Of Mandarins & Minions.
#31
The definition of a politician

The definition of a Politician can only be accurately described by George Carlin. This guy is hilarious and we've spent a few evenings on the deck of the Ferry boat enjoying his stand up work. So if you feel like some down time and want a laugh then go view the following clips on Poohtube (But warning - the second video contains the occasional naughty word. Viewer discretion advised, however young kids love such language!);





And;





Gobbles
Reply
#32
Cant see the inquiry affecting CAsA's trough, they are a corporation doncha know, Guvmint can't interfere with the doings of a corporation, the minuscule said so.
Reply
#33
(08-06-2015, 07:45 AM)thorn bird Wrote: Cant see the inquiry affecting CAsA's trough, they are a corporation doncha know, Guvmint can't interfere with the doings of a corporation, the minuscule said so.

I'm not so sure about that thorny, have a look here from my post #1:

Quote: Okay so why is this relevant?? Well recently the miniscule released his SOE to CASA, & in that at bullet point (3) it states:


Quote: Wrote:3.        ensure that CASA, in performing its functions:

(a) acts in accordance with the Act and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as well as other relevant legislation;
 I wonder then where CASA rated... [Image: huh.gif]

 "..One agency was rated at the lowest end, 13 have a “developed” risk management framework, 45 were at the “systematic” level and 64 have “integrated” risk management. The chart rated 32 agencies as “advanced” and just one at the “optimal” level.."

However what I'd really like to know is how CASA - exemplified through the 2300 (at least) page horror reg Part61 - is allowed to seemingly thumb it's nose at the Coalition Government policy of red tape reduction, as outlined & guided by the PM's own Department - OBPR (The PMC Office of Best Practice Regulation)??

This policy was further highlighted as a priority to CASA in the miniscule's SOE. Quote from the Oz article - CASA must consider cost of regulation: Warren Truss :


Quote: Wrote:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority will be required to consider the economic and cost impact of regulation as well as implement the Forsyth review in a timely manner as part of a long-awaited statement of expectations sent by Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss.  
   
& from the SOE:


Quote: Wrote:...10.    work with the Department in the preparation of a new long term funding strategy for CASA to be reflected in the 2016-17 Portfolio Budget Statements to provide ongoing financial stability for CASA and examine opportunities for reducing the costs of regulation to the aviation industry...

...15.   
consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new or amended regulatory changes.
 
Maybe the PGPA Act does not give this inquiry the right to scrutinise individual public servant parasites at CASA... Huh  However in the present climate I wouldn't want to bet my left nut that there won't be scrutiny by the likes of Nick Xenophon, the Heff or Sterle coming their way, the escalation of the ASA performance inquiry a case in point... Confused

Talking of current climate & public sentiment in regards to government, bureaucrats and a broken democracy, I caught this excellent article by Stephen Bartos published in the Canberra times:

Quote:Our jaded country's lost faith in democracy, and how to fix it


Date August 3, 2015
Stephen Bartos


If voters are to trust public institutions, ministers must to cede control to independent agencies and open themselves to scrutiny.

[Image: 1438570155342.jpg] Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott, right, at the wedding of Greg and Sophie Mirabella, for which Bishop and other politicians requested payment to travel to. Photo: Rebecca Hallas
The system of democratic government is in trouble. Current stories about campaign donations and politicians' use of travel entitlements, while important, are the recent public airing of only one aspect of Australians' fundamental questioning of our version of the Western democratic project.

For more than a decade, the Lowy Institute has conducted annual polls of Australian attitudes to issues of national importance. In 2014, only about 60 per cent of Australians, and only 42 per cent of those aged 18 to 29 years, agreed with the statement "democracy is preferable to any other kind of government". That is 58 per cent, well over half, who effectively disagreed with democracy.

The result was slightly better in the recent 2015 Lowy poll: 65 per cent of the voting age population, and 49 per cent of young people, now say democracy is preferable.
Advertisement

Note that although they had a slightly more positive view, still fewer than half of young people surveyed preferred democracy. Just over a quarter agreed that "it doesn't matter what kind of government we have". The results attracted less attention than the 2015 security and foreign policy findings (admittedly "slightly better than last year but still of concern" is not a great headline). However, they confirmed the long-term trend: a significant number of Australians, and a majority of young people, now have little faith in our democracy. There is further corroborative evidence in the increased number of young people who either fail to enrol to vote or vote informal.

This kind of disillusionment can see young people disengage from key public policy issues. When that happens, it becomes harder for governments and public services to develop and deliver good policies; and then when policies fail due to lack of engagement, it leads to further disillusionment – a vicious cycle.

What can be done to break that cycle? In response to recent events, there have been calls for improved transparency in political donations and tighter controls on politicians' use of travel and other entitlements. When politicians stretch the rules, it reinforces the general impression that they are untrustworthy, even where they are acting within the letter of the regulations. A concept called selective attention is at work today (if I tell you there are a lot of red cars on the roads these days, you will suddenly see far more of them; there aren't really more but you're now paying attention, whereas you overlooked them before). The public is primed to notice reports of misuse of entitlements, and each new instance further confirms a negative impression about politicians. Changes to the system, such as fewer and more straightforward allowances, or even no special allowances at all, would help break the selective attention focus. It was done a few years ago with what were then seen as overgenerous parliamentary superannuation arrangements.

This kind of systemic improvement would be helpful in its own right but is far from a complete answer to the loss of faith in democracy. The issue is broader than the actions of a few politicians. Federal Labor MP Andrew Leigh does not buy the argument that there has been a decline in Australians' trust and regard for politicians. He's right. Australia's healthy disrespect for politicians has not moved much over time. For generations, Australian satirists have lampooned politicians. The Australian union/folk song Bump me into parliament (the refrain notes the tendency of politicians to abandon humble origins) dates from about 1915. Polls in our own era show the level of trust in politicians is and remains at a low base; it is not in sharp decline.

The broader problem is that trust in institutions of democratic society has declined, here and globally. There is plenty of speculation but little empirical evidence on the contributing factors in Australia. Internationally, there are clear pointers, in work by the World Bank and others, that factors such as transparency, effectiveness and lack of corruption are important to maintaining trust in government. A well-performing public sector is crucial. In Australia as elsewhere, the public service is one of the key institutions of a democratic society.

The way in which political and public service institutions interact in the Australian system of government is complex and continually evolving. At times, the separation between the two comes into question (for example, in the opposition's call last week for the Finance Department to hand the investigation of Speaker Bronwyn Bishop's travel spending to the federal police). The core departments of the public service work directly to ministers, and always have. However, when, as at present, there is lower trust in democratic institutions, they are more likely to be questioned or even accused of bias.

