The State Safety Program cup – Round two.
Xenophon to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the ferry dock end.
Sterle collects his sweater and sunny’s from the Ump handing the ball after one last polish to Nick. Halfwit has edged back behind his stumps, hoping to hear something; Sterle just winks at Nick. There is always a hush in the stands as the wily spin bowler starts his delivery; rightly famed for an ability to bowl in a manner designed to deceive ‘in flight’.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Harfield, you properly heard some of the questions I asked of CASA. Can we follow through with those? This is further to Senator Sterle's line of questioning—Airservices has a board and safety committee. Is that right?
Mr Harfield: That is correct.
Then from behind the umpire -
Senator STERLE: And they considered the risks associated with the restructuring?
Halfwit’s face is a study; he thought Sterle was out at cover – he does manage to block but from well behind his crease, off the back foot – game on. The second delivery is a ripper and misleads Halfwit, close call he almost gets willow to leather, tangles his feet and a big shout LBW as the ball thumps into his pads. It is a fine lesson; with question or ball, you have to see where it comes from and where it is going; simply believing you know, is no substitute for watching and good footwork.
Senator XENOPHON: Right, so presumably—given the magnitude of these changes, that I think you have acknowledged—the same processes, protocols and thoroughness that the safety committee would look at these matters with would have been undertaken by the whole board. Is that right—the board as a whole?
Mr Harfield: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: And are you able to provide to this committee details of any memoranda relating to the deliberations of the committee? In a sense, the entire board acted as the safety committee, rather than it being delegated to the safety committee.
Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.
Senator XENOPHON: So is there an email trail, or a paper trail, of the level of the forensic look that the board took to assess the risks—
Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—
The parts above I‘ve bolded clearly show why Halfwit shot selection was flawed; he believed Nick was going for an ‘off-break’ and set up for it, expecting four runs. The under-cutter^ nearly claimed his wicket.
^(A delivery in which the ball spins horizontally on its axis to produce drift but no turn).
You can see where Nick is going; he understands the weakness in the Halfwit defence and exploits them. By the time you have read from the Xenophon first ball to the top of page 96; even Blind Freddy (g’day mate) can see what NX is after. ASA have been making tidy little parcels; some for the Board, some for CASA and some for the shedder. Each parcel is ‘black letter’ legal; within the extreme interpretation of the terms under which it’s ‘importance’ is measured. It is a very clever plan and provides responsibility ‘cut-outs’; weak links in the evidence chain which is being forged that will break – in the right places – to limit the number of ‘decision makers’ dragged into any form of ‘inquiry’.
A second function is to reduce the size and scope of the safety case, here again, we see the used car salesman defence technique gainfully employed. Caveat emptor – really, truly matters here. The Senators are ‘considering’ buying a used vehicle; the paint looks great, too good; why? Well the rust and the joint of the ‘cut and shut’ job need to be covered and a shiny new paint job is best. Same as the brakes; the wheels look good, tyres are newish and neatly blackened; therefore the brakes must be working in a similar manner. When there is an accident due to brake failure and the rusted heap has collapsed around itself; the salesman’s defence will be simple: “At the time of sale M’lud, the brakes met the DoT requirements (just); which meets the minimum requirements imposed on the seller; once the vehicle has left our premises, the matter of safety maintenance becomes the responsibility of the new owner”. You guessed it; the defence walks out of court, chanting winner, winner, chicken dinner. My apologies for the long bang on that drum; but it is essential that the ‘message’ be delivered. The whole ‘vehicle’ rust, bog, dodgy brakes, soggy clutch, DIY electrics, sloppy steering etc. must be examined before purchase. To examine only the paint and tyres, in isolation, then purchasing the whole thing based against that assessment would be folly. The vehicle the Senators are considering is ‘air safety’, best bet hire a qualified, independent mechanic to check it out all of it; before ‘chequing’ it out of the yard.
Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—
Mr Harfield: It depends on what level of change and where it affects our operating certificates that are overseen by CASA. For example, if I change something in our finance department for payroll, I do not have to consult CASA on that.
Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.
What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.
Senator XENOPHON: No. I understand that it is an evolutionary process, but is a risk assessment required to CASA in respect of the magnitude of this change?
Mr Harfield: Where it affects our operating certificates.
Senator XENOPHON: Okay. How about you answer the question directly? In this case you have already said that the board of Airservices did not delegate the restructuring to a safety committee because of the magnitude of the change. Correct?
Mr Harfield: No, we have a safety management system that determines it. For each particular change, we make a determination through what we call a safety case determination. We go through that to determine what the magnitude of the change is for the area affected, as well as what the significance is. That will then tell us what level of safety work is to be done. We have also completed what is called a safety plan, which details all the safety work that has to be undertaken through a particular change. We can provide that to you.
Mr Harfield: I am aware of a couple of instances where certain requests were made and there had to be a discussion about what exact information was required, but there has been no withholding of information or cases of information not provided.
The last two balls of the Xenophon over are things of beauty. The ANAO leg break:-
Senator XENOPHON: But there were scathing remarks by the Auditor-General's office about the probity management framework, Airservices engagement with the ICCPM, probity management in engaging ICCPM and its subcontractors and allegations of perceptions of conflicts of interests and the like. It was a pretty ugly report—would you at least acknowledge that?
Mr Harfield: If you have a look, they were what we would call authorised exemptions to the probity practices. At all times the financial delegate approving these transactions not only may approve the transaction but also authorise the transactions to take place. The people that are mentioned in that report were moving through and following. The processes of the organisation, in some cases, were not complied with, but at the end of the day the financial delegate still authorised the transactions.
Followed by CASA audit ‘Wrong-un’.
Senator XENOPHON: Sure. But in this case, given the magnitude of the change and given the potential implications—given that you say that the entire board considered the issue of safety, because the safety committee was not enough, in a sense, that is not a criticism, for the entire board to look at this—did Airservices provide a risk assessment to CASA arising out of the organisational change?
Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.
What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.
There’s more in the Hansard; after the tea break things 'becomes interesting', with hindsight. If you have the time and patience; the session from 1830 to 1930 (IMO) is the watershed; the committee has definately (a) had enough and (b) got enough on record. Reading through now; for the final time, I say that Halfwit finally did something good for aviation. He finally managed to annoy and frustrate the committee into an ‘inquiry’; that’s three inquiries within his ‘leadership’ period: ANAO MkI; ANAO Mk II; JCPAA I and, with a little luck – Senate Mk I.
Well done that man; good innings – for the other team. The applause for the Senate XI is long and loud as Halfwit is stretchered off the field; clean bowled by an O’Sullivan Yorker, which bounced off Halfwits boots; missed his bat and hit the biggest target; his fat head.
Well, that’s me done with it. It’s all there in Hansard. Dry as sticks and about as (dare I say) palatable. But for the tax payers and the weary travelling public it’s a three course banquet.
The Senate XI have not, as yet, used the powerful SSP as a means of winning the championship; not too much opposition so far to test it against - but despite it's 'wet lettuce' appearance; it is a handy tool - if needed (hint).
But well played the Senate XI, well played indeed. Thank you for your efforts, they appreciated and valued.
Toot toot.
Xenophon to bowl: Halfwit receiving at the ferry dock end.
Sterle collects his sweater and sunny’s from the Ump handing the ball after one last polish to Nick. Halfwit has edged back behind his stumps, hoping to hear something; Sterle just winks at Nick. There is always a hush in the stands as the wily spin bowler starts his delivery; rightly famed for an ability to bowl in a manner designed to deceive ‘in flight’.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Harfield, you properly heard some of the questions I asked of CASA. Can we follow through with those? This is further to Senator Sterle's line of questioning—Airservices has a board and safety committee. Is that right?
