Senate Estimates.

Hoody and the Safety Piñata.

You’ve all seen ‘em; those supposedly ‘funny’ video shorts of kids, blindfolded, given a big stick, spun around until dizzy, then trying to hit an ‘elusive’ target they cannot see. They remind me of Hoody, trying to manage the ATSB, not only blindfold and dizzy, with NFI where to hit and the target being remotely controlled, he’s also handicapped by either handcuffs or blinkers; possibly both. Just a series of wild air swings, vainly trying to hit something.

The Pel-Air ‘aberration’ was not a single handed affair, although Hood would have gotten some blood spots on his hands while adroitly side stepping the main outflow; it must be said that he did, eventually, wake up to the unmitigated Cambers bastardry. But he was there and if anyone in this misbegotten saga knows where the skeletons are buried – Hoody does.

But he’s buggered for all money; now the self imposed handcuffs are golden and the blinkers fur lined. It is a strange, highly conflicted paradox^.  Now, ostensibly ‘in charge’ of a reinvestigation of a matter in which, even by default, he is deeply involved in. Continuing to allow Walker to run the ‘investigation’ and continuing to side-line the invisible ‘Manning’ simply add another layer of doubt to an already murky picture. When the ATSB come out with a statement like this:-

../ Updated: 13 October 2016 : The collection and analysis of a large volume of evidence for this investigation has taken longer than originally foreseen.  However, the ATSB now has sufficient evidence to establish findings across a number of lines of inquiry.  The ATSB is in a position to finalise a draft report which is expected to be released to directly involved parties by the end of the year.  Subject to comments made during the draft report review process, the final report should be released publicly in the first part of 2017.

/..a DDDDD minister may get a warm fuzzy feeling; the public will swallow it no worries; but what about the rest of the world who know, through study of the Pel-Air ‘aberration’ that not only does it stink to the high heavens; but it is not an isolated aberration, but is, indeed the ‘norm’.  The only difference is with Pel-Air, they all got caught out.

The Bollocks is clearly apparent “The collection and analysis of a large volume of evidence for this investigation etc.”  Read the line again, then ask at least two pertinent questions.

1) Why is the ‘second’ investigation suddenly dealing with a ‘larger’ volume of evidence than the first?  Shirley the volumetric difference between version 1 and version 2 would be minimal – had the first been done correctly.

2) Why does it take so long to ‘clarify’ and revisit evidence which must have been compiled to produce the first report?  What can possibly be so new and so intricate that the second version is taking as long to complete as the first?

Its bollocks. If the differences are so vast and numerous then clearly, without doubt the first report was so grossly flawed and manipulated, that takes the actions of both CASA and ATSB into the realm of criminal investigation. IMO this is no longer a matter for the ATSB to investigate, but the Federal police. Never happen of course, far to many eggs will be broken, starting with the ministerial eggs and ending with the lowly FOI’s who were involved in the  ‘audit’ process. Never happen – we cannot possibly have ‘organisational issues’ mentioned, certainly not the CASA ones.

No, this shambolic pantomime will continue to drag on, and on and on until as Sandy says Booze, bad living and Alzheimer’s wipe the shameful, disgusting event from human memory.  

Aye; all’s well that ends well; ICAO remain bamboozled; the never empty trough overflows and things like Senate Inquiry, Forsyth reports, IOSA audits, NTSBC peer reviews and the protests of industry can all be managed; with a little ministerial help, under advisement from ‘the department’.  

P2 – “Hmm...Coupled with MH370 questions, I reckon Hoodlum could be in for an uncomfortable (at least) half an hour ...

Dunno P2, the Senate inquiry into the Norfolk ditching failed to make anyone ‘uncomfortable’; just can’t see a thirty minute session, once every few months phasing any of those with dirty hands. I reckon the Senate crew questions will be the butt of 'in-house' jokes cracked at the ATSB/CASA favourite watering hole, thirty minutes after the ‘teams’ leave the parliament building.

Toot toot.


Quote:^[a] statement or proposition which, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems logically unacceptable or self-contradictory.
Reply

Bare faced effrontery.

Is for me the leading irritant in all the hoop-lah and pony pooh associated with the rehashed Pel-Air investigation. Much of the attendant delay, obfuscation and methodology (for wont of better) is abrasive; but the sheer audacity of process is breath-taking. The arrogance, the unlimited power to do it; and, the assumption that it can be done without a whisper of protest speaks of a system rotten to the core, fully supported by the government.  “What is the fool banging on about now?” you ask; well FWIW I’ll tell you. Conflict of Interest is what.

I’ve not banged this drum much lately; no point. The die was cast and there was little anyone (except the minister) could do to prevent the ‘new’ investigation being conducted as scripted.  The blindingly obvious ‘conflicts’ were firmly put aside and the ‘investigation’ was initiated. We were led to believe that the ‘Invisible Manning’ as a non combatant, neutral invigilator would be over-sighting the process. But apart from the monthly stipend being collected, there is no tangible evidence that Manning even exists. Which brings us to the nub.

Like it or not, Hood was up to his hocks in the CASA actions against James – as the decision maker. The Chambers manipulations needed a signature to be put into deed; Hood signed.  Farquharson substituted for Hood when the latter had an upset tummy; but to all intents and purposes, Hood was the CASA anointed decision maker. There are many unanswered questions pertaining to those ‘decisions’, and many which have not, as yet, been asked, let alone answered. Yet we find Hood; once more, being both ‘delighted’ and ‘fruitful’, prancing about in the national press as the ‘Boss’ of the very service which, hand in glove with CASA, produced the ‘unfortunate’ first report into the ditching.

Then it becomes widely known that good old Doc Walker, he of the mind boggling ‘Bollocks’ doodles is ‘boss of the Norfolk wash’; not the ‘Invisible Manning. Now a little imagination is needed; but, Beaker was too dumb to build the spider web of deceit which, through the Walker Beyond all Reason method and the Aleck MoU, allowed large parts of the causal chain to be written out of the script. The lack of ‘organisational’ elements, mostly from the CASA end, passed over by ATSB, greatly assisted to inflict the Pel-Air aberration on the public purse. Walker is as conflicted as Hood and yet they both are in charge of the very organisation who’s actions are supposed to be ‘under investigation’ and getting paid well to do it. It redefines taking the Mickey Bliss. I’d bet good ale there’s not a Copper in the land who would not see the ‘funny’ (as in peculiar) side of this neat little set up.

