[P7_TOM]

What the Duck !@!

Am I dreaming or this Australia? Land of the 'fair go' and as democratic as it can possibly be?

Cribbed from Pprune - HERE - the outcry from a man who has been the victim of the CASA 'internal' defence mechanism. It is, and make no mistake, a powerful, fully supported stone wall: designed by intent to make any CASA 'judgement' above the rule of law; and far removed from the Australian spirit. The lengths CASA will go to know no bounds; we can provide anyone who cares to examine them, a couple of dozen 'cases' where the stone wall and 'rule of democratic' law meet: and a list of those permanently damaged in a quest for truth, honesty, integrity and justice 'in-law'. This is a democracy - or it was - I have trouble believing the following edict  is from a Crown Minister, without a full explanation -:- IMO a clear, unequivocal reason for this act must be publicly stated along with the reasons (1 - 10) and why a Minister would issue such an edict? That, to me seems fair, reasonable and infinitely democratic. So Minister:-

PLEASE EXPLAIN! -

and in full detail how a constituent can be 'barred' from seeking an audience with the local member - about anything? And; where is the 'members' statement 'agreeing' to the King edict and an explanation of why? 

"I have approached my Local MP Dr Carina Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter."

Seriously - this is off the charts. What comes next, after this?

[Peetwo]

What comes next? Poindexter Parker - Dicky King and Betsy's anointed one (referral to the NACCAs)??

Reference:

Dicky King the worst Minister oversighting Transport EVER??

Courtesy of HofR Question time Monday (bucket on standby recommended  ):

On a slightly different area of DK's portfolio, I note the following (attributed to) miniscule MR appointment announcement on 11 January 2024:

Inaugural High Speed Rail Authority CEO announced

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Mr Timothy Parker as the inaugural Chief Executive Officer of the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA), following a merit based selection process.

Mr Parker has considerable leadership and project experience in delivering complex infrastructure projects to drive the development of high speed rail in Australia.

Mr Parker has over 30 years of experience in developing, procuring and delivering significant infrastructure projects including as the Head of Project for Sydney Metro since 2018, as well as having complex infrastructure experience working in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

The Australian Government has committed $500 million to facilitate a high speed rail network on Australia’s east coast starting with the Sydney to Newcastle section of the network.

HSRA is tasked with advising on, planning, developing and overseeing the construction and operation of this transformational network.

Proper planning is critical to the success of any significant infrastructure project and getting it right from the start will be of enormous benefit to this project in the future.

I look forward to working with Mr Parker in the CEO role and continuing to work with the HSRA Board to deliver HSRA’s key priority of planning and corridor works for the Sydney to Newcastle section of the high speed rail network.

Hmm...interesting because I now have to question Betsy's decision to let DK rubberstamp this appointment given the revelations contained in this SMH article...

Transport executive denies corrupting hiring process despite ‘substantial evidence’

Michael McGowan and Max Maddison February 23, 2024 — 9.14am

The bureaucrat hand-picked by the Albanese government to run its new high-speed rail authority was found to have engaged in “serious misconduct” as part of an investigation ordered by the NSW transport department into allegations of “conflicts of interest and … corrupt conduct”.

But those findings, part of a long-running series of internal probes into alleged misconduct by employees and contractors within the agency responsible for delivering NSW’s multibillion-dollar Metro rail projects, were later rejected by the same department as being “unsupported by tangible evidence”.

Details of the explosive allegations, some of which were later referred to the NSW anticorruption watchdog, are contained in documents obtained by the Herald.

They reveal that Tim Parker, a former Sydney Metro senior executive, was last year informed that allegations he breached government procurement and competition policies had been sustained, only for a later report to cast doubt on the findings.

Parker, who was unveiled last month as the inaugural chief executive of the Commonwealth’s new High-Speed Rail Authority, has rejected the claims, telling the Herald: “I deny the allegations. What was alleged did not happen.”

Last year, an investigation commissioned by Transport NSW found there was “substantial documentary and circumstantial evidence” that indicated Parker’s actions – along with those of two other senior employees at Sydney Metro – had “significantly compromised” the process behind the hiring of a contractor on an almost half-a-million dollar salary.

“[There] is sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities, to substantiate each of the two allegations and find that through his conduct, Mr Parker acted in breach of the Transport Code of Conduct,” the investigation found.

The trove of documents – released via a parliamentary order – detail a complex series of internal investigations into anonymous complaints that alleged “conflicts of interest and alleged corrupt conduct” in procurement and recruitment within Sydney Metro between October 2022 and February last year.

After receiving the complaints, Sydney Metro conducted an initial investigation, codenamed Elara, into a series of allegations against Parker and the two other employees.

The complaints included an allegation that Parker breached procurement rules by approving the employment of a senior work health and safety officer on a salary of more than $450,000 without conducting a mandatory tender. That preliminary investigation was provided to NSW Transport, Sydney Metro’s umbrella agency, which hired an external investigative firm to review the complaints against Parker and the two other employees.

That investigation, dated August 21 last year, sustained an allegation that in February 2022 Parker instructed a contractor within the agency to “create a role to accommodate herself” following the end of her involvement with Sydney Metro. The investigation report stated Parker was alleged to have “facilitated” the contractor in drafting the justification for the position, “negotiating an elevated pay grade” and “self-endorsing the creation of the role”.

The role, worth $459,056, was later taken up by the same contractor. That, it was alleged, was a breach of procurement rules, which required competitive tenders for engagements that were worth more than $150,000.

The investigation found that, while “an approach to market” was initiated for the job, “circumstantial evidence indicated that the actions of Mr Parker [and two other senior employees] significantly compromised this approach to market through their shared intent to have [the contractor] assume the newly created role without challenge”.

