Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Of Mandarins & Minions.
Penny drops on Barry O attack - Rolleyes    

Have been monitoring the recent Labor Party assault on Barry O in regards to his legitimacy to be a Senator (under section 44 of the constitution), due to his alleged business interests in a company that has been awarded a QLD government tender with commonwealth government funding.

Quotes via the SMH article - Government senator Barry O'Sullivan under a cloud over business interests:

Quote:Turnbull government backbencher Barry O'Sullivan has rejected suggestions he is in breach of the constitution, after questions were raised over his eligibility to sit in the Senate – not because of his citizenship status but his business interests...



...On Thursday, it emerged Senator O'Sullivan had a stake in a family construction company, the Newlands Group, which has been awarded $25 million worth of contracts for a Queensland infrastructure project that is 80 per cent funded by the Commonwealth government. 



...Infrastructure Minister Darren Chester said he did not believe Senator O'Sullivan was in a "great deal of trouble", but there was an "issue that he needs to explain in terms of section 44." 

"I'm sure he has fulfilled his requirements there as he is expected to do," he told Sky News...
  
Obviously this is part of the BS political citizenship bun fight surrounding the National's Leader DPM Barnaby and deputy leader Senator Nash... Dodgy

I think it extremely tedious and a distraction from bigger issues but I can understand the attacks on BJ & FN, with a government one seat majority in the HoR and with both being ministers in the Turnbull cabinet... Dodgy

However in terms of Barry O I was struggling to fathom why it was Labor was going so hard after a backbencher Senator, who if rolled by s44 would simply be replaced by another QLD LNP nominee??

Then perusing Hansard on this full frontal assault, led by Senator (Just wrong) Wong and declared Commie Senator Dougy (RED) Cameron, the Penny dropped (so to speak - Big Grin )

Reference Senate Hansard: 14/09/2017 - QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
 
Quote:The PRESIDENT: Point of order, Senator Wong.

Senator Wong: Direct relevance—the question is this: is it appropriate for the chair of a committee to interject and offer comment on a project in which they have a commercial interest?

The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator O'Sullivan?.

Senator O'Sullivan: Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal statement now.

The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

Senator Wong: We will give him leave after question time.
Leave not granted.

Senator O'Sullivan: I seek leave now to table a transcript of the speech I'm going to give and the accompanying evidentiary document that will put this to bed.

The PRESIDENT: Is leave granted?

Senator Wong: Mr President, I haven't seen the documents.
Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong: If he provides them, we'll consider it, and he may well get leave when he stands up after question time.

Leave not granted.

The PRESIDENT: Senator O'Sullivan, leave has not been granted. Is this a further point of order?

Senator O'Sullivan: Yes, it is; in response. At four minutes past 12 today, nearly three hours ago, the Chief Government Whip formally went to the opposition to hand them the document, and they rejected them.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator O'Sullivan: They've seen the documents.

The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Brandis?
Senator Wong interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, I give you a lot of latitude about points of order, and I'll give the same courtesy to the Leader of the Government.

Senator Wong: What's the point of order?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, you get a lot of latitude on points of order, and I'm extending the same courtesy to the other leader.

Senator BRANDIS: Thank you very much, Mr President. Senator O'Sullivan has taken a point of order on which you are yet to rule. I wish to speak to that point of order. What has been disclosed to the Senate by Senator O'Sullivan is that, although Senator Wong asserted a few moments ago that the opposition had not had the opportunity to consider the documents which will show that there is absolutely no substance in allegations against Senator O'Sullivan, it is now apparent that these documents were offered to the opposition for inspection by them some three hours ago. The Leader of the Opposition should apologise to the Senate for seriously misleading the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, do you wish to contribute?