One effective way to increase trust in the system is therefore to make greater use of independent, arm's-length bodies to contribute to public policy and implementation. We already see this in practice. If, for instance, a minister wants scientific advice to be credible and persuasive, he or she is far more likely to turn to the CSIRO as an arm's-length body with a strong reputation than to use one of the public service's in-house science units. The Productivity Commission is an authoritative voice on the policy issues it considers because it is one step removed from direct ministerial control. Parliamentary budget offices, as I noted last month, can play a useful role in providing reliable policy costings. At state level, bodies like independent pricing and review tribunals (as in NSW) have become key regulators, as have bodies at Commonwealth level such as the Australian Energy Regulator and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

In Britain, public confidence in Treasury budget forecasts fell to such a low ebb that, in 2010, an independent Office of Budget Responsibility was created, according to its website, to provide independent and authoritative analysis of Britain's public finances. It has succeeded in restoring a level of trust in its official forecasts.

A further characteristic of most independent agencies is that they have a higher level of transparency – that is, their work is published and open to public scrutiny – than do departments. The Australian Public Service became more and more transparent over the 1970s (freedom of information, administrative review), 1980s (publication of forward estimates, evaluations and performance information) and 1990s (the Charter of Budget Honesty). For reasons too numerous to explore here (including pressures of the media cycle, absurd levels of risk aversion, overuse of "security" to avoid scrutiny), transparency has declined over the past two decades. Low transparency has obvious implications for trust in democracy: if the public cannot see how decisions are being made and what is going on inside government, it is less likely to trust it.

The Commonwealth still lacks the ultimate assurance of trust provided in other jurisdictions by independent commissions against corruption. There is no evidence that there either is, or is not, widespread corruption: without an independent body, it is impossible to say. The oft-heard claim that federal public servants are inherently less corruptible than those in other jurisdictions is naive: it presumes human morality differs depending on employment status. The only way the Commonwealth would be able to determine whether it had a corruption problem would be to establish an independent scrutiny agency with powers not only to examine complaints (as does the Ombudsman) but to conduct investigations.

If the public service were to be organised to a greater extent into independent, arm's-length bodies, there would be some loss of direct ministerial control – a necessary trade-off for greater trust. It is not the only option. There are other ways the public service could enhance trust:
  • Open itself up to greater transparency in the policy process (currently strongly resisted in Australia, even though it appears to work in, say, New Zealand or Scotland).
  • Engage with the public and young people through social media (one of the approaches suggested by Alex Oliver, who runs the Lowy poll, in a Senate lecture last year: "Are Australians disenchanted with democracy?") – noting that engagement means listening as well as lecturing.
  • Produce meaningful information on performance in real time, online, and respond quickly when this provokes a reaction.

Politicians are aware of the disenchantment problem. It is unclear whether the message has filtered through to the public service. The messages are mixed at present. In principle, there has been a commitment to greater transparency but, when politically sensitive matters are raised, it can be quickly abandoned. Better information on performance has been promised but is yet to be delivered. There have been trials in some parts of the APS of what is termed co-design and co-production (designing what services will be delivered and how, in collaboration with service recipients; delivering the services through and with the affected people or communities). They were shelved once it dawned on high-level management in the departments concerned that genuine co-design meant not just consulting but actually changing policy and delivery in light of other people's views. While individual public servants involved were genuinely committed, the culture of risk aversion from the top defeated them.

While ideally the APS itself should be more open, transparent, engaged and flexible, this may require considerable cultural and organisational change to achieve in the short term.

In the meantime, trusted independent bodies – within the public sector but at a distance from ministers – can provide government with opportunities to re-engage with Australians and restore trust in democracy.

Stephen Bartos is a former senior public servant and was the NSW parliamentary budget officer for the 2015 election.
This bit..
"..There are other ways the public service could enhance trust:

  • Open itself up to greater transparency in the policy process (currently strongly resisted in Australia, even though it appears to work in, say, New Zealand or Scotland)..."
Simply not going to happen while we have dinosaurs like Truss & Abbott still living in the 19th century...FCOL.. Dodgy

MTF..P2 Sad  
Reply
#34
 Excellent article by Stevie E off the Mandarin... Big Grin

Quote:Jane Halton: worry less, the axe is falling on internal red tape



by
Stephen Easton
14.08.2015

[Image: halton-pic.jpg]
Finance secretary Jane Halton says federal mandarins will soon strike against internal red tape. But she thinks public servants need to stop imagining obligations that don’t exist, too.

The Department of Finance will soon begin cutting out internal red tape that constrains federal agencies, but it also wants public servants to stop making up compliance obligations that don’t actually exist.

“One of the things I’m constantly astounded by when it comes to red tape is how people make things up,” Finance secretary Jane Halton said today, following a lunchtime lecture on federal public sector reforms at Parliament House.

“So people decide that there is a particular requirement, a compliance requirement, which appears nowhere in any chief executive instructions or any piece of legislation, and then it becomes a matter of holy writ that you have to do something this particular way.”

“So whilst we are going to do things about the rules, and the red tape in the rules, [this is] one of the messages I’m giving my colleagues. And in fact I’m talking about this in my department, because I have found a number of examples of this in my department.”

The internal red tape reduction drive is just one small part of the massive reform process prompted by the new Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, which was the focus of Halton’s lecture.

“And we can sweep away a lot of that misunderstanding as well as [genuine] red tape, I would hope, in this exercise,” she said. “Because there have been steps taken over the last few years which should make it easier for people to transact government business in a thoroughly proper and accountable way without going through unnecessary administrative overhead and hoops.”

“So we’ll go to the actual red tape, and then I’m asking other people to go to the made up and mythical red tape while we’re at it.”

She said a review of the internal red tape burden on government agencies being conducted by former senior public servant Barbara Belcher was nearing completion.
A sub-committee of the Secretaries’ Board called the Secretaries’ Committee on Transformation, chaired by Halton, recently viewed a draft of Belcher’s review.

“Barbara has found a huge number of things which my department does, as much as other people do, but there are things right across the internal workings of government which she has identified as opportunities to sweep away red tape,” said Halton.

“So that discussion was of: ‘Have we got it right? Have we missed things? Are there issues? Is any of this wrong? And it was a very good meeting, and I’m very hopeful that she will be in a position to finalise that report in the near future.”

The Finance boss was responding to a question from Parliamentary Budget Officer Phil Bowen, who’s up next in the Senate’s Occasional Lecture Series on September 25. He said the compliance burden was particularly heavy on small agencies like his own.

Burdens on small agencies

Halton’s host, Senate clerk Rosemary Laing, took the opportunity to ask a question of her own about the disproportionate burden on small agencies, but from the application of efficiency dividends:

“I would just be interested in your thoughts, philosophically, on how a concept like the efficiency dividend, which bedevils small agencies like mine, sits with those principles in the PGPA act?”

Halton replied that she had “personally railed against it, to assorted ministers and various other people”.