On that basis, it found there was “sufficient evidence, on the balance of probabilities” to substantiate the allegations against Parker. The breaches initially found against Parker related to ethical decision-making, conflicts of interest, and manager and staff responsibilities. But despite those findings, another document published by parliament shows NSW Transport later poured doubt on the report that it had commissioned.

A document marked “workplace conduct/disciplinary case summary” seen by the Herald states the findings were “unsupported by tangible evidence” and were “heavily reliant upon contextual evidence”.

Parker himself flatly denied the allegations against him when approached for comment.

He said that he had never seen the external investigation report or the later case summary that appeared to clear him. He said he had not been interviewed during the external investigation, and had instead been provided a “warning letter” by the agency and had requested a review of its findings which he believed had not been completed when he left Sydney Metro at the end of last year. He said he had only been able to provide a written statement.

To add to the dots-n-dashes of Dicky King, Secretary Betsy, Poindexter Parker, miniscule Haylen (former Deputy Chief of Staff to Albo) and her Transport Dept Secretary Murray, let's review the following segments from NSW Budget Estimates in YouTube video:

Hansard and video references:

The CHAIR: I want to turn to Sydney Metro, if I can, Mr Regan. I wanted to just get the status of a couple of internal investigations that are either underway or completed within Sydney Metro. There was an investigation called Elara. You're aware of that, I assume.

PETER REGAN: Yes, I am.

The CHAIR: What were the findings of that investigation?

PETER REGAN: The Elara investigation relates to the appointment of an individual on a labour hire basis back in 2022. The investigation was, amongst other things, looking at that appointment and some other issues around—

The CHAIR: What were the circumstances of that appointment? Why did it become an investigation?

PETER REGAN: We, from time to time, receive allegations or complaints around appointments or other issues in the business. When that happens, we clearly have an obligation to investigate and we take all those complaints very seriously. As appropriate, we also pass information on those kinds of allegations to ICAC, as I'm required to do. ICAC then consider that and advise whether they wish to hand that back to us to investigate or whether they will investigate themselves. In the case of the investigation that you refer to, ICAC passed that back to us to investigate.

The CHAIR: This was back in—when was this—2023, last year?

PETER REGAN: That was early last year—so, yes, early 2023. That investigation was undertaken. We passed that to Transport for NSW to investigate. That investigation was completed late last year.

The CHAIR: Were there two investigations, Mr Regan? Was there an external investigation and a Transport for NSW investigation into the same matter?

PETER REGAN: I understand Transport for NSW have an investigations team, and they use a combination of both internal and external people within that team to investigate. I'm not sure. I would have to pass that to Transport as to which of those it was.

The CHAIR: Let's just be clear: What was the allegation? It was sustained in the first investigation report, which has now been publicly released. It was sustained.

PETER REGAN: Yes, there were a number of aspects to the allegations, and some of those were substantiated. That's correct.

The CHAIR: Essentially somebody—a senior executive—creating a position or instructing somebody to create a position to which that person filled that position. A lot of effort seemed to go into it to make sure that that position's salary was under $500,000 per year to avoid having to go to you as the CEO. It was signed off, as I understand, by the head of project delivery—I think that was his title at the time—Mr Tim Parker, who is now heading up the Federal High Speed Rail Authority. These findings were sustained by what I understand was an external investigation. Is that correct? Who undertook that? At the beginning—which then led to that referral to ICAC, or notified ICAC.

PETER REGAN: No. To be clear, the notification to ICAC happened at the start of the process. When we receive allegations, we are under an obligation, if we believe that that may relate to inappropriate conduct, to  refer those to ICAC, and then ICAC advises us whether they wish it to be investigated within metro—and then we will at times ask Transport to do that—or whether or not they will investigate themselves. The referral happens at the start of the process. In this case it was referred back for that investigation to take place.

The CHAIR: The investigation reports that I have seen, to begin with, say that the allegations were sustained, that the senior executives acted outside of the various codes which ensure that positions like this go to open tender. Are you aware of that as well? They were sustained at that time. There was then another investigation by Transport for NSW. Is that correct? What happened with those findings?

PETER REGAN: Yes. To be very clear, a couple of points there. We expect everyone—all of our employees and all of our contractors—to operate within the constraints of the rules and the systems that are put in place. Those rules and systems at the metro level, within Transport for NSW and across government apply to everyone. We expect everyone to operate within those. In this particular investigation, which was undertaken by Transport for NSW, it was found that some of the allegations were substantiated. When allegations are substantiated through an investigation—

The CHAIR: Which allegations were substantiated, Mr Regan?

PETER REGAN: As I said, the broader investigation was into the matter that you described. There were a number of elements to it and some of those were substantiated. I'm not going to go into the details of the individuals and the specifics. But when an investigation has an allegation that is substantiated, then the next step in the process is to determine what the appropriate remedy or next course of action is. That can take a range of outcomes depending on what the allegation was. That can be a warning, that can be remedial action, disciplinary action or termination of employment or other contracts. That is determined following and separately to the investigation itself.

The CHAIR: Is anybody who was subject to that Elara investigation still working within Sydney Metro?

PETER REGAN: No, they're not.

The CHAIR: I understand that Mr Parker left at the—when did he leave Sydney Metro?

PETER REGAN: He left earlier this year.

The CHAIR: He left early this year? It was known that he was going to move over—

PETER REGAN: Yes, Mr Parker resigned from his role at Sydney Metro to take up a new opportunity, and that took place, I believe, in December.

The CHAIR: Has there been any review—were there any requests to undertake a review? Is it ongoing, into the findings that were sustained against Mr Parker?

PETER REGAN: That's a matter I would need to refer to Transport.

The CHAIR: Okay, I will refer that to Mr Murray. Are you aware of that? Is there any further review being undertaken now into those allegations or the findings that were sustained, in fact, into the Elara investigation?