The continued delay, the volume of smoke and the amount of mirrors being wheeled into the theatre of government probity is astounding. There is only one reason the report into the reinvestigation of the Pel-Air pantomime is delayed. They dare not publish it; well not their version at least. Actually, I’ll rephrase M’lud. They dare not publish their perversion, for that is what the current offering is.  Sorry, sneak preview not available, to protect the innocent.

Toot –bring it on – toot.
Reply

Contemporaneous notes;

(Or; scribble on the back of several beer coasters).

I believe we may safely elevate O’Sullivan to the IOS roll of honour along with Sterle, Xenophon, Fawcett, Nash, Williams and several others.  The man is every bit as terrifying and, perhaps a little more lethal than the inestimable ‘Heff’.  O’Sullivan is one of a dwindling breed of politician, a man of good will, good conscience, rock solid, honest, astute with the best interests of the Australian people at heart. The Senate committee continues to impress and inspire. Bravo.

Not even practiced, rehearsed, top deck scripted pony-pooh can be relied on as an effective defence against the committee. Halfwit for example; clearly schooled, nearly brainwashed into reiterating and espousing the ‘cover story’.  Fully armed with reams of carefully workshopped documentation to prove his risible arguments.  No matter, the well briefed Senate crew simply take the purple tie Muppet to pieces. Specious, carefully manufactured, polished dialogue, blown to bloody rags by men of ‘goodwill’; and the ANAO of course.

We need to study Hansard before getting into the details; but FWIW, some early impressions are worth mentioning. ATSB is yet to perform, the clock beaten by extended sessions, so we must wait a short while longer for that.

CASA were, as expected, only on stage for short time. It was my first ‘Wingnut’ experience and I must say I rather enjoyed it.  Far too early to form any sensible impression; but, would I have a beer with him? Yes, I believe I would. He very neatly smacked the AOPA bottom, agreed to ‘consider’ extending the ADSB timeline and generally managed the whole thing very neatly and very professionally. The really truly interesting parts are best seen on the video; one stand out was the casual manner in which a real live professional was wheeled front and centre to discuss ‘matters aeronautical’ and impressed. A stark contrast to the usual mumbling, stumbling nonsense we have come to expect from the CASA second row; well done that man. A few more like him and there may yet be hope for the CASA.  An interesting sidebar was the faces relegated to the second row, smacked arses all round. MTF when the Hansard appears.

That’s about it; my notes (those I can read) and the video will flesh out the bare bones. ATSB to follow in due course.

Toot - MTF – toot.
Reply

[Image: DoIRD.jpg]


RRAT Supplementary Estimates 17/10/2016

Still working on you tube videos from last night's fascinating sup estimates session and of course the Hansard is still days from being released. However I must pay respect to Senator O'Sullivan who it appears has seamlessly jumped into the very big shoes of the Heff as Chair of the RRAT Legislation committee.

Although Bazza may not be quite as colourful, as the Heff, he certainly will not be an easy touch and has already developed his own fan base from his advocacy efforts and concern with the CASA embuggerance of Jabiru aircraft... Wink 

This respect for Bazza is highlighted by the number of views and comments on the PAIN Jabiru a/c Estimates segment:
Quote:

[Image: photo.jpg]

texNoz3 days ago
Reading between the lines, it's looking like some outside influence on CASA is trying to shut down Jabiru. Whatever happened to "looking after your own"? Barry O' Sullivan is my new political hero.

[Image: photo.jpg]  

Anthony Sibary8 months ago
How good is it to see an elected Public Official doing what they are elected to do and that is represent their constituents! The media is very quick to rubbish them at every opportunity...Good on you Senator Barry O'Sullivan.

I am not going to post all the videos on this thread but will go to the individual Alphabet threads. However I thought it worth posting the first of three CASA vids as the body language etc. of the participants IMO speaks volumes, with Carmody front and centre ruling the roost.(Ps I also love the fact that Dr A is in the 2nd row with the other CASA minions and I get the distinct impression Carmody has no time for him)



MTF?- Definitely...P2
Reply

(10-18-2016, 08:26 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: DoIRD.jpg]


RRAT Supplementary Estimates 17/10/2016

Still working on you tube videos from last night's fascinating sup estimates session and of course the Hansard is still days from being released. However I must pay respect to Senator O'Sullivan who it appears has seamlessly jumped into the very big shoes of the Heff as Chair of the RRAT Legislation committee.

Although Bazza may not be quite as colourful, as the Heff, he certainly will not be an easy touch and has already developed his own fan base from his advocacy efforts and concern with the CASA embuggerance of Jabiru aircraft... Wink 

This respect for Bazza is highlighted by the number of views and comments on the PAIN Jabiru a/c Estimates segment:
Quote:

[Image: photo.jpg]

texNoz3 days ago
Reading between the lines, it's looking like some outside influence on CASA is trying to shut down Jabiru. Whatever happened to "looking after your own"? Barry O' Sullivan is my new political hero.

[Image: photo.jpg]  

Anthony Sibary8 months ago
How good is it to see an elected Public Official doing what they are elected to do and that is represent their constituents! The media is very quick to rubbish them at every opportunity...Good on you Senator Barry O'Sullivan.

I am not going to post all the videos on this thread but will go to the individual Alphabet threads. However I thought it worth posting the first of three CASA vids as the body language etc. of the participants IMO speaks volumes, with Carmody front and centre ruling the roost.(Ps I also love the fact that Dr A is in the 2nd row with the other CASA minions and I get the distinct impression Carmody has no time for him)


Quote:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Supplementary Budget Estimates 2016-17
Monday, 17 October 2016
Daily summary
Here is the summary of today's proceedings in Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee’s Estimates
The committee met from 9.00am until 11.00pm
The committee called:

• the department and agencies of the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio, including Infrastructure Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the Corporate Services Division, Infrastructure Investment Division, Aviation and Airports Division and Surface Transport Policy Division.