Senator Cameron: Yes, on the point of order. I happened to be on frontbench duty when the documents were handed to me—a bunch of documents without—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Cameron: Senator O'Sullivan was seeking to immediately table the documents and speak on them. I had not seen the documents; I had not had time to look at the documents. Then, after consideration, I said the documents could be tabled and we would give Senator O'Sullivan an opportunity to speak. That was not accepted.



Senator Wong: Leave is granted. Table them now and, as I said, we will give you leave after question time to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT: You're directing your comments to me, Senator Wong. Leave has been sought. The Labor Party is not objecting to leave. Senator Di Natale, are you objecting to leave being granted?

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I need your position. I'm going to put the question. Leave has been sought. Is leave granted?

 Senator Di Natale: No, leave is not granted.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is not granted. We will now proceed with question time.
 
Senator BRANDIS: Going back to Senator Chisholm's question, Senator Chisholm suggests that there is something inappropriate about a senator who lives in Toowoomba, whose electorate office is in Toowoomba, making on observation during the hearings of a Senate committee about the progress—

Senator Wong interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong! Is there a point of order, Senator Williams?

Senator Williams: Mr President, I ask you to ask Senator Wong to be quiet while we listen to the answer instead of screaming across the chamber at Senator O'Sullivan, please.

The PRESIDENT: I remind all senators not to interject while other senators are speaking.

Senator BRANDIS: Again, this is the absurdity of Senator Chisholm's question: he suggests that Senator O'Sullivan, who lives in Toowoomba, whose electorate office is in Toowoomba, has done something inappropriate by making a remark during the course of the hearings of a Senate committee about the progression of the largest capital works project in the history of Toowoomba. According to Senator Chisholm, by his own benighted lights, there is something unusual or inappropriate about that.

The fact is that this government is extremely proud to have funded the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. We are very proud of the fact that, going back to the days when Mr Ian Macfarlane was the member for Groom, Mr Ian Macfarlane and many other coalition members and senators from Queensland have urged the government to fund the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. We are very proud of the fact that we are the government who are delivering on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. If Senator Chisholm had the slightest interest in or knowledge about the interests of the people of Toowoomba, which obviously he doesn't, rather than take cheap political points, he'd be applauding it.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (14:58): I look forward to being in Toowoomba on Sunday with the Premier. Senate standing order 27(5) states:

A senator shall not sit on a committee if the senator has a conflict of interest in relation to the inquiry of the committee.

What action will the government take to ensure Senator O'Sullivan has not breached that standing order?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:59): I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Senator O'Sullivan did have a conflict of interest, and I don't believe that Senator O'Sullivan does have a conflict of interest. If the Labor Party hadn't denied him leave to make a statement, we wouldn't even have this question because Senator O'Sullivan would have been given the opportunity to clarify the matter and demonstrate, before now, why the innuendos and insinuations against him coming from this man on the other side of the chamber are utterly false and unworthy.
Senator Cash interjecting—


Senator Brandis: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:01): Given the department responsible for the Commonwealth's involvement in the project reports to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, can the minister explain to the Senate why it is appropriate that Senator O'Sullivan continues as chair of the committee despite his commercial interests?

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (15:01): It's because he's a fantastic advocate for regional Australia. That's why. He's a better advocate than you are, Senator Chisholm. It's not a secret, Senator Chisholm. It is not a coincidence, Senator Chisholm, that the Australian Labor Party does not hold a seat, federal or state, west of Brisbane. Do you know why? It's because the people who live in Toowoomba, like Senator O'Sullivan, know that people like you, Senator Chisholm—creatures of the Labor Party machine—haven't the slightest interest in them. You don't have the slightest interest in them; you don't have the slightest interest in their wellbeing. You couldn't care less about representing them. You come into this chamber to mock the greatest capital works project in the history of Toowoomba which every man, woman and child in Toowoomba would be glad of, but not you, Senator Chisholm, because you don't deserve to represent the people of Queensland. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper
     
Passing Strange - Huh

So it would appear that the Labor attack is designed to try and force the Turnbull government to unseat Senator Barry O as Chair of what would have to be (historically) one of the most effective and non-partisan Senate Standing Legislative Committees in the history of the Federal parliament - I wonder why? Rolleyes


Right then back to my internet trolling - Big Grin


MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps For the record here is Barry O's speech in response to the Wrong Wong led Labor attack:

Quote:PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
[Image: 247871.jpg] Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (15:07): I seek leave to make a personal statement.