Mr Harfield: That is correct.
Then from behind the umpire -
Senator STERLE: And they considered the risks associated with the restructuring?
Halfwit’s face is a study; he thought Sterle was out at cover – he does manage to block but from well behind his crease, off the back foot – game on. The second delivery is a ripper and misleads Halfwit, close call he almost gets willow to leather, tangles his feet and a big shout LBW as the ball thumps into his pads. It is a fine lesson; with question or ball, you have to see where it comes from and where it is going; simply believing you know, is no substitute for watching and good footwork.
Senator XENOPHON: Right, so presumably—given the magnitude of these changes, that I think you have acknowledged—the same processes, protocols and thoroughness that the safety committee would look at these matters with would have been undertaken by the whole board. Is that right—the board as a whole?
Mr Harfield: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: And are you able to provide to this committee details of any memoranda relating to the deliberations of the committee? In a sense, the entire board acted as the safety committee, rather than it being delegated to the safety committee.
Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.
Senator XENOPHON: So is there an email trail, or a paper trail, of the level of the forensic look that the board took to assess the risks—
Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—
The parts above I‘ve bolded clearly show why Halfwit shot selection was flawed; he believed Nick was going for an ‘off-break’ and set up for it, expecting four runs. The under-cutter^ nearly claimed his wicket.
^(A delivery in which the ball spins horizontally on its axis to produce drift but no turn).
You can see where Nick is going; he understands the weakness in the Halfwit defence and exploits them. By the time you have read from the Xenophon first ball to the top of page 96; even Blind Freddy (g’day mate) can see what NX is after. ASA have been making tidy little parcels; some for the Board, some for CASA and some for the shedder. Each parcel is ‘black letter’ legal; within the extreme interpretation of the terms under which it’s ‘importance’ is measured. It is a very clever plan and provides responsibility ‘cut-outs’; weak links in the evidence chain which is being forged that will break – in the right places – to limit the number of ‘decision makers’ dragged into any form of ‘inquiry’.
A second function is to reduce the size and scope of the safety case, here again, we see the used car salesman defence technique gainfully employed. Caveat emptor – really, truly matters here. The Senators are ‘considering’ buying a used vehicle; the paint looks great, too good; why? Well the rust and the joint of the ‘cut and shut’ job need to be covered and a shiny new paint job is best. Same as the brakes; the wheels look good, tyres are newish and neatly blackened; therefore the brakes must be working in a similar manner. When there is an accident due to brake failure and the rusted heap has collapsed around itself; the salesman’s defence will be simple: “At the time of sale M’lud, the brakes met the DoT requirements (just); which meets the minimum requirements imposed on the seller; once the vehicle has left our premises, the matter of safety maintenance becomes the responsibility of the new owner”. You guessed it; the defence walks out of court, chanting winner, winner, chicken dinner. My apologies for the long bang on that drum; but it is essential that the ‘message’ be delivered. The whole ‘vehicle’ rust, bog, dodgy brakes, soggy clutch, DIY electrics, sloppy steering etc. must be examined before purchase. To examine only the paint and tyres, in isolation, then purchasing the whole thing based against that assessment would be folly. The vehicle the Senators are considering is ‘air safety’, best bet hire a qualified, independent mechanic to check it out all of it; before ‘chequing’ it out of the yard.
Mr Harfield: Considering that these are risks to the organisation, I can provide you the information that was provided to the board to provide them with the assurance that we were undertaking the safety processes. In the governance of an organisation, the board is there to oversee and ensure that management are adhering to the policies and the processes of the organisation. So, considering the board decision to go ahead with the Accelerate Program, I put forward the risk assessment and the processes we were undertaking to ensure that we would maintain aviation safety. One of those was excluding aviation rescue and firefighting, and air traffic control from the active frontline operation of the program. Then they would continue to monitor those processes, to ensure that that is the case.