“There is a conversation to be had about how we make investment choices and certainly there is a more sophisticated discussion to be had about what mechanisms we can use to get resources to reinvest in activity,” she said.

Inside Finance, there is a debate going on about what other mechanisms might replace the notorious blunt instrument, according to Halton, which suggests it may finally be nearing the time when it is put out to pasture.

“So I think you raise an important point,” she said to Laing.

“It’s something we’re very conscious of and certainly something we have been discussing. I don’t have the answer to that yet, I’m sorry.

“And you make a point rightly about the impact on small agencies. I would observe that both sides of politics, when they get in government, have acknowledged on a number of occasions the particular challenge of small agencies, because obviously if you’re running a very small agency, your capacity to even invest is quite constrained.

“So [I am] very aware of the problem and I think we need to continue to have that discussion. Any views you’ve got would be extremely welcome.”
Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS Dodgy -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example... Confused
MTF..P2 Angel
 
Reply
#35
Thinking thinking thinking.......

Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS  -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example...


Right then you lot, it's settled. We shall request a clean sweep of the board (literally) and swap the aviation dross in political power for the agriculture boys in political power! At least if we get the agriculture lads over here they will have something in common with Pumpkin Heads team - Pumpkin heads group know nothing about aviation, so the agriculture lads will be ok in that regard, and Pumpkin Heads group are used to leaving a trail of shite behind them, well the agriculture lads are used to shite and fertilisers etc, so no problem! Plus the added bonus is that we already have an Ag pilot group, so we can demand that Ag Phil be promoted to Chief Mandarin!! That will set the cat among the pigeons, fun times indeed!!!

"Safe swaps for all"
Reply
#36
(08-19-2015, 08:28 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: Thinking thinking thinking.......

Can you really imagine, our 'beloved' pumpkin head, Murky Machiavellian reigning in 'internal red tape', mate the guy is so inept he can't even get his AQONs to the Senate Estimate QONs in on time - have a look here FFS  -  Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Now compare that to the Department of Agriculture, for example...


Right then you lot, it's settled. We shall request a clean sweep of the board (literally) and swap the aviation dross in political power for the agriculture boys in political power! At least if we get the agriculture lads over here they will have something in common with Pumpkin Heads team - Pumpkin heads group know nothing about aviation, so the agriculture lads will be ok in that regard, and Pumpkin Heads group are used to leaving a trail of shite behind them, well the agriculture lads are used to shite and fertilisers etc, so no problem! Plus the added bonus is that we already have an Ag pilot group, so we can demand that Ag Phil be promoted to Chief Mandarin!! That will set the cat among the pigeons, fun times indeed!!!

"Safe swaps for all"

Q/ Is M&Ms Dept the most inefficient, non-compliant to Govt policy, Federal Govt Department??

Actually Gobbles, IMO Barnaby's Department is just one in a list of medium size departments (like DoIRD), that show efficiencies light years ahead of M&M and the murky, trough dwelling, agencies he oversees.

Besides the glossy, weasel-worded & expertly PC'ed Annual Reports, by design the Senate Estimates is the only real time/snapshot exposure the public & MSM get, that enables the average punter to review the performance of these Department Mandarins & their minions.

Therefore the QON & how/why/when they are answered goes directly to the probity, efficiency, transparency & performance of individual departments & ultimately their Mandarins.

So for a point of comparison here are the links for individual Senate Legislative Committees that deal with all the accountable Government Departments:

Quote:Reports, hearing transcripts and answers to questions on notice
(including information from previous estimates hearings)



 
  OK so let us use the 'Community Affairs' committee as an example. First click on the CA link and then go down the Estimates page and click on the last budget estimates:

Quote:Answers to questions on notice, additional information and transcripts

2015-16 Estimates


Next we'll pick a Department QONs link, in this case we'll pick the Social Services portfolio:

Quote:Questions on notice - index and answers, additional information tabled documents


  
You will see that the Social Services, despite a huge list of QON, have managed to answer all the questions pretty much on or before the due date - 24 July 2015.

Ok then we go to M&Ms department -

Quote:Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Questions on notice index: (PDF 805 KB)


Answers are due 10 July 2015.

Answers to Questions on Notice - ???--zilch, nothing, nada--???
 
Okay I have been through the whole list (& besides one or two exceptions of individual department agencies dragging their feet on AQON) & the only department not to have made an attempt at getting the AQON in on time, or indeed even made a start on answering the QON, is M&Ms department.

Also we all know that this is not an isolated aberration and that normally M&M will blame this on the Minister:

 



With Albanese as Minister that may well have been true - especially when stalling on responding to the PelAir report - but recent evidence has this Minister wanting to be proactive & reformist in light of the recommendations in the Forsyth review which he commissioned. So I call bollocks to that normally trotted out excuse by M&M... Dodgy

Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms perview, of non-compliance with Government Policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency & accountability to the public/taxpayers. 

Examples -

1) Airservices Australia - Senate ASA Performance Inquiry
2) CASA - Lack of timely response to address all of the Forsyth review recommendations, tackling the toxic culture within etc. - Mythical Reform.     
3) ATSB - The Minister issued a new SOE to the bureau back in April - that was also part of a response to the Forsyth report - & despite being finally published on the ATSB website, the commissioners & executive management are still yet to respond in the 'Statement of Intent' - SMH   Huh  


MTF...you bet P2 Tongue
Reply
#37
Quote:P2 - "Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms purview, of non-compliance with Government policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency and accountability to the public/taxpayers."

Great research again from the guru; the points made all valid.  Under the DoIT ASA, ATSB and CASA have become a law unto themselves.  Look at CASA, massive funding, huge cast and crew, an independent self perpetuating monster which is devouring industry with scant regard for consequence.  But it’s the breath-taking arrogance which beggars the imagination; reports, instructions, directives all ignored or diluted; court and tribunal rule flouted, even parliamentary privilege beaten by artful dodging.  Even the purblind Minister must see the writing on the wall.

The impenetrable top cover provided by the Murky Machiavellian department is only the first line of defence; each department has a board with systems in place to protect the top trough; each department has a head with systems in place to protect that species; then there are the various sub-department heads with their own special brand of wriggle room, obfuscation and weasel word writers.  A bloody merry-go-round, a smorgasbord of untrammelled power and unlimited funds; all to protect and enhance the mystique of air safety.

Proof, screams the audience: look to the AQoN game and Estimates; all there, empirical, substantive and plain as day.  No matter parts 61 and 91 will ensure absolute air safety, we’ll all be detained at her Majesties pleasure for turning up to work with our boot laces tied the wrong way.

FCOL Minister WAKE UP and turn Boyd and Forsyth loose; give them the tools, they’ll get it sorted.  Lead, follow or get out the bloody way.

