[Peetwo]

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

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


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.

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:

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:

..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... wonder if it has quite the same allure as the Qantas Chairman's lounge...


MTF...P2