Some areas of interest that the committee covered in the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio included:

• Infrastructure Australia’s priority list and cost-benefit analyses undertaken on various projects;

• The difference between Infrastructure Investment Division’s forecast 2014-15 financial year expenditure compared to the actual 2015-16 expenditure and what programs accounted for that difference;

• The restructuring of Airservices Australia’s employment base, and systems ensuring that this restructuring does not impact aviation safety;

• Airservices Australia’s response to the Australian National Audit Office’s recent report regarding the Procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management to Assist on the OneSky Australia program, with particular focus on probity and value for money expenditure.


Note: Because ASA CEO Harfwit was grilled for the better part of 3 hours, mainly on the ANAO 1st audit report, the ATSB will feature sometime later in the week... Huh  


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

Re CASA Part 1.

With regard to Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services.

Is't it interesting, that Murky (Mike Mrdak, Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development) felt the need to "jump in" at 7 minutes 57 seconds.

Listening to him, it is difficult to get past the suspicious thought, that perhaps the real reason, (it has to be money) for proposing to raise the threshold from 350,000 to 500,00 per year, is nothing more than a tactic, a ploy, to "avoid" the need to provide services at existing aerodromes, that are approaching 350,000 per year now.

Consider a "number" of airports X, Y and Z.
Assume that their yearly passenger numbers are currently "growing" at 10,000 per year = 200 per week = say 2 to 4 flights per week.
Assume that they are currently at 300,000 per year.
Then projected growth would see them hitting the 350,000 threshold in 5 years.
Raising the threshold to 500,000, on current projections, quite simply, and quite effecively, "makes the problem, and the cost, go away", way away, way out to 20 years.

I wonder how many "potentially costly" (in terms of Aviation Fire Fighting and Rescue Services ) X, Y, and Z airports their are.

Perhaps someone could dig up the passenger figures for every airport for the last ten years, and plot "the trend lines", to see what "looming impact" ASA / MrDak, is hiding, from our dear Senators.
Reply

On re-considering Gobbledock's post "A PFOS a day keeps Sir An(g)us away"
( http://auntypru.com/forum/-Things-that-g...91#pid5491 )

It may be that the "other", perhaps "more pressing reason", for lifting the threshold from 350,000 to 500,000, is to help make the case for "expediting" the "500 to 900" REDUNDANCIES (approx 1,000) out of a TOTAL ASA workforce of 4,500.

If "most" of those redundancies are firefighters, then "paying them off - and getting rid of them", helps to remove, or at least substantially reduce, the "potential PFOS liability".

If you get rid of them, they leave ASA, they leave the UNION, and they are effectively "isolated" and forced (later) to "fight the legal battles for compensation on their own". We all know how successful that would be.

Government "AGENTS" have a "track record" for this sort of bastardisation.

Remember the F-111 "fuel tank sealing issue" ?

To me, it seems like the probable beginning of a re-run of the situation faced by those ex-RAAF Airmen, who were ground staff who had to do the internal re-sealing of the F-111 Fuel Tanks all those years ago, with nasty chemicals, which later caused serious illness, and worse.

If I were an ASA firefighter, I would "start screaming bloody blue murder - NOW" !!
Reply

I'm eagerly awaiting Hansard before casting any concrete opinion. However;

- O'sullivan receives a choc frog award for his work.
- Electric Blue receives a 'dipshit award' for the ridiculous tie.
- And as for Wingnut, he handled himself well, smart guy and reasonably open. However, he was around during the Byron days, around 2006/08 give or take, and they too were days when regulatory reform was being promised, yet was never delivered.
Ho hum, happy to give him a few months before either supporting him or booking him a seat on the Houseboat.

Ventus, well picked up mate. The proposed ARFF changes is very suspicious. And yes, Murky and his Masters are always about the mighty dollar and nothing else. Interesting as there is definitely more than one airport currently approaching 350,000 pax per annum. So it would save the guv'mint millions, not to mention getting rid of all those Firies at risk of getting the big 'C' in coming years. I trust MrDak as much as I trust the Clintons and their Clinton foundation to be honest, transparent good American citizens!


P_666
Reply

Agree with your summary Gobbles, time will tell with Carmody, although I still loved the fact that Wingnut relegated Dr A and the Stake Holding Walker to the second row... Big Grin

On the PFOS contamination issue, can anyone see the irony in the following presser released from the immaculately groomed miniscule 5D Chester yesterday... Huh

Quote:Airport Safety Week takes off


Media Release

DC149/2016

17 October 2016
 
Today is the first day of Airport Safety Week, an industry-led initiative designed to promote safety for all employees working at Australian airports, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said.

“Now in its third year, the week offers airport operators and stakeholders an opportunity to engage with their employees on issues of airport safety, and to promote an ‘open conversation’ on how to continue building on safety initiatives,” Mr Chester said.

“Safe working environments are essential to the effective running of transport hubs, and Airport Safety Week gives us the impetus to specifically focus on all things safety.

“Participants can take part in a range of events and activities centred on themes such as human factors, airside works, airside driving, environmental considerations and fatigue.

“Daily Toolbox Talks will also be presented where airport staff can learn more about ensuring personal safety and how to provide a safe environment for those using airports.

“In 2014, 74 airports and five corporate partners took part in Airport Safety Week.

“Last year, this number grew to 21 corporate members, 90 Australian airports, 13 New Zealand Airports and five international airports from the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, the Maldives and Zimbabwe.

“I am hoping to once again see a rise in participation for 2016 which I hope will support a decline in safety related incidents at Australian airports.

“I commend the Australian Airports Association and the NZ Airports Association for their efforts providing a fantastic forum for users to share information and innovations in the airport safety arena,” Mr Chester said.

Airport Safety Week is on until 21 October. For more information on activities running as part of the initiative, visit http://airportsafetyweek.com/


Perhaps a reply to the twerps tweep here...
Quote:Today is the start of @AusAirports Airport Safety Week - a reminder to stay safe when working around airports.#airportsafetyweek #auspol

16 October
twitter

...with a link to the Gobbles post - "A PFOS a day keeps Sir An(g)us away"
- might be in order  Angry


MTF...P2  Cool

Ps Here we go my reply:

Quote:@DarrenChesterMP does that include working in a safe environment free from risk of #PFOS contamination? http://auntypru.com/forum/-Things-that-go-bump-in-the-night?pid=5491#pid5491 … @AusAirports


&..