There mini rant over – feel much better now.  Nice work P2, Tim Tam quality.

Toot toot.
Reply
#38
(08-22-2015, 04:20 AM)kharon Wrote:
Quote:P2 - "Aside from the inefficiencies/ineptitude on display in Senate Estimates, there is much evidence in the various aviation agencies under M&Ms purview, of non-compliance with Government policies, inefficiencies with fiscal discipline/red tape reduction, lack of probity/transparency and accountability to the public/taxpayers."

..Under the DoIT ASA, ATSB and CASA have become a law unto themselves.  Look at CASA, massive funding, huge cast and crew, an independent self perpetuating monster which is devouring industry with scant regard for consequence.  But it’s the breath-taking arrogance which beggars the imagination; reports, instructions, directives all ignored or diluted; court and tribunal rule flouted, even parliamentary privilege beaten by artful dodging.  Even the purblind Minister must see the writing on the wall.

The impenetrable top cover provided by the Murky Machiavellian department is only the first line of defence; each department has a board with systems in place to protect the top trough; each department has a head with systems in place to protect that species; then there are the various sub-department heads with their own special brand of wriggle room, obfuscation and weasel word writers.  A bloody merry-go-round, a smorgasbord of untrammelled power and unlimited funds; all to protect and enhance the mystique of air safety.

Proof, screams the audience: look to the AQoN game and Estimates; all there, empirical, substantive and plain as day.  No matter parts 61 and 91 will ensure absolute air safety, we’ll all be detained at her Majesties pleasure for turning up to work with our boot laces tied the wrong way.

FCOL Minister WAKE UP and turn Boyd and Forsyth loose; give them the tools, they’ll get it sorted.  Lead, follow or get out the bloody way...

BARA - Please explain!

Update: Is M&Ms Dept the most inefficient, non-compliant to Govt policy, Federal Govt Department?

Well not much to tell in the fairyland world of fat cat Aviation Mandarins & their minions. Still no AQONs (see here) but there has been a mad flurry of activity with the release of several corporate plans (the ATSB one was particularly puerile- see my Off with the fairies post- bucket  please Aunty Pru Confused ).

This CP bollocks is  presumably in the lead up to October's glossy annual wascily, wabbit, weasel weports; which as we know is simply another smokescreen for the inept, obfuscating, miscreant behaviour of the individual agencies and M&Ms overseeing dept for the last year... Dodgy

However maybe..just maybe all this annual bureaucratic Bullocks might possibly start to unravel when it comes to the severely under siege ASA (see here & here). Why?- Well because it would seem the heavy weight Airlines are now weighing into the fray and asking a few pertinent questions of their own... Huh

Courtesy the Oz:

Quote:Justify price levels, airlines tell Airservices Australia  
[Image: steve_creedy.png]
Aviation Editor
Sydney


[Image: 374891-38bc7b8e-51f0-11e5-af2f-e6e8604c3982.jpg]


Airlines want amendments to the Airservices proposal. Source: News Corp Australia

Major airlines have called for greater accountability by Air­services Australia as part of changes to the air navigation provider’s long-term pricing plan, ahead of the plan’s submission to the competition watchdog.  

The Board of Airlines Representatives of Australia is seeking amendments to make the Airservices proposal, which sets pricing for air navigation and other services for five years from July, “more amenable” to support from its member airlines.

The changes include scrutiny by an independent third party to assess Airservices’ operating and spending efficiency.

In a submission lodged this week and obtained by The Australian, BARA calls for greater ­accountability over the delivery of services for the prices paid by international airlines as well as better justification of efficient ­operating and capital costs.

It also wants a solution to its longstanding objection to the cross-subsidisation of regional airports by carriers who use only major metropolitan airports.

“This is the first time BARA has laid out its full scope of ­concerns, and more importantly, described how the arrangements need to evolve and improve to ­develop an acceptable service ­delivery and pricing agreement for the international airlines,’’ BARA executive director Barry Abrams said.

“It’s now really up to Air­services.

“They can seek to negotiate with the airlines to improve ­matters or lodge directly with the ACCC, knowing the current ­proposal is not acceptable to us.’’

The group believes Airservices’ 2106 pricing proposal effectively rolls forward the existing pricing agreement negotiated in 2011.

The latest plan increases prices by an average of 3.3 per cent per year to fund air navigation and fire fighting services, with a 5.3 per cent increase in the first year that includes unexpected expenditure over the past three years.

The company says it has provided real price reductions of 20 per cent since its first long-term pricing agreement in 2005.

While conceding the new proposal contains forecast costs, ­activity volumes and “some high-level descriptions of outcomes”, BARA’s submission was critical that it contained no binding commitments on anticipated service commitments to airlines.

It said this was particularly problematic given the proposed expenditures associated with the OneSKY project to merge the civilian and military air traffic control systems. OneSKY is expected to cost $600 million to set up and $1.5 billion over its lifetime.

It questioned a lack of information on supplier costs, the controversy over executive pay at the organisation, the growth in employee numbers and union wage increases of 4 per cent, compared to a 1.5 per cent average for the commonwealth public service.
“BARA notes how since this time external bodies — including the Commission of Audit, the Productivity Commission, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, and the Harper review — have raised concerns over the efficiency of Airservices’ capital investment program, operating efficiency and pricing structures,’’ the submission says. “

These issues are not new and formed part of the ACCC’s assessment of Airservices in 2011.

“As such, BARA had expected the 2016 pricing proposal would have contained a framework that directly responded to issues raised by external bodies.’’

The submission argued a link between price increases and the delivery of services to airlines should include an agreed checklist of tangible and measurable “deliverables’’, particularly when it came to the OneSKY project.

“Annual price increases for en route and terminal navigation services (with an option for ‘smoothed’ price paths) should depend on meeting agreed deliverables,’’ it says.

The airlines also want recent OneSKY procurement issues raised during a senate committee hearing this month to be clarified. Senators claimed the project had been compromised by “incestuous” and “dodgy” family and corporate alleged conflicts of interest, although Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss’s office has said the Minister was satisfied the project was being managed appropriately.
 
Hmm...next week's Senate Inquiry hearing could be very interesting indeed?? Big Grin Blush


MTF...P2 Tongue
      
Reply
#39
Although QF made a miraculous turn around in profits in the past year (nice financial accounting boys),surely the airlines must be mighty pissed off watching ASA profits take in around $600 million to a $billion annually while airlines struggle to earn a buck? Then you have shite like TASWAM wasting precious money and delivering a not-so-stellar safety net? Now we have the $billion Consultants delight OneSky that will soak up more airline profits, not to mention airline and airport charges and tax money that contribute to the living, breathing, steaming entities called CAsA and ATsB.

Yep, taxpayer money and airline profits pissed away mercilessly into the wind while unaccountable government and bureaucratic wankers sip fine wine and eat caviar during international trips to exotic locations! You wonder how much more society will take off this shit??