Leave granted.

[Image: 247871.jpg] Senator O'SULLIVAN: In recent days, I have been the subject of assertions made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, directed at myself that in effect say that either myself or companies which I currently have an interest in, or have historically had an interest in, have or have had either a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia.

These assertions are designed to make the argument that I am somehow in breach of section 44 of the Constitution of Australia and therefore assert, by their inference, that I am ineligible to sit in the Senate, representing my state of Queensland.

I have decided to make this personal statement to respond to those assertions, notwithstanding that I have released a number of statements indicating my position previously. In this chamber on 11 September, an assertion was made, and I quote the Hansard:

Newlands Civil Construction, a company in which Senator O'Sullivan has an interest …
That statement was and remains materially incorrect. At the end of my statement I will seek leave to table extracts of publicly available records from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirming and negating that assertion.


On the same date in this chamber, when referring to the aforementioned company Newlands Civil Constructions Pty Ltd, a statement was made, and I quote from the Hansard:

Senator O'Sullivan has, as part of the O'Sullivan family, controlling interests—
of Newlands Civil Constructions Pty Ltd. That statement is false. I have not now nor have I never had, either in my own capacity or in concert with anybody else, an interest in or control of the corporation Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd.


At the same time, a question was presented to the Senate that said:

We need to ensure that Senator O'Sullivan is not using his privileged position as a senator to influence contracts and that he is not benefitting from these contracts ...

I can only assume that the burden of that question was directed to contracts with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. In response, I can say that I have not now, nor have I ever, used my position to influence any contract establishment or negotiation with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. Again, to avoid any confusion in my answer, I can inform the Senate that I have not now, nor have I ever had, a contract or an interest in a contract with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia in any capacity, either directly or indirectly. Additionally, I have not now, nor have I ever had, shares in a company that has shares in other companies, even through multiple structural relationships where those other companies have had a contract with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Further, and notwithstanding the strength of the aforementioned declarations and in the interests of absolute completeness, I state, in order to bring clarity to deal with the commercial or corporate illiteracy of those challenging these facts, that I have never had a conversation with any person, partnership, trust or entity or their representatives, legal officers, administrative officers, contract officers, engineers, agents or persons of extended interest, or their next-door neighbours, about any agreement between any person, corporation or entity who, in turn, has had an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The next assertion was a reference to the company named Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. That was—and it was made by Senator Cameron—that this is a company whose managing director between 1991 and 2013 was Senator O'Sullivan. Inconveniently, that company wasn't registered until the year 2008, some 17 years after the date stated in Senator Cameron's assertions. I want to repeat for effect that I have never been the managing director of Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd nor its predecessor company, Town and Country Industries Pty Ltd, nor have I ever been a member of either of their boards. Accordingly, when it is asserted that I have been a shareholder or a director in these companies, or indeed the managing director, as was the burden of the statement, those claims are absolutely false.

I will quote further from Hansard. The government was asked to state the contracts that Senator O'Sullivan's company has benefited from. For the benefit of those making those statements, I can categorically state that it is not my company and it has never been my company, and the extracts that I will table here today from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission will verify that fact beyond any doubt.