JOSH MURRAY: No, my understanding is that matter has now been closed. What we have done, at the Minister's instigation, is further review the processes between Transport and metro to ensure that they are robust. Those findings have been independently verified that we do have the right systems between metro and Transport for NSW and the ICAC for handling these matters. As Mr Regan has already said, this case, which has bounced around now for a while in terms of these hearings, has previously been provided to the ICAC, which has declined to take any further action.

The CHAIR: With respect, Mr Murray, it's actually a different case...

(Ref: Pg 11-12, Video from 32:40 to 40:15 )

---

The CHAIR: I think I asked this earlier, in terms of Mr Parker. Mr Parker was still with Sydney Metro as an employee until, I was told, January this year?

PETER REGAN: It was through December, early January this year.

The CHAIR: I'm confused now. Going back to this investigation report, which did find—let's just go to the complaint here. The investigation report undertaken by IMS, which is the Transport for NSW report, found that the complaint—we've got Mr Tim Parker, for example; there are other people named, different complaints, breaches of the Transport Code of Conduct, and the breaches of the Sydney Metro competition limits. That's because Mr Parker approved a labour hire spend of $459,055 in respect of a director health and safety strategy and program. Evidence indicated that this appointment was made in breach of that. The outcome was that the complaint was supported. The investigation subject was Mr Timothy Parker; another person is named, who I won't name at this point. It goes on: Between 1 July and 31 August 2021, Ms Cole is alleged to have described that Mr Parker instructed her to create a role for herself. It states  Policy breaches: Transport Code of Conduct; Sydney Metro Competition Limits, Transport Conflicts of Interest Policy – Personal Interests, Secondary Employment, Gifts and Benefits. Fact Finding Outcome: Complaint supported. At the end of this, it states the recommendation is the matter is reviewed by the Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro authorities. You've said that disciplinary action or action was taken and two people left and one person was—what? But Mr Parker was still in Sydney Metro and—

DAVID BRITTON: Just to be clear, two of the individuals involved had left before the investigation was complete, so no further action. The employee who remained employed, there was some remedial action that was taken in response to the report and it was concluded on that basis.

The CHAIR: What was the remedial action, Mr Regan? What did you do when you got this report that showed you that a very senior person within your organisation had breached so many policies? Serious consequences can arise for public servants that do breach these policies. I have the Transport Conflicts of Interest Policy in front of me. The document states: 5. Breaches of this policy Transport agencies may commence disciplinary action if a person to whom this Policy applies breaches this Policy ... including termination of employment, or contract. It does say yes, referring to the ICAC as something that should happen—and you've said that that happened. You did say that you reported it to the ICAC, but did you do anything else?

PETER REGAN: Yes, absolutely. As I mentioned earlier today, the process has a number of steps, as Mr Britton just described. When there are then findings, it is then back to the senior management—in this case very senior management of Transport and Sydney Metro—to make a decision off the back of that report on what the appropriate course of action is.That course of action can include warnings, remedial action, disciplinary action or termination. It depends on the particular allegations that were substantiated and the broader circumstances as to which course of action is then next put in place. As Mr Britton said, there was remedial action put in place. These types of issues can be quite complex, especially around the definitions of things like competition limits and processes that do take some time to work through. There is a part of that process where, when the findings of investigations and then decisions around next steps—there is another procedural step where, of course, that has to be put to the person against whom the allegation has been made. So these things happen in sequence. When those findings are put to the person whom they're made against, they are given the opportunity to respond. That can oftenprovide then additional information that then needs to be—

The CHAIR: Of course.

PETER REGAN: There is a process that takes some time.

The CHAIR: Of course there is, Mr Regan. That's what an investigation is about. But that's what this is—the fact-finding investigation report. Isn't it?

PETER REGAN: No, that's a lot earlier in the piece. The allegations that are then put at the conclusion of those processes—then you have a further opportunity.

The CHAIR: What is that further opportunity? Just to take a step back, that's what I was just trying to get to the bottom of with my questions. Let's rewind what that other opportunity is then. We've got the initial fraud squad within Sydney Metro getting those anonymous complaints that are reasonably serious allegations. They pull this together. They got the IMS—there were two investigations that you said IMS did that came up with this. Then, as I understand it—my question to you, Mr Britton, is: There was no further investigation? If there was, please tell me what that was, in which Mr Parker, because I understand he has been able to put forward—I've seen them. I've seen his responses, as I have the other people involved. Where does that fit in?

DAVID BRITTON: The role of an investigator, or IMS, is to form a view on the allegations. It then is a matter for the organisation and the relevant decision-makers to decide what, if any, action should be taken. Following the work done by IMS, there was—and I think this is clear on the papers—a lot of internal discussion and decisions about what steps should be taken and ultimately some remedial action was taken in respect to this employee.

The CHAIR: Let's be clear, the initial Elara assessment found that there were issues. They did look into it. In terms of that assessment, they did suggest that there were issues that needed to be explored further. They were sufficiently concerned. 

PETER REGAN: That's correct.

The CHAIR: This second one—this external investigator that was able to look at, as I understand it, people's emails, personal messages, a lot of detail and a lot of information substantiated quite a few of the complaints. They also dismissed a number of the complaints.

PETER REGAN: That's also correct.

The CHAIR: But they substantiated those complaints to the point that they went and outlined the specific public sector codes that were breached. There were quite a few of them.

PETER REGAN: To be clear, they didn't all apply to all the people—just to be clear.

The CHAIR: Sure. But I did read out what did apply to, for example—and I'm just using one example here, because he is in a very senior position now with the national High Speed Rail Authority. There were all of those codes breached. Then the outcome of that was for Transport for NSW and Sydney Metro to review—is reviewed by the authorities. It sounds like the review then basically said, "Nothing to see here." What was the disciplinary action taken if two people had left? Firstly, where are they? I mean, have they left—I assume they're not in the public service any more. I'd hope not.