Tick tock
Reply
#40
Trough feeders, international fraud, kickbacks & Mandarins? Angry


Sometimes 'Old Man Time' can play some masterful tricks & treats, here is a perfect example.

On the Truss shame thread the Ferryman had an excellent Sundy Ramble question - The power behind the throne. - with the subjects of interest being M&M & Doc Hoodoo Voodoo... Big Grin
Quote:..Careful research and tracking through many events invariably finds both men involved; always in control, one way or another.  It leads to the notion that the iron ring is attached to the solid bulwark of the real power and influence behind the thrones. And begs the question – just who really runs the puppet show?  No brainer in my opinion, proving it; aye well, that’s the challenge ain’t it.  Will Truss meet it? – another no brainer...
  
And then last night we had a very damning story on the 'other' Aunty news that gave me pause to reflect on some parallel universe zingers - think Pumpkin, Hoodoo, Skulls & ICAO... Dodgy :
Quote:Leading lawyers call for overhaul of Australia's foreign bribery laws

By the National Reporting Team's James Thomas

Updated yesterday at 3:34pmSun 6 Sep 2015, 3:34pm
[Image: 6107242-3x2-340x227.jpg]

Photo: The Government spent $23.4 million investigating the AWB scandal, which resulted in no criminal prosecutions. (Will Ockenden: ABC Rural)

The world's leading lawyers have questioned the ability of the Australian Federal Police to investigate serious corporate crime and called for a new "dedicated agency" to have responsibility for complex financial cases, including foreign bribery.

In a damning submission to the Senate, the International Bar Association (IBA) described Australia's foreign bribery laws as ineffective and our record of enforcement "woeful".

"We have had 15 years of foreign bribery laws in Australia," wrote Robert Wyld, author of the submission.

He said in that time there had been 28 investigations, although 21 of those were dropped and only two were criminal prosecutions.

"The system is not working. Unless people go to jail, unless people see imprisonment as the real ultimate penalty, there will be no behavioural change," Mr Wyld said.

While acknowledging the 2014 improvements of the AFP's Fraud and Anti-Corruption Centre, Mr Wyld, who is co-chair of the IBA's Anti-Corruption Committee, described Australia as a "reactive country, sensitive to external criticism and forced to budget better resources only when it must".

The Australian Wheat Board became embroiled in a kickback scandal more than 10 years ago which saw $300 million funnelled through to the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The Federal Government spent $23.4 million investigating the scandal, which resulted in no criminal prosecutions.


Quote:If you want your company to pay bribes, just set up a subsidiary and ensure whatever structure you use is isolated.
Robert Wyld
By way of contrast in the United States, BHP paid $US25 million to settle bribery charges for offering junkets to the 2008 Beijing Olympics for 176 officials that, it was alleged, could help them.

The AFP launched an investigation in 2013 but Mr Wyld said it went nowhere.
"BHP has not been prosecuted for that conduct in Australia," he said.
Unlike the US, Australia has no liability on parent companies for the conduct of subsidiaries or intermediaries.

"If you want your company to pay bribes, just set up a subsidiary and ensure whatever structure you use is isolated, in terms of effective management from the parent company," Mr Wyld said.

The 2015 Deloitte Bribery and Corruption Survey found 23 per cent of Australian organisations with offshore operations are not concerned about the risks arising from non-compliance with bribery laws.

About 77 per cent have also never conducted a bribery risk assessment.

Experts call for banning of facilitation payments

The IBA wants to see civil and criminal penalties for corruption and foreign bribery increased and the banning of so-called facilitation payments — small amounts of cash handed to officials to get things done which are presently legal under Australian foreign bribery law.

"They are bribes. They are small amounts but they are still bribes," said Transparency International's executive director Mike Ahrens.


Quote:If facilitation payments were banned, it would make it much more difficult to operate in Africa.
Bill Turner, Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group
Mr Ahrens is campaigning to rid facilitation payments as a defence under our foreign bribery laws — a position the UK government has adopted and one which is supported by the massive miner Woodside.

But there are some that insist facilitation payments are not bribes but a necessary part of doing business in some countries.

"If facilitation payments were banned, it would make it much more difficult to operate in Africa", said the Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group's Bill Turner.

"A policeman will pull you up at a roadblock, you wind the window down and he will poke an AK-47 through the window.

"It is a little bit difficult to argue the case about not being able to make a facilitation payment under such circumstances."

World Bank estimated corruption cost $US1 trillion annually

Mr Wyld said that such payments are nothing more than "grease payments".

"That is not a facilitation payment, that is a worker who is being extorted," he said.

"That would be a justifiable and reasonable thing to do and the person would have the defence of making a payment under duress."

But otherwise, Mr Wyld said facilitation payments were nothing more than "small bribes".
"How can you be half-pregnant? You don't half pay a bribe," he said.

"[The banning of these payments in the UK] has not put United Kingdom companies out of business, they are still operating in the markets where Bill's clients work," he added.
The World Bank estimated in 2005 that corruption cost $US1 trillion annually.

With figures like that, the OECD's CleanGovBiz report argued: "It is not only a question of ethics; we simply cannot afford such waste."

The Senate Economics Reference Committee's inquiry into foreign bribery laws is yet to conduct hearings and is due to report its findings on July 1 next year.
 
Here we go from the mothballed thread - McComic in Montreal:
Quote:Did Australia mislead ICAO over the Pel-Air crash?
 
Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking - the best of all tendentious bloggers asks one of the many big questions.   It beggars belief that after the unholy mess McComic left behind in Australia; the only support group for his ICAO appointment is the Department of murky Machiavellian land deals, manipulation, influence peddling and obfuscation.  
 
I will reiterate, the Senate Pel-Air inquiry only exposed the tip of a very ugly, sinister ice berg.  The DoIT, under Merdek running both the CASA and ATSB top dogs has successfully smothered and minimised the impact not only the damning FAA audits of CASA, the Senate inquiry recommendation, the Ministerial review recommendations and the Canadian TSBC peer review recommendations, but have also managed to beat off a once furious, hostile industry with endless delays, meaningless promises and no bloody action whatsoever.  This all before the multitude of Coronial recommendations which have been fobbed off with 'promised changes or simply ignored are examined; or, the disgraceful ATSB reports into fatal accidents.  Let's just not mention the non reporting of loss of separation incidents or non publication of Safety Recommendations, Mildura or Air North; etc. etc. etc....
 
The human face of the incredible damage whether inflicted by designed intent or as happenstance provides a long list of those persons or companies who have been sacrificed to meet those predetermined outcomes, requested or required, under the McComic rule of 'black letter law', extruded by the mile, cut off as needed and welded to suit. 
 