This, of course, now puts those making the statements in a rather serious and invidious position. This is their challenge. If they have contracts, a piece of paper, an affidavit or something on the back of a napkin that says that I have a direct or indirect interest in anything to do with contracts with the Commonwealth of Australia, I call on them to table those documents or supporting evidence in this place. I can say that it would not make sense for anybody to have made these allegations, as they have, without having seen some supporting evidence themselves. So now is the time for them to share it with the Senate, as I am with all of the documents that I have at my disposal. I make the call with the confidence of knowing that they do not exist. It will then follow that, if such a document is tabled, the person tabling it should also present the publicly available transcripts from ASIC showing the relevant shareholdings, either directly or indirectly, with the corporation concerned.

The primary focus of these people is the corporation named Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. To put matters beyond any reach, I corresponded with the Minister for Finance, the Hon. Senator Mathias Cormann, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Darren Chester, to ask them to search all Commonwealth records and confirm to me what I personally know to be true: that this company has not currently or historically had any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. Both ministers have confirmed that position in writing. I will, with other documents, seek leave to table that correspondence to the Senate.

In closing, I can't be any clearer. Every document and record that I can access, records that have been publicly available, that anybody could have searched at any time, would have determined that the assertions being made were false. I can do no more than make this statement. I do not intend to respond anymore to any allegation made by the opposition or anyone else in this place. This has had a serious effect on my family. It's had a serious effect on the reputation of a company that employs well over 120 people—something that many of the people over there have never done.

I seek leave to table documents that include—inconveniently for some—the ASIC company extract of Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd, a letter to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, a letter from the Minister for Finance, a letter from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, questions to answers on notice from Minister Nash, a Hansard of questions without notice from Senator Watt, a Hansard of questions without notice from Senator Chisholm, a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Cameron, a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Watt, and a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Chisholm.

Leave granted.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

[Image: YW4.jpg] Senator Ian Macdonald: Apologise, you grub.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order!
Reply
Albo with the pot, kettle & the black - Dodgy

In another of a long line of pollies and Alphabet luminaries, the former Minister for Non-Aviation, Anthony Albanese writes for the Oz:  

Quote:Anthony Albanese: Coalition masters art of budget underspend
[Image: 2e2b75d04e9adb8b9b51781ec66f4fa7?width=650]
Artwork: Tom Jellett.
  • ANTHONY ALBANESE
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM September 25, 2017
It’s one of the oldest tricks in the political playbook. And the Turnbull Government is turning it into an art form.

It’s known in budget parlance as the underspend — the practice of governments announcing big-spending commitments on Budget night, when Australians are focused on politics, but then failing to deliver the promised investment and hoping no-one will notice.

Underspend is the polite term. What we are really talking about here is cuts.

Nowhere is this practice more widespread in the Coalition Government than in infrastructure.

In its first three years in office, the Coalition Government underspent its announced infrastructure budget allocations by $3.7 billion.

These cuts affect a wide range of infrastructure programs.

Take, for example, the successful Black Spot road safety program, under which the Commonwealth makes grants to fund safety upgrades in the nation’s worst traffic accident hot spots.

In its first three Budgets, the Government committed to invest $220 million on this important program.

Each Budget night the Abbott-Turnbull Government presented new allocations to the Black Spot program as evidence of its commitment to road safety and nation building, especially in rural and regional Australia.

However, Budget documents showing how much was actually spent, rather than what was promised, reveal that the Government in fact cut its investment by more than half, investing $105 million, not $220 million.

If investment had been delivered as promised, the Government could have improved safety on hundreds of traffic accident hot spots around the nation, based on 2012 research by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics showing the average project cost was $157,000.

This investment would have made motorists safer. Indeed, the BITRE analysis showed that after Black Spots were upgraded under the program, the incidence of accidents causing deaths or injuries fell by 30 per cent.

The Government has also cut its investment in the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Program (HVSPP), created by the former Labor Federal Government to build or improve roadside facilities like rest stops and parking bays for truck drivers on major highways.

Australians who drive interstate will have noticed the increase in roadside facilities delivered under this program in recent years.

In opposition the current Government backed the HVSPP and, in its first three budgets, vowed it would invest $171 million.

