[Peetwo]

Senators on the prowl - The Heff, Senators Johnson, Gallacher etc have suddenly caught a sniff of the stench emanating from the ATSB 'blank check' MH370 SIO search and they're 'not happy Jan'...

The Nitty Gritty.

Which only leaves ATSB and a hapless, re bearded Beaker – one texted comment cracked me up – it suggested the beard is used as cover for telling the really big Porkies.  Foley did well on MH 370 – he seems to be across the brief and manages to give an impression of honesty.  The session is worth reviewing – Norfolk and Pel-Air were mentioned and the bearded one looked distinctly uncomfortable during that interlude.  MTF.

The inestimable Fawcett.  Watch as he demonstrates, emphatically, why the Committee needs him on the paddock – every game.  Nice to see him out for a run.  

Part III @ 0230 Beaker babbles trying to dodge the question, eventually DF lets him slither away; only to lead him straight to the Pel-Air aftermath.  Off the hook? No way NX; picks up the ball at 06.00 and drives the nail home, with Bullock running interference.  Back to DF playing at 5/8 (old money) for the coup de grace, a dire warning delivered clear as crystal.  As the clock ticks down to the final moments – watch the Beaker expressions from 10.40 and the speed it moves at when Heff blows the whistle and team Beaker limp off.  Except for Beaker who is out of the chair like his nuts was a’fire. Bravo committee.  

It’s good to see all that ‘on the record’ and the record being used as a lethal weapon.  The Chambers Report still features, it is a two edged sword and with any luck the malign intent of that document will become apparent – once the Committee decide to stop using it as a handy club and start using it as a rapier.  That’s is for the CASA thread.  

Parts I & II – the MH 370 stuff up; I wonder does the world realise that the chair of our esteemed, aviation savvy Senate Committee regards it as a “stuff up”, which is Ozspeak for a right royal duck up – or, a load of Bollocks.  The most telling statements, the full stop deadline on the search, has been decided.

Then we get to Norfolk – "initial assessment of conditions" – Beaker really does believe he can get away with curling his toes up, so they can’t put his socks on – purblind folly.   The gig is up and the clock is ticking – as the chair remarked; do not ask a question if you don’t know the answer. Bye bye Beaker – watch Merde’k, the master of the game.

Hansard is brilliant; but, the video – is bloody marvellous, thank tech crew as always a great job.

MTF – fair bet.

Toot toot.

Hansard 19/10/15:

CHAIR: I think generally you may face some questions about the MH370 stuff-up.


Senator JOHNSTON: Mr Dolan, could you very briefly tell us what we are doing as of right now?

Mr Dolan : At the moment we have two vessels with deep tow equipment in the Indian Ocean or en route to continue the search of the surface in the defined area for this event.

Senator JOHNSTON: That is pursuant to a contract which is worth how much?

Mr Foley : The contract value varies depending on a sliding scale in the contract. We initially started with a contract for 30,000 square kilometres and in three successive moves we have upped the number of square kilometres that we have been asked to search.

Senator JOHNSTON: To 90?

Mr Foley : We are currently at 80,000 square kilometres.

Senator JOHNSTON: You have 10,000 square kilometres to go?

Mr Foley : We have done 70,000 at this point. So, what we have got on AusTender, where we report periodically when we change the value of the contract, is $90 million.

Senator JOHNSTON: So, what is the value of the contract all up with what we have spent so far on the search?

Mr Foley : It is $97 million as of end of September.

Senator JOHNSTON: What is the term of the contract and how is it terminated?

Mr Foley : The term of the contract is two years from the date at which it started and it is terminated at our request, effectively, which is obviously triggered when we find the aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: So, two years or anytime thereafter on reasonable notice, I take it, is roughly right?

Mr Foley : No. Two years is the fixed term of the contract. We extend the contract in terms of square kilometres periodically to, if you like, pre-empt what we think we are going to need to search in the coming months.

Senator JOHNSTON: But after two years we finish?

Mr Foley : After two years we finish.

Senator JOHNSTON: And you estimate the total value of that contract after two years will be?

Mr Foley : It depends on how much we search.

Senator JOHNSTON: A rough estimate?

Mr Foley : That is a hard one. We do not know what our bottom line is in terms of funding as yet because it is reliant not just on the Australian government but the Malaysian government as well. So, in essence, the value of the contract varies depending on how much funding is provided by—

CHAIR: Do you have an open chequebook?

Mr Foley : Not at all. We have been given $60 million.

CHAIR: It sounds like you have.