The faithfully and caringly tended Senate Inquiry thread on the unspeakable Pprune carries the whole ugly story and would have brought these future revelations to the aviation world, had it not been pre-emptively shut down.  Boring they said (1, 600, 000 views); well, we can now let the world decide exactly how boring it was.   I suggest the doyens of the ICAO do their homework before allowing the McComic to plonk his fat bottom on one of their plush seats and embarrass them all further.  Seriously – start – at page 1 and don't speak until you have read the entire disgusting saga.   –HERE - Off you go...Shoo little mice..
 
The sketchy track record of playing fast and loose with ICAO protocols is not mentioned, that's all of' em.  Australia has over 1600, registered differences which, rather cleverly, make it 'technically' compliant with ICAO, while thumbing it's nose and laughing up it's sleeve.   Then there is the demonstrated complete disregard for ICAO Annex 13 and the allegations of breaches of the Transport Safety Acts to be accounted for, either proven of eliminated.
 
IMO: Not only is the Australian public been defrauded, the politicians bluffed and ill advised but the breathtaking arrogance with which the Iron Ring takes the Mickey Bliss out the world at large while being paid handsomely for doing it, simply beggars belief. 
 
No children, not cynical, just well researched, experienced and very disappointed, that I must, as an Australian hang my head in shame.  Shamed that this industry has allowed it 'self be so so gulled and beaten into a passive, Pavlovian response of accepting what the bullies, the ignorant and the despicable dole out.
 
No doubt there will be more on this, but meanwhile, if you love a really juicy scandal; and, want to enjoy this one: get your homework done.
 
Selah. 
 
Fortunately that M&M scheme - like the FIFA World Cup bid - come to nought:
Quote:Somewhere far..far..away but not far from this Star Chamber...

 [Image: B4ITvwCIUAA3pj_.jpg]

...in some Australian taxpayer funded ***** hotel McComic is cleared for take off:

  [Image: Skullsteamingup.jpg]

Finally a return to Reason in the world of aviation safety has occurred and called BOLLOCKS to Murky & the former Minister for Bad Teeth & No Aviation's glowing endorsements of McComic.. [Image: dodgy.gif] :



Quote: Wrote:Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (09:20): ...I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John McCormick. John McCormick did an outstanding job. He was someone who was recruited after an international search for the best person. He brought decades of experience, not just in the Australian aviation industry but also particularly in Hong Kong, for Cathay Pacific, and in the international sector. I think he provided a rigour that was needed at the time. When John McCormick made the decision to ground Tiger Airways, that decision to ground an RPT service for the first—and hopefully the last—time in Australia's history was not only a courageous step but one that was entirely appropriate and needed. When Mr McCormick had advised me of the decision, I remember speaking to Prime Minister Gillard and informing her of what was about to occur—because, by definition, you cannot make a decision that an airline is unsafe and then say, 'we will ground them in a couple of days' time'. What it meant by definition was that people got stranded. There was a real-world impact on the travelling public, particularly given the nature of Tiger; and on many families who were able to travel by air for the first time, because it was a budget airline. That was a courageous decision by John McCormick.
 
From Reuters out of Toronto:



Quote: Wrote:U.N. aviation agency names Chinese veteran as secretary general


TORONTO (Reuters) - The United Nations aviation body's governing council elected Fang Liu, a veteran of China's aviation authority, as its new secretary general on Wednesday, the first woman to hold the position in the agency's 70-year history.

Liu, who has worked at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) since 2007, is director of its Bureau of Administration and Services. She ran against candidates from Australia, India and the United Arab Emirates.

Liu will start her three-year term on Aug. 1, replacing Raymond Benjamin of France.

ICAO's Secretary General oversees the Montreal-based agency's secretariat, acting as its chief executive officer, and reports to its 36-member governing council which is currently led by Nigeria's Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu.

From 1987 to 2007, Liu held a series of positions at the Civil Aviation Administration of China's international affairs department, which works with ICAO.

The agency is under pressure to improve safety in the airline industry after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and the downing of another Malaysian airliner in Ukraine last year.

At a major safety conference last month ICAO member states endorsed a plan to track aircraft flying outside radar, and a proposal to build a website where states can share information about risks to planes in conflict zones.

The agency is not a regulator, but its standards typically become regulatory requirements in its 191 member states.

(Reporting by Allison Martell; Editing by Diane Craft)
 
Wise move ICAO.. [Image: angel.gif] 

MTF... [Image: tongue.gif]

Ps Q/ In light of some of the disturbing findings in the latest MH370 interim investigation report I wonder how long it will be before a full blown ICAO USOAP safety audit is conducted in Malaysia?

Hmm..I'd still be curious to know how much the Murky instigated failed bid actually cost and how much it is currently costing us to keep the ICAO USOAP, FAA audit crew from knocking on the Murky Mandarin's door??

Period of interest:
[Image: ICAO-DoIRD-contract-July14-to-Dec14.jpg]
   
MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps Oh Nancy 'where out thou'?? Undecided
 
Reply
#41
[Image: 078687-756473c0-b81c-11e4-806a-a6ce89f3cd6c.jpg]

The Mandarin's take on PM Malcolm in the middle. Rolleyes

As can be expected the Mandarin went into overdrive overnight & today; here is some of their coverage on Malcolm Turnball becoming the 29th Australian Prime Minister.

First from Harley Dennett... Wink

Quote:Malcolm Turnbull becomes 29th Prime Minister, frontbench sweep imminent




[Image: malcolm-turnbull-julie-bishop-win-360x202.jpg]
Tony Abbott has lost the leadership of the Liberal Party and prime ministership after less than two years in office.

His rival, Malcolm Turnbull’s successful bid for the top political job, 54-44 over Abbott, has opened the door to expected sweeping changes to the frontbench, if not a sweep of old policies.

Communication strategy and three-word slogans were felling the government, the former communications minister declared on announcing his bid only a few hours earlier: “We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people.”

At a press conference with re-endorsed Liberal deputy leader Julie Bishop, Turnbull reiterated his push for focus on selling the economic policies of the government, including the China Free Trade Agreement. His government will continue to pursue a market-based approach to becoming a nation that is agile, innovative and creative:

“It will be a thoroughly Liberal Government committed to freedom, the individual and the market. It will be focussed on ensuring that in the years ahead, as the world becomes more and more competitive, and greater opportunities arise, we are able to take advantage of that. The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative.

“We cannot be defensive, we cannot future proof ourselves. We have to recognise that the disruption that we see driven by technology, the volatility and change is our friend, is our friend if we are agile and smart enough to take advantage of it. There has never been a more exciting time to be alive than today and there has never been a more exciting time to be an Australian. We will ensure that all Australians understand that their Government recognises the opportunities of the future and is putting in place the policies and the plans to enable them to take advantage of it.”