PETER REGAN: They have left Sydney Metro. They're not employed by Sydney Metro.

The CHAIR: Then the disciplinary action, because Mr Parker stayed in the position until December— so there wasn't disciplinary action?

PETER REGAN: To be clear, there was remedial action, which is not disciplinary action.

The CHAIR: What does that mean, Mr Egan?

PETER REGAN: It's "Mr Regan", actually.

The CHAIR: Sorry, Mr Regan. There is a different Mr Egan.

PETER REGAN: There is. There's a Mr Egan who—

The CHAIR: Yes, there is. I do get it confused a fair bit, I must admit.

PETER REGAN: I've been surprised previously when we've been mistaken. The process that was followed is some of those earlier steps—just for absolute clarity, the person being investigated is not aware or being brought into that.

The CHAIR: I will reframe the question. We've got this investigation. This report finds that a very, very senior person within Sydney Metro, after a lot of investigation, had breached the Transport code of conduct, the conflict-of-interest policy, the gifts—what disciplinary action was taken against Mr Parker at that time after that was found out?

PETER REGAN: The issue particularly around the application of what's called competition limits, which goes to a point that was raised earlier around the thresholds at which financial approvals are provided, becomes a key factor in this—

The CHAIR: That doesn't sound—so "remedial" is, within the organisation, you changed it so someone like Mr Parker couldn't do what he did again for 495,000.

PETER REGAN: No, no, they are—

The CHAIR: They can do it for 249,000 now.

PETER REGAN: No, they are separate issues. We did put—

The CHAIR: But is that what you mean by "remedial"?

PETER REGAN: No, the issue I'm raising around the thresholds is that there are clearly gift—

The CHAIR: Did anything happen to Mr Parker? Was there any disciplinary action whatsoever after this fact-finding investigation? One of the most senior people in your team—what did you do about it?

PETER REGAN: That's a matter that was dealt with internally. There was—

The CHAIR: It doesn't sound like it, Mr Regan.

PETER REGAN: I'm sorry, I'm not—this is not a process that we would normally be discussing in a public forum.

(Ref pg 54-56, Video from 5:06:18 to 5:23:40)

---

The CHAIR: Going back to the Elara investigation within Sydney Metro—going back to the two investigations that IMS or Transport for NSW undertook—I think you were mentioning, Mr Britton, and this is the contracted-out IMS investigation, that there was a fact-finding investigation that produced a report and then you said, I think, a disciplinary investigation. Is that correct, or is that all part of the same thing?

DAVID BRITTON: It's part of the same engagement, but there are those two stages, yes, that's correct.

The CHAIR: Those two stages happened. There were a number of the complaints that were substantiated. The next step was who did what with that report? Who met and who did what?

DAVID BRITTON: It's worth distinguishing between the investigative process and the processes the employer undertakes to make a decision. We don't outsource the employment process. Yes, IMS was engaged to undertake an investigation. That investigation produced a report. That report comes back to Transport and Transport, as an employer, makes a decision about what to do with those findings.

The CHAIR: Let's just focus on that then. Transport, as an employer, makes a decision. Who within Transport made a decision? Who considered that report? Who got together—if, indeed, a group of people got together? Where did that report go?

DAVID BRITTON: Can I talk, firstly, at a level of generality, which is, for any employer decision, the employer considers both the findings in the investigation, the context, the record of the person involved, the findings—and I think when you read the findings before I would note that the findings related to three individuals. I'm not sure that all the findings you read related to the individual about whom an employment decision was made. But, ultimately, there is a delegated decision-maker who makes a decision on the employment matter. I don't think it's appropriate to go into the confidential employment decisions, but Transport took the report very seriously and action was taken. It was in the nature of remedial action.

The CHAIR: Who considered that report? Who considered it and decided to take action? Was it within Sydney Metro, Mr Regan, in terms of you considering that report or who decided, once receiving that—with  complaints supported and, again, breaches of various codes, conflicts of interest policy, code of conduct and what have you—that report, handed down, goes to who? Who sat down and read it and considered it and made a decision in terms of that remedial action?

PETER REGAN: Sydney Metro doesn't have its own employees; they're Transport's employees. That decision is made by Transport but with appropriate input from senior figures at Sydney Metro. But, ultimately, the employees are Transport's employees.

The CHAIR: Who decided then? Was it a meeting, was it a committee, was it an individual? Was it you, Mr Murray? Was it the People and Culture head?

DAVID BRITTON: There were a number of discussions and a decision was ultimately made. As I said, I don't think it's appropriate to go into the confidential employment decisions about an individual employee, but a decision was made and action taken.

The CHAIR: With respect, Mr Britton, at this point these documents are released about investigations, the reports are out there about senior executives within Sydney Metro and the complaints have been substantiated. The question now is just around transparency in terms of what happened within Transport for NSW, who made the decision, ultimately, who got the fact-finding report and the complaints that have been substantiated. What did they do with it? Who was it who then took action? This is about accountability and the way in which these investigations are handled. I think employees within Transport for NSW also need to know that when they make serious complaints that are substantiated, people will be held to account. I'm not getting that impression, to be honest. People move on from Transport for NSW. They know they're under investigation. They move on; they're fine. Nothing happens to them. The other person—senior position—hangs around and now heads up the national High Speed Rail Authority. The other two guys that I talked about earlier, they've just gone back to their private company. Their private company is still earning millions of dollars from Sydney Metro contracts. Frankly, I think most of the people who have made these complaints are seeing that there's no ramification for them. That's why I'm asking.

DAVID BRITTON: I can assure the Committee that the report was taken seriously. Action was taken; it was in the nature of remedial action. I don't propose to go into any further details about the confidential employment matter.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD: Why not?

DAVID BRITTON: Because it's a confidential employment matter.