@DarrenChesterMP & TICK TOCK goes the glow in the dark clock http://auntypru.com/forum/-Airports-Buy-two-get-one-free?pid=5479#pid5479 … @GCBulletin http://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/sun-community/gold-coast-airport-construction-workers-tested-for-exposure-to-carcinogen/news-story/dceb873ef9e475a548fe6be4c5d438f6 … @AusAirports
Reply

HA HA HA HA. Gold medal work P2! Pissed myself laughing. I wonder if 'he who loves the selfies' enjoyed reading the Twatter comments! Maybe he can ask airport workers from OOL, Bankstown and Oakey air base what their safety week activities will include? Will it be wearing high-vis vests and picking up FOD or will it be Cancer tests, glow-in-the-dark testing, and removal of a second head?

On a more serious note, is it just me, but if as an operator a Chief Pilot leaves or a Safety Manager leaves CAsA's little SMS teams classify this as 'high risk', as a significant change within the 'change management process', and they expect the operator to manage that risk, have undertaken a risk assessment and put mitigation in place? In fact even within CAsA's Certificate Management Team who oversight that particular operator they elevate the operators risk ranking within their internal risk review group!

Oh my, serious shit!

But here is Sterle the magnificent asking Wingnut what type of risk is involved by having 1000 ASA staff made redundant!! 1000! And not a shred of paper to indicate a robust SAFETY risk assessment on each redundant position has been executed.
No doubt Purple Haze (no longer Electric Blue) did plenty of financial analysis and assessments, and kissed Houstons ass, but operationally and safety-wise it is not a consideration.  

Now I promised not to carve up Wingnut yet, but I did enjoy his "I'm not sure, I've only been here a week" statement!. That really must be added to the Screaming Skull, Far'q'u'hard'son and Dr Voodoo vault of excuses - 'I was in Montreal', 'I wasn't here' and 'I was in a different department' pony pooh. However, as has been said before, time will tell. But, as has been noted, by relegating his subordinates to the 'back row' he certainly let it be known that there is only one conductor of the new train set, and it is toot toot him. And the man certainly spoke at the Senators level with confidence, ability and familiarity. It's obvious he works at the political level daily, rather than on a 'needs be basis' such as with the former DAS and people like Dr Voodoo. Changes in the wind? Time will once again tell.

TICK TOCK Wingnut, the IOS are watching and your 12 months.....starts......now!
Reply

Safety or Basket case?

GD – “But here is Sterle the magnificent asking Wingnut what type of risk is involved by having 1000 ASA staff made redundant!! 1000! And not a shred of paper to indicate a robust SAFETY risk assessment on each redundant position has been executed.
No doubt Purple Haze (no longer Electric Blue) did plenty of financial analysis and assessments, and kissed Houston’s ass, but operationally and safety-wise it is not a consideration.”

Good catch GD; this is one of the topics I will be relying on Hansard detail to look at, carefully.  Wingnut did slide around the issue with the ‘Montreal’ alibi and I believe the committee allowed it, as a courtesy.  But ‘core business’ was mentioned. The Halfwit spouted carefully rehearsed lines oft repeated ‘risk analysis’ and similar; but he was careful step around some of the less obvious effects of the ‘great shedding’ and pedantically repeated the ‘type’ of ‘analysis’ conducted.  It makes for a layered confection of cut out points where parts may be individually tested, but the whole is not examined. I need Hansard –

But what I’m driving at is: OK, the risk cake part of loosing the tea lady is done and dusted, little risk there; tick. But let’s say her meagre stipend covered the cost of DIY coffee machines, so the desperate and thirsty must help themselves; two spin backs here. The time taken by the thirsty to make their own, the time spent chatting (as you do) in the kitchen with others and the excuse to dawdle in the corridors can and does reduce the ‘value for money’ return of work done by those on a much higher hourly rate of pay than the tea lady. Then lets consider spillage, the risk attendant to someone in a hurry slipping on a spilled drink, landing on a piece of broken crockery and needing medical attention, then stress relief leave and recovery time.  No tea lady – not a problem, stand alone; but as part of a holistic appraisal of a ‘safety v economy’ case, it must be considered. I feel that is what Halfwit was espousing with his oft repeated ‘safety analysis’ jargon.  What I think he was desperate to avoid was exposing how the snapped off parts are removed from the whole and only the remaining parts are tested further.  Like checking the tyres but ignoring the brakes and then rightfully declaring the tyres are safe. They are, but is it safe to drive? Sorry if that’s all a bit muddled but it’s the best I can do without Hansard.  MTF is a pretty safe bet.

Toot toot.
Reply

Kharon - "..Sorry if that’s all a bit muddled but it’s the best I can do without Hansard.  MTF is a pretty safe bet.."


Here you go "K", fill your boots... Wink  
Quote:RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Estimates - MONDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2016


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Gobbles one little thing that Wingnut said that started the famous Kharon boatman's itch????

If I heard it right, am I right in interpreting his words that the decline in pilot numbers
and certified GA activity is because of a mass exodus to RA?

Is this an admission that over regulation by CAsA, with the attendant massive increases in compliance costs,
is the reason for the incredible decline on the certified side of the GA industry?

RA aircraft are not "Certified" can be home built and self maintained.
I'm not suggesting that they are unsafe, that is dependant on those that fly them and maintain them, but certainly
the consensus has always been that "Certified" meant safer.

Australia's RA oversight is somewhat unique to Australia, I am not aware of any other regulator in the world abrogating responsibility for oversight as Australia does.

Does this not fly in the face of CAsA's mandate that safety is their primary directive and to hell with the cost, even if those costs destroy the very industry those costs are applied to?

The other thing that stood out to me was Wingnut's very neat side step of the ADSB issue.

In very neat Mandarin speak he put industry in it's place.

The question he failed to answer, which was not asked, was, "Why" Given Australia's traffic density was it essential that Australia needed to be "the first in the world"?

There are many who would suggest that it was mandated to save ASA the cost of replacing ground radars, thus improving their directors KPI's and therefore their bonuses. As it turned out they still had to replace the radars.
Surely not? our independent government enterprises would never stoop so low.
Then again, perhaps if the same level of oversight was applied to them as they apply to industry there's no telling what sweet little deals would turn up.
I am told that the huge costs of providing ADSB by 2018 will become largely redundant with new technology in the pipeline. If that becomes reality, Australia's desperate rush to be "first in the world" will look like a massive miscalculation at the expense of the taxpayer and the industry.

