current aviation safety and regulatory issues.

The Forum strongly supported the new direction of CASA and especially the new focus from the Board 
and the DAS on risk management and cost impacts of regulation in accordance with the Government’s 
red tape reduction principles.

The Forum encouraged the CASA executive to continue its drive towards improved industry 
consultation and cooperation and offered whatever assistance and support CASA needed to make this clearly difficult cultural transition.

However, the time for action has arrived and the Forum highlighted a range of areas
in desperate need of urgent decisions that would create win-win scenarios for industry and safety, 
including:

    Deferral of the implementation date for CAO 48.1 – Flight and Duty Times

    Addressing the significant new costs being imposed by new Parts 141/142 – Flight Training Organisations

    Simplifying Part 61 – Pilot Licencing transition requirements, including for firefighting 
pilots for the coming fire season

    Simplifying requirements for maintenance of small aircraft and repairing the damage to 
Australia’s aviation maintenance training capability

    Remove high cost requirements such as the need for CASA to access aircraft types already approved by overseas agencies acceptable to CASA

In addition, the Forum decided to create a General Aviation Reform Agenda to support Government initiatives to stimulate this critical sector.

In addition, the Forum encouraged CASA executive to ensure the excellent principles identified by the Executive to be uniformly implemented across CASA at all levels.
AVIATION ASSOCIATIONS FORUM MEETING

TAAAF Communiqué  23 July 2015

[P1_aka_P1]

"Communiqué"  well; indeed, very Posh I must say.  

[Gobbledock]

FFS Tommy Boy, just when I thought my day/night couldn't get any worse;

"The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF) has announced that a new Honorary Chair of the Forum has been appointed. Mr Greg Russell was unanimously endorsed by Forum members and brings a  strong background in management, aviation services and knowledge of the agencies involved in the regulation of aviation in Australia".

A unanimous vote? Are you feckin serious? What, has Russell got photos of all those who endorsed him in compromising photos with Angora goats, alter boys and marsupials? Russell rates equal alongside Sir Anus and Staib when it comes to 'piss and wind'. He is the epitome of an Easter egg - crack it open and there is nothing inside!!!

P_666 hangs his head in shame as he laments what a circus full of freaks Australia has become.