The Hon. NATALIE WARD: It's taxpayer dollars.

The CHAIR: Let's frame it this way: This investigation found the senior figures, as I've read out before— investigation subjects Mr Timothy Parker and Ms Louise Howard; that's what's in this document, it's public—that there were policy breaches. Apparently Mr Parker instructed Ms Cole to create a role for herself under the $500,000 approval process that would have triggered Mr Regan. I've seen the emails where Ms Howard wanted to check that it went to Mr Parker and was absolutely ecstatic when she—she was very determined to make sure it didn't go to you, Mr Regan. That was how deliberate this seemed to be. The complaint was supported. The investigation's out there. They're serious matters. In terms of a public agency, these public servants are found to have breached the Transport Code of Conduct, Sydney Metro competition limits and the Transport Conflicts of Interests Policy. You're saying "remedial action" without being able to be clearer than that. You would know, Mr Regan, surely. If there was anything substantial that did happen, you'd be able to say.

PETER REGAN: Ms Faehrmann, to be fair, I took that question on notice to get further legal advice and I said I would come back with what we could provide.

The CHAIR: Yes, you did.

DAVID BRITTON: It's also worth noting, as Mr Regan said, that Sydney Metro's taken a number of steps to improve its processes and ensure these types of things don't happen again. These are employees, they're confidential employment matters and we have duties to our employees.

The CHAIR: You can take legal advice, but who made the decision? Who makes the decision within Transport for NSW with this?

DAVID BRITTON: I don't propose to go into the confidential employment matters. These reports were considered at very senior levels within the organisation and action was taken. 


The CHAIR: At this point it doesn't seem as though action was taken because Mr Parker remained in the position. I'll ask another question in relation to the appointment of the position that we're talking about now, the creation of that role—again, this fact-finding investigation and the Elara assessment did substantiate those claims that this role was created for Kate Cole, just under $500,000 a year. Mr Regan, did you direct Louise Howard to ensure Kate Cole's services were retained at any point?

PETER REGAN: No, I didn't.

The CHAIR: Are you sure about that?

PETER REGAN: Yes.

The CHAIR: Back in 2022, perhaps, you didn't have any conversation to Louise Howard to ensure that Kate Cole's services were retained?

PETER REGAN: My expectation is that all positions at Sydney Metro, as I'm sure would be the case at Transport for NSW, are filled through proper process—through competitive process, where that's required. I would not direct someone to go outside of that process.

The CHAIR: I want to go to the Noble Shore investigation that was undertaken. This is the other issue now, the Cyllene issue, which is the Paul Rogers, Barry McGrattan, James Hayward—was he part of that, or just the two?

PETER REGAN: The Cyllene investigation you refer to, as I mentioned before, the allegations made in that investigation were not substantiated. The information, as I am required to do at the start of the process, was provided to the Independent Commission Against Corruption, as was the completed investigation report.

The CHAIR: To be clear, Noble Shore was contracted out to undertake that investigation, I understand, towards the end of last year in October. They've reported, have they?

PETER REGAN: I think you're referring to a different investigation.

The CHAIR: What were Noble Shore contracted to do?

PETER REGAN: I think it's a different investigation that you're referring to.

The CHAIR: The same individuals?

PETER REGAN: There is an overlap. That process, I believe, is close to conclusion at the moment, but I don't have the final details of that.

The CHAIR: Okay, so that's still to report. I have an email in front of me which is from 2 June. It's from Transport for NSW. It's the Workplace Conduct Investigations unit. It's from Paul Grech—that name is public now within there—to Grant Marley. This is about Elara. It says: Grant, I'm concerned with the pressure to finished being placed on the Investigator. I had no idea that Ben had asked for this update considering I have organised a meeting with Daren for next week. Amy fox called me yesterday or the day before wanting to know how long the investigation was going to take. I told her that it will be finished when all the witnesses have been spoken to and this may take weeks. She was ok and I understand that she is getting pressure from above. She asked When we will be in a position to put allegations to her and I said that there may be no allegations that we put to her we can't pre-empt the integrity of the investigation. Amy Fox is a Sydney Metro employee; is that correct?

PETER REGAN: Transport employee but she works at Sydney Metro, yes.

The CHAIR: So "pressure from above", do you think that would be within Sydney Metro, Transport for NSW? Why would she be saying she was getting pressure from above?

PETER REGAN: I don't think she did say she's getting pressure from above. I think she inquired, as per that email, to what the time frame was around the investigation.

The CHAIR: But to be clear, this email does say that there was pressure from above to finish the investigation soon. Why would that be the case?

PETER REGAN: I didn't write that email.

The CHAIR: But I'm asking you, would you know why there was pressure?

PETER REGAN: I can say generally that from time to time, when allegations are made, that as the chief executive I would ask how the process is going or if there's an expected outcome on the process, especially where it does relate to senior employees, and, as we discussed earlier today, a significant amount of time had elapsed since the initial allegations were made. So there's no pressure to reach an outcome. I think the email refers to inquiry as to what the time frame is.

The CHAIR: With investigations like this, when findings are made such as these against pretty senior people within Transport for NSW, what is remedial action? When you're saying that remedial action can be taken when somebody breaches a code of conduct, when they breach a conflict of interest policy, when they breach a competition policy and they're pretty senior within Transport for NSW, what does remedial action look like?

DAVID BRITTON: There are a range of remedial actions that can be taken in circumstances. They can be warnings; they can be counselling, training. I think there are a range of actions that can be taken in response to allegations that are substantiated.

The CHAIR: So warnings, counselling, training. So it's probably one of those three. That's what remedial is?

TRACEY TAYLOR: It can be also a combination of all of them depending on the gravity of the breaches that have been substantiated.