Mr Foley : We were given $60 million by the Australian government at the start of the search. We have not spent that money yet. Other moneys which have been contributed by Malaysia we are using in tandem with the Australian government money.

Senator JOHNSTON: What is the percentage breakup between Australia and Malaysia?
Mr Foley : At this point it is around about fifty-fifty and it increases proportionately in terms of Malaysia's funding as time goes on.

Senator JOHNSTON: The aileron or whatever it was that was found on Reunion Island—I have been reading that it is from MH370, a Boeing 777.

Mr Foley : Correct.

Senator JOHNSTON: Are we certain that the serial numbers on the component parts of that piece of equipment indisputably match that of the aircraft?

Mr Foley : The French judicial authorities are actually doing the investigation. They are certain that there are unique identifying numbers within the flaperon which related to 9M-MRO, which is the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: And Boeing have confirmed that?

Mr Foley : As far as we know, yes, but the French—

Senator JOHNSTON: Do we have anything in writing?

Mr Foley : The French have announced publicly that it is definitely from the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: Thank you.

Senator GALLACHER: You have contracted a vessel. I presume it is a vessel to tow this equipment.

Mr Dolan : Two vessels.

Mr Foley : The contract currently allows that.

Senator GALLACHER: Are they the best suited vessels for this work? We have received representations that you have picked the wrong vessels, or at least the wrong equipment.

Mr Dolan : We went to the international market with a very clearly specified tender for the services for the search for the missing aircraft. We did a very serious technical assessment of bids that came forward from that. There were three bids that technically complied with our required specified tender conditions and we selected the one that was the best value for money. The vessels that we had available to us are fit for purpose, as is the equipment and the crews that they are using.

Senator GALLACHER: So, whilst it might have been the best value for money was it the one with the best proven success record of finding and utilising this equipment?

Mr Dolan : There has not been any exercise on this scale of this capability so we have no benchmark for it. The closest we have—

Senator GALLACHER: What about the Air France aircraft?

Mr Dolan : The Air France aircraft was talking about a much more constrained area with a much more specified last location of the aircraft. We are talking about a somewhat different ocean bottom as well. There is a whole range of different circumstances. There was nothing that we could directly compare our current exercise to and we are confident that we have the best value for money for the Commonwealth for the exercise.

Senator GALLACHER: The best value for money but we do not know how much we are going to spend or how long we are going to be active for, so is it the best piece of equipment to be doing the job?

Mr Dolan : The equipment is doing the job that we require of it.

CHAIR: That was not the question.

Senator GALLACHER: Is there a piece of equipment that will give you a wider span either side?

CHAIR: There is. You do not ask the question unless you know the answer and I am sure you know the answer.

Mr Foley : Yes, of course. We considered a number of options when we put together the statement of requirements for the tender. We got the best technical advice that we could, which is expertise that exists within the United States, and we specified, very carefully, the technical requirements for the systems that we would use in the search.

Senator XENOPHON: May we get a copy of that technical advice and all the other material that you relied on before you made your decision as to which search company that you went to and the equipment used?

Mr Foley : We can certainly provide that documentation. We have it in existence, of course. It is part of the tender assessment process. The normal, if you like, commercial-in-confidence rules apply, which do not apply here.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not interested so much as to what each of them were going to charge for it. I am interested in the technical assessment of those.

Mr Foley : In assessing the tender we firstly did not consider price at all. The panel was blind to the price of the bids until such time as we had actually assessed their technical merit. Once we had assessed their technical merit, taken advice on the technical merit of the various bids from an expert, we then—

Senator XENOPHON: Who was that expert?

Mr Foley : He is currently contracted to us as our sonar expert. His name is Andrew Sherrell who worked, amongst other things, on finding Air France 447...

...Senator GALLACHER: Just on MH370, could you supply on notice what you can about the tender process, the technical advice and the cost, because you may or may not be aware that there are people giving a lot of different senators—coalition, opposition and cross-bench senators—a very different view of what you are actually doing there. It is not a complimentary view, and it does not appear to be sour grapes. It appears to be a very different technical assessment, so you are going to need to justify your contract, your decisions, or at least publicly make them available to us, because we are getting an information source which is contrary to what you are saying. Are you aware of that?


Mr Dolan : We are aware that there is some fairly public commentary about an alternative approach to this. We have paid attention to that. Every time the question that has been asked of us as to whether our techniques are up to the necessary standards, we have provided the information. I am very happy to provide that information to the committee. I am very happy to provide a separate briefing to committee members if they wish it.

Senator GALLACHER: Thank you....

MTF...P2