I really do wonder therefore what on earth the "Onesky" project will end up costing.
Reply

Glib, slick and parodied?

Mr Carmody: Airservices and the CASA actually had a joint board meeting last week—which happens infrequently, I understand. There was a discussion. One of the questions that was asked between the two organisations was about what the impact of the redundancies was. We work very closely with Airservices in looking at what they are doing in managing the regulatory framework, so we have been aware of where they are going for some time.

Senator STERLE: What was the outcome? Can you share that with me?

Mr Carmody: The outcome of the discussion was that there would be no impact on aviation safety.

Senator STERLE: Where I get a bit baffled—I understand these things happen from time to time—is how you can have 1,000 people that are surplus to requirements. How does that work?

“Where I get a bit baffled” Sterle said. Well FWIW, that makes two of us.  The slippery answer to a very big question is a glib, throwaway line – “[that] there would be no impact on aviation safety”. Just like that – nothing to see here. Sterle battled on for while; he actually missed his natural ‘trigger’ by a whisker. CASA ‘regulate’ ASA – anything major ASA do, like, letting up to 1000 people go, may rightfully be classed as a ‘major’ shift. Now I ain’t boss of CASA; but, if I were, I’d want a bloody site more assurance than “there will be no impact etc.” In fact I’d want a ‘tiger team’ on the ball 24/7 to absolutley, hand on heart, guarantee , assure the minister and anyone else who cared to examine the process that CASA had 100% confidence in the holistic ASA safety case. A simple sit down, with a couple of questions asked would just not do. Imagine, - CASA are looking at an operation you run; in walks the sleek, chubby FOI team to have a little look at your proposal; can you, in your wildest fantasy, imagine #1 Bully-boy saying “ Well mate, will this have any impact on operational safety?” Then you reply “Oh no, the changes are rock solid safe, no worries”; then; the CASA crew saying “Well, that’s just great; thank you, see you next year then; we’ll send the approval through tomorrow; have a nice day”.  BOLLOCKS.

Mr Carmody: That is a matter for Airservices, who are on after me, but I think the point that they made very clearly was that there would be no impact on the frontline services that they are responsible for—air traffic control, and aviation rescue and firefighting services.

But, but, CASA ‘regulate’ and licence ASA; CASA is even supposed to ‘audit’ ASA once every blue moon. Suddenly, the airy assertion that not only ASA but ‘air safety’ has little to do with CASA. BOLLOCKS.

Mr Carmody: I presume that they have contracted out some non-core services. I do not personally know the answer, because I have only been in the chair a few days. What I did seek was an assurance on aviation safety.

Ah, see here, now we have it “non core services”. It begs the questions; if those services were not ‘core’ WTF what were they there for? Why do they even exist? Why have ‘non-core’ services been allowed to grow to where there are 900 jobs, all of a sudden not there any longer? And WTD are ‘core services’ anyway and WTD are 'front line services; definition required? Hell yes.– Slick, glib - BOLLOCKS.  

Then Gallacher (bless) weighs in; he looks as baffled as Sterle does, but he has a swing at it anyway and scores a couple of  solid hits which were, alas, once again, not capitalised on. The devil, dear Senator, resides in the detail.

You see, the percentage chance of a large passenger aircraft crashing and burning on a runway are pretty slim; let’s face it. It costs the proverbial arm and leg to keep the RFFS on site, in fact a statistics realist would say the entire service is not required. However, where would you find a politician, of any stripe, brave enough to remove the service? Short answer; their ain’t one, not on the face of this planet at least. So we have a situation where a monopoly with a licence to print money is going down the fiscal tubes.  Savings must be made, due to incompetence and over spending on consultants and such like. So the easy answer is to up the numbers threshold for providing RFSS; statistics support it and it ensures the bonus payments keep rolling in. If the unthinkable happens and there is, one day, a pile of crispy critters at the end of a runway without RFSS everyone’s arse is neatly covered, even the toasted ones; probably with a blanket donated by St Vinnies.

Mr Mrdak: The intention, were the threshold to change, is that the existing services would be grandfathered, subject—

Senator GALLACHER: So the trigger would not apply to them—there would not be any additional redundancies?

Mr Mrdak: There would be a view to establishing threshold points at which, if traffic fell, then the airport provision would be reviewed through a risk assessment—if traffic levels fell below a certain parameter.

Bound to be a reduction in traffic over the next few years; not like the last few where it has increased.

Well, its getting late, dinner smells about ready and I’ve been through this Hansard a couple of times now; so I’ll stop, with MMTF, later. But I will leave you with some immortal words to consider.

Mr Carmody: If I may, I do not need to manage their business for them; I need them to maintain a safe operating environment.

BOLLOCKS, CLAP TRAP, RUBBISH, PONY POOH.  I did say I’d enjoyed my first ‘Wingnut’ experience; perhaps now you can see why.

Toot - thirsty hungry toot.
Reply

A Wednesday, mid week off schedule  twiddle?

So, Kharon touched on a point that has confused, concerned, perplexed and befuddled me for quite some time;

"But, but, CASA ‘regulate’ and licence ASA; CASA is even supposed to ‘audit’ ASA once every blue moon. Suddenly, the airy assertion that not only ASA but ‘air safety’ has little to do with CASA. BOLLOCKS"

Nice catch and bollocks indeed! Why is it that when it suits CAsA (which is often), they trot out the 'us and them' line when it comes to ASA? Well, IMO the 'gap' between the two is not as great as CAsA make out. As Kharon said, CAsA license, for better words, ASA. Just as they issue an airline, maintenance org or airport with an AOC or COA. The CAsA are meant to audit ASA, just as they audit an AOC or COA holder. Yet, when it comes to ASA they are now enjoying cups of green tea and cucumber sandwiches at joint Board meetings? WTF! As for a quarter of the ASA work force getting the arse and no more than a casual conversation taking place with the Regulator, well Kharon has touched on that so I won't rehash it but jeez how frightening is that? So much for the mighty SMS, change management, closing loops and managing risks......

TICK TOCK indeed.
Reply

Half loop; roll off the top.