The CHAIR: Did Mr Parker leaving Sydney Metro at the time that he did at the end of December—and we're not sure what the remedial action was that was taken against him. There was, though; I'm assuming that that is the case and that's what I've been told today. The evidence before us today is that there was remedial action. Did this issue, this investigation, have anything to do with Mr Parker leaving the organisation, the agency?

PETER REGAN: I can't comment on behalf of Mr Parker. Mr Parker accepted a different job. He had told me in advance that he was in consideration for that job. Mr Parker had made an incredibly big contribution to Sydney Metro over a number of years as our head of project delivery. We've wished him all the best in his new role. I hope that he can achieve similar progress and outcome with the High Speed Rail Authority. To answer your question, I can't speak for Mr Parker but they're completely separate issues in my mind.

(Ref pg 73-76, Video from 6:58:20 to 7:13:30)

All of that shite hanging over Poindexter Parker and yet Betsy (a former NSW Mandarin) still saw fit to recommend to miniscule Dicky King that she hire him, for some plum fictional position, as CEO for the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA bottomless ATP trough fund) - hmm..perhaps now would be a good time for a referral to the NACCAs? - Just saying...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Aviation Green Paper Submissions? -

Via Betsy's website: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/have-y...reen-paper

Outcome

Submissions on the Aviation Green Paper closed on 30 November 2023. Submissions made on the Aviation Green Paper are published in full below (unless it was indicated at the time of submission that a submission was to remain in-confidence).

The public consultation has been an important opportunity for the Australian community and industry to have their say. The input is important to support government in making decisions on the policies to be included in the Aviation White Paper, which is expected to be released in mid 2024.

Submissions will be released on the department’s website in tranches as they are processed. All submissions must be reviewed to ensure that the privacy of submitters is respected.

The Department is not responsible for the content of these submissions, which remains the responsibility of the original authors and do not represent the views of the Department. To the extent permitted by law, the Commonwealth disclaims liability to any person or organisation in respect of anything else done, or omitted to be done, in reliance upon information contained in any of the submissions.

Not sure if there are more submissions yet to be published. There are currently 355 submissions, a large majority of which are limited comments from disgruntled individuals living under airport approaches at major city airports. Still going through the industry stakeholder submissions, some of which will be worthy of review and further exposure.

Example 1 of a first class factual, evidence based submission, comes from the 'Honourable Company of Air Pilots Australia (HCAPA)': https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/...tralia.pdf

2. Likely Future Directions to 2050

a. The Green Paper does not layout a National Aviation Policy. Without a coherent policy, there will be a piecemeal approach to different issues which will diminish their effectiveness.

b. There is an emphasis on sustainability and environmental issues and, whilst these are admirable objectives, they do not solve the many areas that exist today and will continue to do so without effective action.

---

4. Regional and Remote Aviation

a. Regional airports are vital infrastructure for natural disaster relief (fires, floods, cyclones). There needs to be a national plan to maintain and support this vital asset.

b. Many of our regional airports are suffering due to the decline in general aviation. There needs to be a balance between the transformation to net zero and further burdening general aviation.

c. To this end, the Australian Government should consider prioritising regional airports and supporting infrastructure such as roads and runways. These assets are particularly impacted by natural disasters and issues regarding ongoing maintenance funding and planning.

d. In HCAPA’s view, “better, more resilient and more flood-proof infrastructure” starts with regional airports. We have had widespread flooding across Australia that has highlighted the impossibility of flood-proofing all of our roads and railway lines while highlighting the vulnerability of many of our population centres to isolation from flooding. Retaining a connection by air can significantly ease the hardship for those affected, particularly in more remote communities, and may well be the most cost-effective first step.

---

6. Airport development planning processes and consultation mechanisms

a. Has “light touch” led to incompatible development around airports? (see Sub para 8.k)

b. It is unfortunate that the focus of this section of the Paper is on noise, instead of protecting the airspace and preventing inappropriate rezoning leading to development that impinges on the safety and efficiency of aviation.

c. Noise is a community issue, but it is not assisted by rezoning and allowing domestic premises to be built close to airports or under known or planned flight paths.

d. Wind disturbance from building and other activities on or off airport continues to be a major safety concern. The  National Airports Safeguarding Framework Guideline (NASFG) “B” is not fit for purpose as it does not follow the Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (Royal NLR; Dutch: Koninklijk Nederlands Luchten Ruimtevaartcentrum) research and considers buildings and other things in isolation. The Guideline needs to be amended to rectify these defects and then needs, along with the other NASF Guidelines, to be enacted by each State and Territory, as was the original undertaking made at COAG.

(The whole section on Airport development planning etc well worth a read)

---

7. General Aviation:

a. GA is still the backbone of our aviation industry. It is the sector that provides initial flying training in the civil sector. Without it the whole aviation transport industry faces constraints so supporting this sector is vital. This includes support of GA airports, access to training airspace, support for light aircraft maintenance engineers and facilities.

b. At present, the energy density of batteries is insufficient to support a flight of 150nm, which is a basic requirement for the issue of a PPL.  Another way of reducing emissions, at least in the flight training sector, is increased use of high-fidelity simulation, thereby reducing actual flight time.

c. A major issue is the lack of light aircraft maintenance facilities, and this may not be as much a regulatory issue as a societal one. HCAPA would support the concept of the “gumtree” LAME: a maintainer who does not necessarily have their own fixed workshop facility but is allowed to travel and work on the aircraft where the owner/operator is based. (Much like the “we come to you” motor mechanics and windscreen technicians.)