In fact, it spent $64.6 million — a cut of $106.9 million, or almost two out of every three dollars.

The Coalition went to the 2013 election promising to create the Bridges Renewal Program, under which it would work with local communities in rural and regional areas to improve the safety and carrying capacity of bridges.

It’s a good program. It improves road safety and also boosts productivity by making it easier to move products from farms to market.

The Government promised it would invest $180 million on the bridges program in three years. But it has spent $100 million — an $80 million cut.
Cuts are everywhere.

The biggest infrastructure program of them all — major road projects — has been cut by an incredible $1.3 billion.

Likewise, in 2016-17, the Government promised to invest $100 million in the Northern Australia Roads Program.

Actual spending was just $12 million.

As a former Minister for Infrastructure, I know from experience that sometimes there are good reasons for money allocated in a particular Budget year not being rolled out in that particular year.

For example, sometimes weather delays or difficulty finalising contracts with construction firms can cause spending allocated one year to be carried forward to the next year.

However, three consecutive years of failing to deliver promised investment indicates this Government is either completely incompetent or is serially misleading Australians.

I suspect it’s a bit of both.

Australians have a right to expect that when a Government commits funding to projects on Budget night, it will actually follow through and deliver those projects.

But that is not happening in infrastructure.

It is also important to note that whenever the Government talks about the total value of its infrastructure program, the figures used are not actual investment, but the investment promised on Budget night.

Next time you hear the Prime Minister or any of his infrastructure ministers give a figure on their overall infrastructure budget, treat it with a grain of salt.

Indeed, based on the examples I have found, halving the figure nominated would take you much closer to the truth.

The annual frenzy that surrounds the presentation of the Federal Budget each May understandably focuses on big-ticket items that make for great headlines.

But based on the record of the current Coalition Government, comparing the previous year’s Budget night promises with actual spending levels would provide a far better indication of its progress.

Anthony Albanese is opposition spokesman for infrastructure, transport and regional development.

 (Hint - Albo mate, don't give up your spot on the trough i.e. don't give up your day job... Rolleyes )  

Like Chester, notice how Albo also (ref: SBGDick Smith) skirts around any mention of the "A"- word, IMO the cartoon is worth a thousand words i.e. where's the aircraft??

Anyway here is Sandy with a pot, kettle, black comment... Wink :

Quote:Alexander

Mr. Albanese surely you jest. As former Minister of Infrastructure you authorised a "one off" increase in an aircraft fuel levy which was to produce $89.9 million over 4 years. Rationale? special safety studies by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) who promptly put on almost another 200 staff.

Well great job, General Aviation (GA) is much safer now that the industry has shrunken under a barrage of impossible rules and fee gouging by the out of control regulator CASA. No, not all your fault but didn't you love to add more Labor voters to the ever growing numbers in Can'tberra, pop. now near 400,000. Pity help the billions of lost economic activity, businesses and jobs and don't worry about the outback where they've had to give up their planes.

PS the increase levy is still there, the $600,000 pa CEOs of CASA don't remind their Minister that it was supposed to stop in 2013. Alex in the Rises.

Hmm...I also wonder how much is Albo's contribution to the at least half a billion spent on the RRP?

&..

What about the PelAir debacle, somewhere between 50 to 100 million dollars was being bantered around by the BRB? All for what? - zilch, nada, zero... Huh


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
No shame and short memories.

“Sorcery is the sauce fools spoon over failure to hide the flavour of their own incompetence."

Albo and his mate McConvict did more to bugger up aviation than almost anyone in history. The ‘thing’ in the Australian’ speaks volumes on the piss poor performance of Darren 6D. The situation is so bad that a creature like Albo can slither out from under a rock and, with impunity and some justification attack on a transport line says it all.

What a bloody shambles. How cynical; the Albo’s of this world know how short memories are. Mind you compared to 6D, Albo was a star.