Well, back at page 81 (85) of Hansard again, fresh coffee – all set for another ramble through the woods at Sleepy Hollow?  We plod through to page 83, with Sterle and Gallacher pecking away at the edges of the CASA disassociation diorama; ‘Wingnut’ has led them along a very smooth, manicured pathway through the deep, dark woods to a part where the paths diverge and the road to ASA is open, straight, and mud free. Gently, but firmly like a good work dog; he sets the Senate visitors on their way.

Senator STERLE: No, I fully understand and I do not expect you to know, off the top of your head. But I want to be very clear: does someone in CASA know exactly how many redundancies and in what areas?

Mr Carmody: I do not know the answer directly. I would suspect that we know the areas of the redundancies well, but I do not think a decision has been made by the organisation—they would be able to answer it for you—on what their final number of redundancies would be. I think it would be based on their operational requirement and also on who put forward for a redundancy and whether they would allow that to occur. So I think they have got to manage the numbers.

Senator STERLE: And we will ask those questions—no worries—but I want to be really clear in my mind that CASA, the regulator, is absolutely locked on; whatever Airservices has told them is Mickey Mouse and everyone is safe in the air. At the moment—I am not blaming you—I would have hoped that CASA knows exactly where every single job has gone in which area so that you can come to the committee and tell the Australian people, 'We are absolutely tickety-boo, no dramas. Air safety will not be compromised by these 500—' or 900 or 1000, whatever—redundancies that are going through Airservices, let alone—and we will ask them—what else has been contracted out and to who. Let me put this to you: Airservices have a lot of questions to answer on their contracting-out processes—and you hear that Airservices and you know darn well where we are coming from.

CASA involvement in the ASA ‘great shedding’ terminated successfully; right there. Not to labour the point; but, it seems to me that the ‘safety watchdog’ should have been able, from an in depth study, to provide the committee with answers to their questions – from their own research into the ‘safety case’ ASA are presenting, with supporting evidence of the CASA oversight. But no, CASA simply throw ASA under the bus and walk away, wreathed in innocence , clothed in abrogation and not a spot of mud on their boots.  I still believe I could have a beer with Wingnut; but I’d want him stripped to his jockstrap before I’d play poker with him (perish the thought). NX seems to be of a similar mind and makes certain that Carmody is ‘on record’; smart man. NX has been through these things before and whereas he may not be able to prevent another disaster, he does have ‘statements’ on the record, just in case.  The Wingnut sidestep is elegantly executed, but too late, the hooks are set.

Half loop:-

Mr Carmody: I am sure that something robust has occurred, Senator. I will have to ask my colleagues, to see whether anybody is aware of anything that might have occurred.

Senator XENOPHON: I would appreciate that. While we are waiting for one of your officers to speak about that, it was not so long ago on this committee—it might have been two or three years ago; maybe Senator Sterle could assist me with this—that I recollect CASA did quite a scathing assessment of Airservices Australia's functioning operations and effectively put them on notice in terms of the way that they were doing business. That is the case, is it not?

Mr Carmody: I am not aware of that. Somebody else might be.

Roll off the top; neat as you like. Enter Mr. Tiede. Now I liked this fellah; been wrong before and he is CASA, but I got the impression that a real professional had walked on centre stage. He certainly seems to have a sound understanding of the situation and fielded his questions in a calm, competent manner some would even say ‘honestly’ (that being a relative term for CASA). So on page 85 Nick is dancing and weaving, setting a line of questions to answers:-

Senator XENOPHON: Is CASA aware of whether that committee has met or not and considered the safety implications of the restructure?

Mr Tiede: I am not personally aware. I would be surprised if they have not.

Senator XENOPHON: Isn't that something you should be aware of before you tick off all the safety implications of this massive restructure of Airservices?

That, hits a nerve – Wingnut to the rescue.

Mr Carmody: If I may, the safety committee should be providing assurance to the board, and the organisation—the board—will provide assurance to the regulator. The safety committee does not work to me.

Senator XENOPHON: Okay, so these are questions I could properly put towards Airservices, and I will. But my understanding is that Airservices is required to provide a risk assessment to CASA arising out of organisational change. Is that the case?

No matter – NX just rolls with the distraction and keeps on making the nails for the CASA coffin, which, should any little thing be found out of place in the CASA ‘assessment’ of the ‘great shedding’, he will share with his colleague’s and gleefully hammer them home.

Toward the bottom of p.87, GA and the AOPA get a page and a bit of transcript; but Tempus, like Karma is a bitch; so we’ll leave the CASA session there, with MTF and a perfect demonstration of a reversal turn –or; wing over if you prefer.

Mr Carmody: Senator, if I may, as acting CEO, I did seek an assurance from the board—and I would—and I think that would be an expectation. It is a case of trust and verify. I am the regulator: we are not only going to be relying on assurances.

Toot – baby needs new shoes - toot.
Reply

'Of pulling a thread on Purple Haze's tie and watching it fall apart'.

I think that what is becoming patently clear is that ASA, it's CEO Purple Haze and it's Board Chairman Houston the bus driver have a very serious mound of elephant dung piling up in the middle of their lounge room;

- mass redundancies from a safety critical organisation.
- huge financial turnaround from mega profits to losses, and all this from a virtual money printing organisation that operates without any competition.
- the billion dollar Onefarce program
- overpaid executives and consultants.
- poor decision making with its purchase of specific software and hardware nationwide
- a culture of arrogance and ineptitude in the senior ranks.
- less than impressive ANAO audit.

And here is one for the Minister;

- the acceptance of the Board Chairman Sir An(g)us recommendation to appoint Purple Haze as CEO.
- the ongoing acceptance from the Minister to keep Houston on the Board and Purple Haze as CEO. Positions that can be terminated by the Minister under the Act.

I think the Senators have very clearly, and patiently, made two things clear at Estimates; they are willing to let Wingnut slip into the DAS role and give him a starting chance. Fair enough. They did the same with Skiddy 20 months ago. And secondly, ASA is under the microscope once again, and rightly so.

And bravo Senators - asking the questions of ASA that need to be asked. 1000 staff to go FFS. Where are the risk assessments for each position? And as these positions are culled and restructures take place one expects ASA to go back and review each of those changes after 6 or 12 months to ensure no safety risks have arisen from each change. That's a lot work Purple Haze,
I am sure you have a plan drawn up? Gotta close that loop old mate.