---

8. Fit-for-Purpose Regulations

a. With the demise of RAPAC and its morphing into AvSEF there is no longer a regular forum where issues that involve multiple departments can be discussed. Each department now has their own dedicated consultation/ engagement process.

b. CASA stated at the time RAPAC was dissolved that there would still be a multi departmental forum held on a regular basis. There may have been one or two attempts, but HCAPA is not aware of any recently. Moreover, these are not the same as the AvSafety seminars that CASA organises. 

c.  A good example of where multi-departmental involvement is required is the development of Western Sydney International Airports airspace and routes. Now we have information on air routes coming from Infrastructure but ultimately it will be ASA that controls the airspace and CASA who approves it through the OAR. Western Sydney airspace has ramifications for both airlines and GA.

d.  Another example of where multi-departmental involvement would have been appropriate was Airservices’ handling of the Ballina Byron Gateway airport. ASA went through a process of consultation before establishing their Surveillance Flight Information Service, during which they were told it would not really be a satisfactory solution. Ultimately ATSB raised it as a safety issue forcing the OAR to do an airspace review. One of the recommendations was the establishment of CTR at Ballina by 30 Nov 2023!

e. Apparent risk aversion means that Australian regulators fail to take account of ways of regulating aviation using means that are well-tried and tested and in common use by the rest of the world, and hence Australia has ceased to be a leading force in ICAO.

f. This leads into the next issue which is “consultation” which should mean listening to stakeholders rather than going out and trying to find feedback that supports preconceived positions. Recent discussion on the medical TWG relate to this. Departments should approach consultation with a blank sheet of paper, do actual research and analysis before coming to conclusions.

g. The Aviation Safety Advisory Panel receive their information on TWG recommendations from the CASA “support” team rather than from the TWG members themselves. This means that CASA are able to report outcomes of the discussions in a way that suggests the TWG members either support the CASA input to the group, or may be misled into accepting a report that does not fairly represent the views of the industry specialists’ proposals. Furthermore, some key agreed standards have been changed significantly during the legal drafting process...

(The full section under 'Fit-for-purpose regulation' is worth a read)

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Senator McKenzie & Smith APP Bill 2024 - Dicky King MIA??

Yesterday in the Senate Senators McKenzie and Smith's 'Airline Passenger Protections Bill 2024' had it's 2nd reading debate: Hansard (from 1st 'Bills') & Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024

   

Senator McKENZIE: "..The minister has failed on multiple counts. It has been this chamber and the opposition that have had to drag her kicking and screaming to address the obvious failures within our aviation sector. The ACCC cancellation and delays reporting has been reinstated thanks to the work of the opposition. In the evidence to the aviation inquiry last year it was clear: Qantas and Virgin operate under consumer protections when they're flying internationally. Why shouldn't their customers onshore here in Australia be protected by a similar framework? If the minister's not going to step up and do the job, we're very happy to do it for her. We're looking forward to hopefully sending this to an inquiry for further expansion of the issues.."

(14:20)

Senator CANAVAN: "..This government does seem to be doing something—running this protection racket, which I've mentioned—and then sometimes just seems to be completely asleep at the wheel. We haven't heard from Minister King. I don't know where she is. She has just completely disappeared off the face of the earth—

An opposition senator: "She's waiting for a flight!"

Senator CANAVAN: "..Yes, she's at the airline lounge, waiting for a flight, perhaps! We don't know. Where has she been? As I said, she has got this major report on slot allocation in Sydney. We've heard no response from her. What the hell is going on? Now we have a government that's seemingly not taking up these commonsense ideas, instead saying, 'We're doing more reviews,' and it could be months and months before Australians receive any kind of relief or response.

Why don't we just get on with it and pass this bill? It's very, very simple. It would make the minister actually do something. This bill doesn't outline in detail what the requirements would be. I think that's appropriate for an overriding piece of legislation. All the bill says is that the minister must, within 12 months, come up with some of these rules to protect Australian consumers. At the very least, passing this bill might actually make the minister for infrastructure do something. That would be good because she'd have to, within 12 months, do something for a change. Right now, it's pretty hard to understand what the minister for infrastructure is doing apart from just running a protection racket for Qantas..."

(56:30)

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Dicky King still MIA on matters Aviation?? -

Senator McKenzie & Smith APP Bill 2024 - Dicky King MIA??

Yesterday in the Senate Senators McKenzie and Smith's 'Airline Passenger Protections Bill 2024' had it's 2nd reading debate: Hansard (from 1st 'Bills') & Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024

   

Senator McKENZIE: "..The minister has failed on multiple counts. It has been this chamber and the opposition that have had to drag her kicking and screaming to address the obvious failures within our aviation sector. The ACCC cancellation and delays reporting has been reinstated thanks to the work of the opposition. In the evidence to the aviation inquiry last year it was clear: Qantas and Virgin operate under consumer protections when they're flying internationally. Why shouldn't their customers onshore here in Australia be protected by a similar framework? If the minister's not going to step up and do the job, we're very happy to do it for her. We're looking forward to hopefully sending this to an inquiry for further expansion of the issues.."

(14:20)

Senator CANAVAN: "..This government does seem to be doing something—running this protection racket, which I've mentioned—and then sometimes just seems to be completely asleep at the wheel. We haven't heard from Minister King. I don't know where she is. She has just completely disappeared off the face of the earth—

An opposition senator: "She's waiting for a flight!"

Senator CANAVAN: "..Yes, she's at the airline lounge, waiting for a flight, perhaps! We don't know. Where has she been? As I said, she has got this major report on slot allocation in Sydney. We've heard no response from her. What the hell is going on? Now we have a government that's seemingly not taking up these commonsense ideas, instead saying, 'We're doing more reviews,' and it could be months and months before Australians receive any kind of relief or response.

Why don't we just get on with it and pass this bill? It's very, very simple. It would make the minister actually do something. This bill doesn't outline in detail what the requirements would be. I think that's appropriate for an overriding piece of legislation. All the bill says is that the minister must, within 12 months, come up with some of these rules to protect Australian consumers. At the very least, passing this bill might actually make the minister for infrastructure do something. That would be good because she'd have to, within 12 months, do something for a change. Right now, it's pretty hard to understand what the minister for infrastructure is doing apart from just running a protection racket for Qantas..."