Toot -
Reply
In harmony we all thrive - Wink

We all know that in sport - cricket, rugby, netball in particular - that there will always be a healthy rivalry with our Cuz'ns across the dutch... Wink

However in other things like trade and tourism there should be no such animosity and all diplomatic and bureaucratic barriers should be pared back to help maximise the benefits to our two economies.

From Tourism & Transport Forum CEO Margy Osmond, via the Oz today:  

Quote:Common border with NZ is way off, but let’s use common sense

[Image: 0984711751568fc57f840d5d74f0db2d?width=650]Pre-clearance of passengers is the key to streamlining the customes and immigration process.
  • Margy Osmond
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM September 29, 2017
As Australia enters a new golden age of tourism, which is delivering record numbers of international visitors to our shores every month, the visitor economy is our next super-growth sector.

However, there is a very real risk that we could become a victim of our own success. With more and more people touching down at our international airports than ever, the rate of growth in visitor arrivals is rapidly overtaking the capacity of our airports to deal with the higher volumes and, unfortunately, the first impression for many of our new arrivals is a long wait in a long queue.

If you ask most travellers, they would say that the Customs and immigration queue is the worst part of the journey.

The answer to this problem is not about continually building or expanding terminals to absorb the growth. That is impractical and it is unaffordable. We need to find other ways of reducing the queues, improving productivity and continually enhancing the visitor experience, without compromising security.

So what if the solution lay in removing seven million passenger journeys from the arrival queues of Australia and New Zealand’s international terminals each year?

This very attractive idea is at the core of a new report, “Fast Forward: Streamlining trans-Tasman air travel”.

It is all about reform that if implemented could potentially remove millions of people from international arrival queues and cut at least an hour off trans-Tasman travel time.

New Zealand and Australia are not only geographically and culturally close, but also deliver more visitors to each other than any other market, with more than 47,000 aircraft movements and close to seven million passengers each year. So it is certainly the most logical place to look for efficiencies.

With border processing being such a bugbear for travellers, the Tourism & Transport Forum commissioned this paper to get the discussion going on what a different future could look like.

We asked the global aviation consultancy Airbiz to look at scenarios to make air travel between Australia and New Zealand as easy and safe as possible. So are we talking about the much discussed development of a common border with New Zealand?

The report looks at this option of a single border allowing common visa, entry permit and customs arrangements and procedures for the two countries.

While admittedly this a highly complex and a less likely option, in theory it would produce the simplest, most streamlined outcomes for trans-Tasman passenger journeys.

Key to the more likely options is a pre-clearance model. This would mean the use of advanced biometric screening technology to enable immigration and quarantine pre-clearance by passengers prior to departure combined with sharper information collection on passengers. This gets rid of any further formalities for most passengers when they reach their destinations. Basically, it is faster and easier for passengers and does not compromise security.

This pre-clearance could either be by individual passenger or by flight. New facial recognition technology such as “Face on the Fly”, means pre-clearance is possible. Individuals can be identified and screened without ever needing to be stopped for passports, travel documents or even boarding passes. Using information provided before departure, this system would also enable the majority of passengers to collect their luggage from a “domestic-like” reclaim area, and leave without any further hassles.

Not only would this create a more seamless travel experience for passengers, it would potentially free up gates in international terminals, reducing arrival and departure queues, and streamlining flight connections for passengers transferring between trans-Tasman and domestic flights in both Australia and New Zealand.

Our vision is to see full pre-clearance of international passengers so that their arrival at the destination airport is similar to that of a domestic traveller — a whole lot easier and much more pleasant. There would be no apparent border check and baggage would be reclaimed in a domestic-like environment, whether arriving into an international or integrated domestic and international terminal.

We have to start the conversation about streamlining the trans-Tasman journey and delivering highly effective and efficient pre-clearance for most or all passengers now.
While we might be unable to achieve a common border solution, we should be able to achieve a common sense one.