No early election

Turnbull confirmed his assumption was that the parliament will serve its full term.
“Of course policies change, they change all the time, but they will be when people should have the confidence that we will be making decisions in a thoughtful and considered manner.”

“Of course policies change, they change all the time, but they will be when people should have the confidence that we will be making decisions in a thoughtful and considered manner.”

Changing prime minister, it turns out, was only a two-flag event. Nobody had time to change the blue room after a series of government frontbenchers had used the hours earlier to bulwark the former prime minister and argue against Turnbull.

Treasurer Joe Hockey, Defence Minister Kevin Andrews, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Employment Minister Eric Abetz, after siding against Turnbull, would be expected to vacate their cabinet jobs by the end of this week, one way or another.
Peter Dutton, whose performance as Immigration minister has concerned many in his party, may also take a demotion.

Turnbull would not speculate on his ministerial team discussions due to take place this morning, nor who will be his treasurer:

“I expect ministers will continue in their current position, unless of course they choose not to for the balance of the week and we’ll make ministerial changes after the parliamentary sitting week is over.

“As far as policy changes are concerned let me just say this. It’s not a question of leadership style. Nothing, well there are few things more important in any organisation than its culture. The culture of our leadership is going to be one that’s thoroughly consultative. A traditional, thoroughly traditional cabinet government that ensures that we make decisions in a collaborative manner.

“The Prime Minister of Australia is not a president; the Prime Minister is the first among equals. And you can see that the partnership between me and Julie, the partnership with our colleagues will be a very clear cultural demonstration that we are operating in a traditional cabinet manner … Of course policies change, they change all the time, but they will be when people should have the confidence that we will be making decisions in a thoughtful and considered manner, recognising the significance of the work we have to do as the Government of Australia.”

With a likely change in ministers for every one of the central public service agencies — Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, Department of Finance, the Australian Public Service Commission and the Digital Transformation Office — there will be a period of unavoidable uncertainty in the APS. This is despite, as Finance secretary Jane Halton has told ministers before, “it’s my job to run the department, not yours”.

A digital transformation prime minister?

Turnbull’s tenure at the helm of the Communications portfolio has been marked with a strident push for digital transformation. But his elevation leaves the Department of Communications, DTO, Australian Communications and Media Authority without a driving minister. Government-owned corporations NBN and Australia Post are without their key shareholder minister, and possibly later today without both shareholder ministers.

Digital innovation in federal government nearly ground to a halt after the departure of Lindsay Tanner in the Finance portfolio championing the Gov 2.0 task force. That is until Turnbull was given Abbott’s blessing — and $250 million — to restore the movement to prominence under the central advisory capacity of the Digital Transformation Office now headed by Paul Shetler.

Turnbull also instigated a substantive review of ACMA’s functions. Its future will largely depend on the minister when that review is completed.

Senator Arthur Sinodinos may be brought back into the ministry in a key central portfolio with responsibility for the DTO. Sinodinos, who left the outer minister last year due to an investigation by New South Wales’ Independent Commission Against Corruption, has shown an interest in digital innovation in government and is seen as highly capable. Or the DTO may move to PM&C.

Several female MPs and senators in the Liberal party are also expected to get promotions, which may include a promotion to Communications.
     
And of course an analysis on just how Malcolm is likely to engage with the Mandarins & their Minions:
Quote:Malcolm Turnbull on the public sector, taking risks & listening to advice



[Image: 181720500-360x202.jpg]
What kind of prime minister will Malcolm Turnbull be from the perspective of the public service?

Will he embrace innovation, and encourage his mandarins to create the space for their staff to try out new ideas, as he suggested at The Mandarin‘s launch event at the National Press Club last year?

“We’ve got to try new things and, if you try new things, a lot of them won’t work, but so what? If you smash people because they try something and it doesn’t work then they’ll never try anything new again,” Turnbull said at the time. He was weighing in on a panel discussion featuring his wife Lucy Turnbull, a former mayor of Sydney and a member of our editorial advisory board.

Turnbull’s view — at the time — was that the consequences of failure were far greater than the rewards of success, and that the incentives that exist in the bureaucracy drive public servants to be extremely circumspect.

Or will he perhaps take the advice of Terry Moran, another member of The Mandarin editorial board and a former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet? Moran told Turnbull that public service risk aversion was mainly a feature of departments of state, and its source was ministerial offices like his own.

“There’s a lot of innovation in the public sector but it tends to be in agencies and institutions that have a lot of devolved authority and their own governance arrangements: think public hospitals, schools, TAFEs, the Reserve Bank,” said Moran.

“The public sector is not departments of state, and if you look for innovation in departments of state you’ll be disappointed, because innovation declines the closer you get to a minister.”

Moran said Turnbull’s view was wrong for 90% of the public sector.

“You’ve got to get across to people that we are living in an age of immense volatility and, therefore, you have to be nimble and innovative.”

“You’ve got to get across to people that we are living in an age of immense volatility and, therefore, you have to be nimble and innovative.”

Then the Minister for Communications, Turnbull also said he thought public servants working in different jurisdictions should learn from each other’s successful innovations.
He also conceded that ministers should have the courage to tell their constituents the truth about the programs run by their departments — that they cannot guarantee success.

“You’ve got to get across to people that we are living in an age of immense volatility and, therefore, you have to be nimble and innovative,” said Turnbull.

Earlier this year, when it first looked like Turnbull might become prime minister, public sector business commentator Paddy Gourley suggested in the Canberra Times he would rely more on the advice of public servants than Tony Abbott.

The former Defence deputy secretary said it seemed that Abbott made decisions without consulting the public service, and then went to it for support after the fact, while Turnbull’s style in the Communications portfolio suggested “dealings with the public service would be better ordered” if he got the job.

Gourley thought advice from public servants would be “welcomed, appreciated and probably more influential” than in the Abbott administration.
  
Finally there was this short piece which puts to death the former PM's Chief of Staff rumoured influence - see here - on obfuscating & blocking the essential Aviation Safety reform recommendations as outlined in the Forsyth review.. Wink
Quote:Comms dept secretary Drew Clarke the new PMO chief of staff



[Image: drew-clarke-senate-360x202.jpg]
Malcolm Turnbull is bringing his top public servant in the Communications portfolio with him to his new office digs.

Department of Communications secretary Drew Clarke PSM has been tapped on the shoulder to become chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office.

Tony Nutt, who was John Howard’s private secretary, will lead the transition.
Clarke began his public sector career as a surveyor working in Australia and Antarctica. Before being appointed to run the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in the Gillard government, he ran the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, and before that headed its the Energy and Environment Division, was executive general manager of AusIndustry.

He was awarded a Public Service Medal in 2009 for his work in energy market reform and clean energy.

Peta Credlin out

Australia first female PMO chief of staff has not been a popular figure, both in the media and public service.