And CAsA, you had also better have a plan in place to finally start paying attention to the rather large moving and shaking taking place at ASA, because you as the regulator are meant to have oversight of this organisation. An organisation that has over 4,000 employees Australia wide working in complex safety critical roles. From where I sit CAsA doesn't even have a single small CMT team of a handful of people over sighting the massive ASA! Something very very wrong with that people! Oh, but of course you have teams of Inspectors chasing farm chopper pilots flying low on their 30,000 hectares of farm land.

Final thought, please DDDDazza the beautiful, throw Purple Haze and Houstoblame under your own bus.

TICK TOCK
Reply

Oh dear Houston and Harfwit, the red flags are raised.


Quote:Investigation into Commonwealth government’s procurement, performance and risk
By Marie Sansom on October 19, 2016

[Image: sydney-tower_opt.jpg]
Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system
will be investigated.
 
 
A raft of new inquiries will examine the Commonwealth government’s procurement methods, how it measures its own performance and the levels of risk it carries, including gauging the government’s success in reducing disability benefit claims, the reasons for cost blowouts at Nauru and Manus Island detention centres and Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) will tackle some controversial issues on the back of a number of Auditor-General audit reports including:

Commonwealth procurement
  • Cost blowouts and “serious and persistent deficiencies” in the procurement of garrison support and welfare services at offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island
  • The delivery and monitoring of health services in offshore immigration detention centres
  • Shortcomings in Airservices’ procurement of the OneSKY Australia system, which replaces Airservices Australiaa’s civil air traffic system and a Department of Defence system dealing with military air traffic.
Commonwealth performance framework
  • Improving the reporting of performance by departments to strengthen their accountability, including in the Higher Education Loan Program
Commonwealth risk management
  • Evaluating changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP), including tightening up eligibility requirements and work capacity assessments. The 2012 changes aimed to shift more people off DSP and limit new claimants
Public sector governance
  • Assessing whether the federal government’s deregulation agenda has been successful.
 
The JCPAA is a central committee of Parliament and has the power to initiate its own inquiries on the Commonwealth public sector. It examines all the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament and can drill down into anything connected with these reports.

Newly-elected Committee Chair, Senator Dean Smith, said that the JCPAA examined whether public money was used efficiently, effectively and ethically.

“The JCPAA has an important role in holding Commonwealth agencies to account and our inquiries further strengthen the performance and accountability of agencies entrusted with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money,” Senator Smith said.

“The Committee is focusing on common audit themes identified by the Auditor-General. By taking a thematic approach to these inquiries, the Committee seeks to encourage improvements and shared learning in key areas of public administration.”

Auditor-General’s reports were valuable because they identified areas for improvement in public administration and detailed examples of good public administration, he said.
The deadline for submissions to the inquiries is Monday November 7. Public hearings will be held from late November 2016.

Link to the article below;

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/10...ance-risk/

TICK TOCK Sir An(g)us and Purple Haze. Muppets! Wasting taxpayer money, everyone can see that except for you two arseclowns. The sooner you are both gone the better.

P7 butt in - BLOODY BEAU-TI-FUL: GD. Double Choc Frog ration post.  Have a gold star.
Reply

When you are too deep in a hole; best stop digging.

Hansard; Monday, 17 October 2016 – pages 89 – 117 inclusive, become a remarkable document when viewed in hindsight and with the foresight of the JCPAA inquiries.  My six pages of notes and observations now redundant. Hoostoblame, Halfwit and the carefully workshopped ‘supporting’ documents are about to be subjected to a much more detailed scrutiny. About bloody time I say.  ASA is a very good place to start, IMO  it is the pinnacle of all things ‘wrong’ with the ‘autonomous’ system; having the ‘mystique’ of air safety as a trump card makes every hand an unquestioned winner. ASA has been taking the Mickey Bliss for many, many years now; the tales legend, the proof incontrovertible.

One would hope that the JCPAA take a peek at the CASA track record. AUD $300,000,000 and counting is not small change. The ridiculous Regulatory Reform ‘program’ has been a constant drain on meagre resources for decades; is still on going and has produced one the most diabolical, inutile, risible rule sets ever published. Providing both an international joke and a perfect example of how not to do it. Just the outrageous cost of this debacle, standing alone, should merit a full investigation which must start by tearing down the wispy curtain, around the ‘mystique’ which has, is and always will be used to terrify politicians who do not want even a hint of blood on their highly polished, best, #1 dancing boots.

It is disgusting that a series of ‘ministers’ have side stepped their very real responsibilities to the public and been more than happy to let CASA run the show, with unlimited, unchecked power and a key to the ATM of the public purse.

Aye well; I’ve not a lot of faith left to place in ‘official’ inquiries; too many important fingers in the money pie.  However, this latest seems to have a good pedigree; we shall see. But it will be interesting to see what the ASA come up with – in defence of their untenable situation. The Estimates committee did flag it – we should have, but didn’t pick up the clues; my own notes were heading toward a call for ‘an inquiry’ of some sort. But not the level we have been gifted; at best I hoped for Senate Inquiry (always fun).  I’ll own to being distracted by the volume of Halfwit ‘rhetoric’ (Latin for Pony-Pooh) and trying to isolate the howlers. I missed the clues. With hindsight – both O’Sullivan and Sterle almost forewarned us; even if that was ‘missed’ the unusually stony, normally ‘sunny’ countenance of Fiona Nash was a fine clue.  No excuses; I’ll go and sit with the other short, thick planks for a while.

I shall save the Halfwit’s bluster, bollocks and bullshit for Sunday rambles. Seems someone finally got the message and I may relax and simply enjoy debunking the myth of the legend and de-fluffing the faery tale. Much more fun.

Toot toot.
Reply

(10-20-2016, 04:57 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  Oh dear Houston and Harfwit, the red flags are raised.


Quote:Investigation into Commonwealth government’s procurement, performance and risk
By Marie Sansom on October 19, 2016

[Image: sydney-tower_opt.jpg]
Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system
will be investigated.
 
 
A raft of new inquiries will examine the Commonwealth government’s procurement methods, how it measures its own performance and the levels of risk it carries, including gauging the government’s success in reducing disability benefit claims, the reasons for cost blowouts at Nauru and Manus Island detention centres and Airservices Australia’s procurement of a new air traffic control system.