(56:30)

ATCOs threaten 1st strike in 22 years?? -

Plus courtesy Senator McKenzie, via X:

Senator The Hon. Bridget McKenzie
@senbmckenzie

Transport minister King must address poor senior management at AirServices Australia to prevent this Government agency being responsible for more flight cancellations and delays for Australian families
Air traffic staff threaten first strike in 22 years

Hmm...good luck with getting any sort of response from miniscule Dicky King, who is still MIA on matters of aviation safety, she does however seem to have plenty of time for self-serving, pointless, political point scoring with QWN and a WOFTAM Dorothy Dixer... :

2,151 views  Feb 29, 2024
Dicky King the worst Minister oversighting Transport EVER?? https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...6#pid14176 &  What comes next? Poindexter Parker - Dicky King and Betsy's anointed one (referral to the NACCAs)??  

God help the GA industry because this useless miniscule never will...

PS: BRB tote is open for the worst Minister, oversighting Aviation, of all time??...

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Mushrooms v Bubble Heads (Round 28).

Re large, tall, vortex creating buildings impinging on runway (and the public) safety zones. Whereas the great 'developer protection racket' romps along unchecked; and, millions are being generated through clever little 'work-around' and blatant gouging; the rest of the grown up, safety conscious nations are raising the 'Your Safety is our first concern' bar. No 'welcome to country' twaddle - just great service, sensible rates and the very best 'safety' standards they can achieve. Bravo Singapore; well done.

Rather than attempt to publish the current dog's breakfast of the Australian version; I raise only two items: the aberration which is Essendon and Singapore's sane, safe approach to 'best' practice'.

Singapore -: Annex 14; Chapter 3; 3.4.3 - "the words 'whenever practical' in Annex 14 paragraph 3-4-3 have been removed in our national regulations. Without exception, the width of the runway strip shall be 140m where the code is 3 or 4: and, 70m where the code is number 1 or 2.

Singapore -: Annex 14; Chapter 4; 4.2.14. For a precision approach runway category , the inner approach surface, inner transitional surface shall be established, in addition to the conical surface, inner horizontal surface approach surface and transitional surfaces. 

No food for Mushrooms in those plain paragraphs; just a genuine, professional approach to 'Gold standards'.  If you are stuck for background - start -HERE -.

Somebody fetch me an Ale - or a bucket; I have a great need of both; having just read through the piffle Australia has produced; ICAO compliant:-

[Kharon]

Chickens !! -Incoming.

Lots of - On the near horizon - heading home to roost;

Report - HERE - from the peerless Mandarin:-

"But a bigger problem for the Albanese government is that there are now three critical services unions in dispute with their federal employers, two of which can potentially keep flights grounded."

[Kharon]

Is there a Minister in the House?

Perhaps its time to send out a search party, just to be sure (to be sure) that there is actually a live, fully compos (even if not fully mentis) person parked on the Ministerial throne. The SAR operation is fully justified; there exists a great need for an authoritative voice - with the horsepower to back it - to sort out the complete shambles airborne 'safety' (used advisedly) has become. Not just isolated 'events' but across the whole system; from the top all the way through to the tea lady. Complete disarray would accurately define the situation.

The current 'mess' has it's roots in history and cannot possibly be defined or described as a 'recent' or 'modern' product. At the 'root' we must look back at the 'Albo- like' brain farts, King as minister and of making a public service into a 'profit centre' and expecting the public servant mentality to deal with the corporate mindset, much less mimic it. Psychologically to very different animals. For a classic example, look back at the Houston multi billion dollar cock-up - Big Sky'. It was about that time the wheels started to come off the ASA wagon; the whole sorry saga has been very carefully hidden under the office rug; but the huge deficit left behind, in the wake of the entire fiasco is another fundamental element of the present day situation. A situation which is becoming a matter of serious concern for industry, the travelling public and those who must fulfil their obligations to their jobs, under difficult (if not egregious) conditions.

The Senate inquiry into the Brisbane airport debacle is only the stench of the rotting corpse; the deeper they dig, the closer they get to exposing the skeletal remains of a once proud, sane, safe system of managing air traffic without a profit motive. It begs the question; should ASA be self supporting - financial? Of course the answer is yes; but should it be a profit centre for not only government, but for airport developers. Categorically - NO. And yet even on the 'surface' evidence provided in Brisbane, the pug marks of corporate greed are clearly visible. Take the time to listen _ HERE _.

But wait; there's more..........

The bizarre 'corporate' mindset which prompted the great 'Covid' cull of qualified ATC licence holders and the money that cost v the future savings was unforgivable. We now have areas which rely solely on pilots to 'self separate' - busy airspace some of it. All well and good; while the sun shines and the weather is fair - but; it is a bloody chancy exercise in the 'dark of night' with bad weather. Not so bad at cruise height - BUT one needs to climb to that height and (if you don't hit anything on the way up) then one must be careful on the way back down as the options for escape from traffic conflict reduce. Four aircraft in two thousand square miles in good weather = piece of cake.. Four aircraft arriving within minutes at the same aerodrome approach points creates a potential for Murphy's law to take precedence. In aviation the term 'risk mitigation' has a very clear meaning; the consequences of neglect to do so, demonstrated many times over history, provide a clear, unequivocal picture. Play with fire? Then don't be surprised when fingers get burned; and Australia is playing with fire.....

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.”

Tick - carelessness.
Tick - Incapacity.
Tick - Neglect.

Albo set this poor verdict in motion; his incumbent minister continues the legacy. The clock is ticking and Murphy is always on hand; ready, willing and able. His only adversary; the peerless McKenzie and her cohorts in exile. Bon chance...

Toot (FDS) toot.