Mr Harfield: The board's oversight is all auditable and there is a trail on what information has been provided to the board so that they could make their judgement and ask the question—
Mr Harfield: It depends on what level of change and where it affects our operating certificates that are overseen by CASA. For example, if I change something in our finance department for payroll, I do not have to consult CASA on that.
Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.
What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.
Senator XENOPHON: No. I understand that it is an evolutionary process, but is a risk assessment required to CASA in respect of the magnitude of this change?
Mr Harfield: Where it affects our operating certificates.
Senator XENOPHON: Okay. How about you answer the question directly? In this case you have already said that the board of Airservices did not delegate the restructuring to a safety committee because of the magnitude of the change. Correct?
Mr Harfield: No, we have a safety management system that determines it. For each particular change, we make a determination through what we call a safety case determination. We go through that to determine what the magnitude of the change is for the area affected, as well as what the significance is. That will then tell us what level of safety work is to be done. We have also completed what is called a safety plan, which details all the safety work that has to be undertaken through a particular change. We can provide that to you.
Mr Harfield: I am aware of a couple of instances where certain requests were made and there had to be a discussion about what exact information was required, but there has been no withholding of information or cases of information not provided.
The last two balls of the Xenophon over are things of beauty. The ANAO leg break:-
Senator XENOPHON: But there were scathing remarks by the Auditor-General's office about the probity management framework, Airservices engagement with the ICCPM, probity management in engaging ICCPM and its subcontractors and allegations of perceptions of conflicts of interests and the like. It was a pretty ugly report—would you at least acknowledge that?
Mr Harfield: If you have a look, they were what we would call authorised exemptions to the probity practices. At all times the financial delegate approving these transactions not only may approve the transaction but also authorise the transactions to take place. The people that are mentioned in that report were moving through and following. The processes of the organisation, in some cases, were not complied with, but at the end of the day the financial delegate still authorised the transactions.
Followed by CASA audit ‘Wrong-un’.
Senator XENOPHON: Sure. But in this case, given the magnitude of the change and given the potential implications—given that you say that the entire board considered the issue of safety, because the safety committee was not enough, in a sense, that is not a criticism, for the entire board to look at this—did Airservices provide a risk assessment to CASA arising out of the organisational change?
Mr Harfield: We provided CASA with the requirements under our safety register, which was that beginning notification on 17 May, when we did the high-level structure of the organisation. This involved working through a number of documents which make up an overall risk assessment. It is continually updated as we go through this process. We can provide that.
What I am getting at is that I do not want you to think that there is just one magic document that has all of this in it, and that has all this described—all the risks, all the mitigation—when it is actually a history which is continually evolving.
There’s more in the Hansard; after the tea break things 'becomes interesting', with hindsight. If you have the time and patience; the session from 1830 to 1930 (IMO) is the watershed; the committee has definately (a) had enough and (b) got enough on record. Reading through now; for the final time, I say that Halfwit finally did something good for aviation. He finally managed to annoy and frustrate the committee into an ‘inquiry’; that’s three inquiries within his ‘leadership’ period: ANAO MkI; ANAO Mk II; JCPAA I and, with a little luck – Senate Mk I.
Well done that man; good innings – for the other team. The applause for the Senate XI is long and loud as Halfwit is stretchered off the field; clean bowled by an O’Sullivan Yorker, which bounced off Halfwits boots; missed his bat and hit the biggest target; his fat head.
Well, that’s me done with it. It’s all there in Hansard. Dry as sticks and about as (dare I say) palatable. But for the tax payers and the weary travelling public it’s a three course banquet.
The Senate XI have not, as yet, used the powerful SSP as a means of winning the championship; not too much opposition so far to test it against - but despite it's 'wet lettuce' appearance; it is a handy tool - if needed (hint).
But well played the Senate XI, well played indeed. Thank you for your efforts, they appreciated and valued.
Toot toot.