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) will tackle some controversial issues on the back of a number of Auditor-General audit reports including:

Commonwealth procurement
  • Cost blowouts and “serious and persistent deficiencies” in the procurement of garrison support and welfare services at offshore processing centres on Nauru and Manus Island
  • The delivery and monitoring of health services in offshore immigration detention centres
  • Shortcomings in Airservices’ procurement of the OneSKY Australia system, which replaces Airservices Australiaa’s civil air traffic system and a Department of Defence system dealing with military air traffic.
Commonwealth performance framework
  • Improving the reporting of performance by departments to strengthen their accountability, including in the Higher Education Loan Program
Commonwealth risk management
  • Evaluating changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP), including tightening up eligibility requirements and work capacity assessments. The 2012 changes aimed to shift more people off DSP and limit new claimants
Public sector governance
  • Assessing whether the federal government’s deregulation agenda has been successful.
 
The JCPAA is a central committee of Parliament and has the power to initiate its own inquiries on the Commonwealth public sector. It examines all the reports of the Auditor-General tabled in the Parliament and can drill down into anything connected with these reports.

Newly-elected Committee Chair, Senator Dean Smith, said that the JCPAA examined whether public money was used efficiently, effectively and ethically.

“The JCPAA has an important role in holding Commonwealth agencies to account and our inquiries further strengthen the performance and accountability of agencies entrusted with billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money,” Senator Smith said.

“The Committee is focusing on common audit themes identified by the Auditor-General. By taking a thematic approach to these inquiries, the Committee seeks to encourage improvements and shared learning in key areas of public administration.”

Auditor-General’s reports were valuable because they identified areas for improvement in public administration and detailed examples of good public administration, he said.
The deadline for submissions to the inquiries is Monday November 7. Public hearings will be held from late November 2016.

Link to the article below;

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/2016/10...ance-risk/

TICK TOCK Sir An(g)us and Purple Haze. Muppets! Wasting taxpayer money, everyone can see that except for you two arseclowns. The sooner you are both gone the better.

P7 butt in - BLOODY BEAU-TI-FUL: GD. Double Choc Frog ration post.  Have a gold star.

(10-21-2016, 06:43 AM)kharon Wrote:  When you are too deep in a hole; best stop digging.

Hansard; Monday, 17 October 2016 – pages 89 – 117 inclusive, become a remarkable document when viewed in hindsight and with the foresight of the JCPAA inquiries.  My six pages of notes and observations now redundant. Hoostoblame, Halfwit and the carefully workshopped ‘supporting’ documents are about to be subjected to a much more detailed scrutiny. About bloody time I say.  ASA is a very good place to start, IMO  it is the pinnacle of all things ‘wrong’ with the ‘autonomous’ system; having the ‘mystique’ of air safety as a trump card makes every hand an unquestioned winner. ASA has been taking the Mickey Bliss for many, many years now; the tales legend, the proof incontrovertible.

One would hope that the JCPAA take a peek at the CASA track record. AUD $300,000,000 and counting is not small change. The ridiculous Regulatory Reform ‘program’ has been a constant drain on meagre resources for decades; is still on going and has produced one the most diabolical, inutile, risible rule sets ever published. Providing both an international joke and a perfect example of how not to do it. Just the outrageous cost of this debacle, standing alone, should merit a full investigation which must start by tearing down the wispy curtain, around the ‘mystique’ which has, is and always will be used to terrify politicians who do not want even a hint of blood on their highly polished, best, #1 dancing boots.

It is disgusting that a series of ‘ministers’ have side stepped their very real responsibilities to the public and been more than happy to let CASA run the show, with unlimited, unchecked power and a key to the ATM of the public purse.

Aye well; I’ve not a lot of faith left to place in ‘official’ inquiries; too many important fingers in the money pie.  However, this latest seems to have a good pedigree; we shall see. But it will be interesting to see what the ASA come up with – in defence of their untenable situation. The Estimates committee did flag it – we should have, but didn’t pick up the clues; my own notes were heading toward a call for ‘an inquiry’ of some sort. But not the level we have been gifted; at best I hoped for Senate Inquiry (always fun).  I’ll own to being distracted by the volume of Halfwit ‘rhetoric’ (Latin for Pony-Pooh) and trying to isolate the howlers. I missed the clues. With hindsight – both O’Sullivan and Sterle almost forewarned us; even if that was ‘missed’ the unusually stony, normally ‘sunny’ countenance of Fiona Nash was a fine clue.  No excuses; I’ll go and sit with the other short, thick planks for a while.

I shall save the Halfwit’s bluster, bollocks and bullshit for Sunday rambles. Seems someone finally got the message and I may relax and simply enjoy debunking the myth of the legend and de-fluffing the faery tale. Much more fun.

Toot toot.

From JCPAA Parliamentary webpages:
Quote:Reviews of Auditor-General's reports

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) is required by the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 to examine all reports of the Auditor-General which are tabled in the Parliament.

In performing its duties, the JCPAA works closely with the Auditor-General and the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). The ANAO supports the Auditor–General to provide the Parliament with an independent assessment of selected areas of public administration, and assurance about public sector financial reporting, administration, and accountability.

The JCPAA's review procedures are built around a series of public hearings. At these hearings evidence is taken from agencies which have been the subject of recent 'significant' audit findings. The Committee may also elect to conduct reviews of audit reports using other means.

You will find further information about the JCPAA's review procedures for reports of the Auditor-General at Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit - Reviewing Reports of the Auditor-General.

From the provided link above:
Quote:..The referral of audit reports to other committees is appropriate in some circumstances - for example, where an audit report is relevant to a subject already being considered by another committee, or where an audit report deals with an issue in which another committee has developed a particular expertise.

However, it is important to note that the requirement to review described in the PAAC Act is not satisfied by the referral of an audit report to another committee. The Act is specific in its requirement that the JCPAA examine all audit reports.

While the JCPAA is conscious of avoiding unnecessary duplication, it intends to fulfil its obligation by examining all audit reports, including those which have been referred to other committees. In most cases it is likely that the JCPAA's examination will show that the other committee has reviewed, or is reviewing, the major issues identified in the audit report. However, there may be occasions when the JCPAA decides that further review is needed...
 
Hmm...looks like Houstoblame & Harfwit could be spending a fair amount of time in the APH cafeteria... Big Grin wonder if it has quite the same allure as the Qantas Chairman's lounge... Huh


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 15 Guest(s)