Shambolic or Shameful?
“South Australian senator Rex Patrick, of the Nick Xenophon Team, has called on the federal government to establish an independent review of OneSKY before allowing the contract with Thales to be signed.”
What a jolly good idea and about time too. But only if the terms of reference can also be ‘independently’ constructed; we see far too many ‘reviews’ constrained within narrow, restrictive ToR. There also needs to be a sense of urgency imparted with the review conducted at a pace a top Fortune 500 company board would expect to see on a major expenditure adventure. It would be nice, for once, to see the government respond at a similar executive pace.
But, if I had my way; I’d start again, from scratch. I reckon it would be less expensive, quicker, cleaner, more transparent and deliver the system required if there was an ‘independent’ panel set up to do the analysis and decide which proposal is in the best interests of the nation. Clear, open and accountable, on a deadline.
A review of the One Sky project may shine a light into some dark corners, but will it see behind the walls? IMO there are some huge question mark hanging over the ASA board, competency for one of several, which cannot deny an answer for too much longer. Then there are the serious matters attending Halfwit's governance of the ASA, particularly in relation to not only One Sky, but of the whole shooting match. Few would deny it is a shambles.
ASA is a monopoly, with a licence to print money; where has the potential profit gone?
A review is a good idea; bringing in the ANAO, ASIO and the Federal police is a much better notion. At very least, a forensic examination of the entire ASA shambles would clear the water, which has become foetid. As ‘Civil Air’ point out, the clock is ticking.
Gold star and a Choc frog for That man ‘Iggins. I wonder how he’ll treat the ruck at the Angus bus stop. Game on? You bet.
Toot toot.
“South Australian senator Rex Patrick, of the Nick Xenophon Team, has called on the federal government to establish an independent review of OneSKY before allowing the contract with Thales to be signed.”
What a jolly good idea and about time too. But only if the terms of reference can also be ‘independently’ constructed; we see far too many ‘reviews’ constrained within narrow, restrictive ToR. There also needs to be a sense of urgency imparted with the review conducted at a pace a top Fortune 500 company board would expect to see on a major expenditure adventure. It would be nice, for once, to see the government respond at a similar executive pace.
But, if I had my way; I’d start again, from scratch. I reckon it would be less expensive, quicker, cleaner, more transparent and deliver the system required if there was an ‘independent’ panel set up to do the analysis and decide which proposal is in the best interests of the nation. Clear, open and accountable, on a deadline.
A review of the One Sky project may shine a light into some dark corners, but will it see behind the walls? IMO there are some huge question mark hanging over the ASA board, competency for one of several, which cannot deny an answer for too much longer. Then there are the serious matters attending Halfwit's governance of the ASA, particularly in relation to not only One Sky, but of the whole shooting match. Few would deny it is a shambles.
ASA is a monopoly, with a licence to print money; where has the potential profit gone?
A review is a good idea; bringing in the ANAO, ASIO and the Federal police is a much better notion. At very least, a forensic examination of the entire ASA shambles would clear the water, which has become foetid. As ‘Civil Air’ point out, the clock is ticking.
Gold star and a Choc frog for That man ‘Iggins. I wonder how he’ll treat the ruck at the Angus bus stop. Game on? You bet.
Toot toot.