The Mandarin has heard repeated stories of Credlin’s management of the inner star chamber, delaying essential appointments by up to 6 months in many cases and frustrating those in the public service who rely on the work undertaken by statutory and part-time office holders.
 
So well done The Mandarin for the excellent, balanced coverage of the last Turnball-ent  24hrs.. Big Grin
MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
#42
Well done, ‘the Mandarin’. It is becoming, if not already, the only ‘reliable’ source of comment, reporting and editorial. Well written, well edited and well presented. We shall wait for the Skidmore interview; who’s doing it? There will be just a little more than passing interest in that one.
Reply
#43
Aussie Aviation version of 'Yes Minister'.  Dodgy 

From off 'On the Wodger':

Quote:
Quote:Jul 17, 2013 at 9:10am Yak2 said:

Quite a few years ago CASA did a tour of the country 'engaging with the aviation industry'. Big turn out at Moorabbin and lots of glowing promises in the glossy presentations from the CASA blokes. 'We are hear to listen' they kept saying.
At the end of a lengthy and 'robust' question time, a mate of mine asked why none of them had bothered to take any notes.

Probably because the PR consultancy firm engaged by CASA to come up with the plan of how to go out into the 'wilderness' (i.e. anywhere outside the air-con and comfort of CASA HQ) to seek feedback from the people paying the majority of the salary 'earned' by CASA employees, wasn't given the brief of actually coming up with a concrete plan of dealing with any actual positive/negative feedback they might receive during said consultation period? [Image: wink.png]

From the lesser-known, limited-edition "The Concise Sir Humphrey Appleby Dictionary for Ministerial Use" -

Consultation (Noun): to pretend to seek the opinions and advice of stakeholders and other interested parties in various matters that have already been decided at Ministerial/Head Office level.

Read more: http://ontheroger.proboards.com/thread/4978#ixzz3lr0v79mo
 





Very much relevant to the current Skidmore/Fort Fumble malaise and the Minister was this excellent post from off the UP by Sunfish (guru on the bureaucratic process) Wink :

Quote:AVM. Skidmore, Minister Truss and "Advice".



Most should know the answer to the question of why Ministers and public office appointees never see to "do" anything and the frustration this causes. I think that for one or two here an explanation might be in order. The truth is that for a variety of reasons no intelligent public office holder will do anything but even the simplest of administrative actions without "advice" - written advice. Advice recommending that she is to perform some specific action.

If you have written advice and that advice proves to be wrong, then your backside is generally covered. You have someone to blame. That is why you hear politicians saying "I am advised…", "my advice is….". They apply this mantra to everything.

While this may seem strange to some, it is logical if you think about it. Whoever is writing the advice has to check wether the action is first legal, then if the action is even possible, verify the facts and truth of the matter then if its in line with Government and institutional policy,, including financial policy and finally if the any actors involved are bona fide.

To do otherwise invites political disaster. The State of Victoria once had an ill advised scheme of giving government grants to business developers - some of whom turned out to be shonks who took the money - hundreds of thousands of dollars and ran off overseas, never to be seen again. Then of course there are the other disasters beloved of the press - for example appointing people with criminal records or fake credentials (insufficient background checks), or examples of total hypocrisy (lack of common sense by the advisor) and so on.

The advice to a public figure should always take the form of a written brief, preferably One A4 page, perhaps one and a half at the extreme, that sets out the subject, the facts, discusses any policy implications and finally a one sentence recommendation beginning with the words "That you sign/note/ agree/ (verb).

The brief is signed and dated by the originator and then countersigned by everyone up the chain of command to the Minister who inspect the product and if necessary reject it. Sometimes a brief may go through Four or more iterations before the chain of command is satisfied with its tone and content.

Once you understand this process it becomes easy to see why there is such institutional inertia. The system works quite well in preventing public officials from scoring "own goals" and the chain of command is proof against civil servants in the lower levels "going rogue". However the brief construction process provides endless opportunities for the chain of command to put there own spin on events, a word here, a comma there and a dire mistake turns into a victory and vice versa.

A particular caution to well meaning people who write to CASA, perhaps making a teensy complaint for example. Your letter will be sent to the relevant person, usually the person who took the action you complain about. He will draft the brief detailing CASAs response to your complaint and the letter to you which will be signed by his boss or his bosses boss or perhaps even AVM. Skidmore. Along the way, there is plenty of time to label you as a malcontent, a serial complainer, a hysterical idiot, a scofflaw, etc. . You get the drift? Don't complain.

By now you should understand my cynicism about the chances of AVM. Skidmore making any impact on CASA. There is not a hope in hell of reform while the existing chain of command remains in place. Of course the good AVM. will be invited to think that change is happening, and that he instigated it. Public servants are very good at manipulating leaders, its their sport.

To reform CASA would take a bright young thing from PM & C and a small tiger team of aviation professionals not part of CASA and working on a greenfield plan to rewrite the act, dismember CASA and bring in the NZ/FAA regs. In my opinion such a project would need the Ministers support with the PM's approval. The package would probably be the subject of a one paragraph brief to Cabinet for approval. That is about the only way I can think that the existing chain of command can be sidelined and some pruning and healthy regrowth can occur.
 
Followed by some worthy comments... Rolleyes

Quote:Seabreeze:

what ministers will support



I was once told by a Minister that, to be supportable, a proposed project must be seen to:

* build substantial extra electoral support (and image) for self and the party
* build substantial extra support of/for the PM
* cost little and be easy to implement
* be not contentious within the party, or society
* be supported by the public service

those criteria surely whittle down the options......

Lead Balloon:

Some people mistake Hollowmen and Utopia for satires. They are documentaries.

Ultralights:

I loved the Hollowmen series.. sad reflection on the way our government works. 

P1 - "..We shall wait for the Skidmore interview; who’s doing it? There will be just a little more than passing interest in that one.."

I do believe Harley Dennett is tasked with that - https://twitter.com/harleyd/status/636402415936208896

MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
#44
You know guys and girls its interesting.
The president of the AOPA is calling for compensation for the ADSB fraud perpetrated on the GA industry.
The thought occurred to me, what about the "regulatory Reform" fraud???

I mean the ADSB fraud only cost the industry $170 million, so I'm told.

The Regulatory Reform Fraud has cost the industry more than a quarter Billion $$ and counting.
The Part 61 fraud alone is costing my company over $250 grand a year.

Should the GA industry be calling for compensation for these frauds??
Reply
#45
But Thorny old son, think about the positives in all of this. Lookleft hangs on to every precious word that CAsA expels. He takes home laminated pages of part 61, and pictures of CAsA executives, and he 'entertains' himself home alone for hours!  
Even that Gorilla Mrs Lookleft is sick of having to stock up the cupboards with extra tissue paper and hand lotion and she wishes the Part 61 debacle would go away.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)