New Zealand is our closest and most trusted ally and it is time the onerous and archaic constraints currently in place are relegated to the dustbin of history.

Margy Osmond is Tourism & Transport Forum chief executive.

Perhaps harmonization in aviation safety regulation and oversight should also be on the agenda for cutting costs for the mutual benefit of the tourism, trade and aviation industries in the Asia Pacific region? - Nah..that sounds like too much common sense for our dopey NFI miniscule... Dodgy    



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
(08-22-2017, 08:56 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Sandy on War & Peace - Wink   

Via one or two IOS/PAIN email chains... Rolleyes

Quote:Recently I had occasion to make an incident report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

I rang and spoke to an officer about the procedure which is either an online form or a written report.

Having explained the nature of the incident I was advised not to make my explanation into "War and Peace" (1st. ed. 1225 pages by L. Tolstoy).

If the advice had been given in a light hearted or joking manner then maybe think nothing of it. But no, it was given in a condescending tone in order to display superiority and the classical learning of this clever person compared to an ignorant peasant pilot.

Nothing new here, typical Commonwealth public employee. Years ago we would have said 'public servant' but now the many that are employed by Commonwealth corporate bodies are not in fact public servants. Moreover they eschew the term public servant for that denotes lower status. Status in Canberra is everything, it's not for nothing that remuneration is 42% higher in Canberra (pop. near 400,000) than the average nationwide.

Commonwealth corporations, independent and largely unaccountable bodies were designed to regulate and administer with little or no cost to government or to make money and contribute to general revenue. A unique "user pays" hybrid design experiment off the back of the Thatcher privatisation reforms. Unfortunately the user pays only if there are users, and only if there is real value. Without a free and competitive market there can be no acceptable standard and therefore the model is, and with irrefutable facts in hindsight, a failure.

Unfortunately being monopolies they perpetuate themselves with make work programs, the never ending and outrageously expensive rules rewrite (now unworkable rules of  strict liability criminality) by the Civil Aviation body (CASA) being a perfect example. Monopolistic fee gouging for completely unnecessary permissions or licences along with runaway wages and uncontrolled expenses add to internally bloated budgets.

An interesting exercise would be to make an overall cost benefit analysis of the unique corporate body administration of civil aviation in Australia which began some 29 years ago. Having lived and worked in General Aviation (GA) for more than 50 years it is obvious that the costs to community in lost businesses and jobs far outweigh the sums gained by the fees that are extorted by the regulator. 

A department controlled by a responsible Minister overseeing and administering with a rational, internationally compatible rule set is needed. This would be effective and efficient with tax revenues from a healthy industry much greater than the industry destroying fees and massive ever churning paperwork burdens which are currently imposed.

The bureaucratic War on GA should cease, CASA will resist at every turn, therefore only action by Parliament can bring a new and prosperous Peace.

Sandy Reith 

The War & Peace saga continues: Hoody gets precious - Rolleyes

Via PAIN/IOS email chains... Wink

Quote:On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 at 09:12 Leahey Trish <Trish.Leahey@atsb.gov.au> wrote:
Quote:Dear Mr Reith
 
On behalf of Chief Commissioner Greg Hood, please find attached a letter from the ATSB.
 
Regards
 
Trish

[Image: Precious-Hoody.jpg]

To which Sandy responded:

Quote:Hi Trish,

Thank you for sending the Chief Commissioner’s email letter. 

Please pass this reply to him. An open email. 


Hello Greg,

Thank you for writing to me of your concerns. I can certainly understand your wish to protect staff from unfair criticism and in future I might well take up your offer of a direct personal consultation before going public. Perhaps this might lead to your staff member apologising directly to me. On the other hand being a public body your staff would well and truly understand that they are open to public scrutiny and criticism. 

In addition, as you would be well aware, General Aviation has been under severe and debilitating attack from Canberra for many years and we are inclined to push back. 

In this instance in your letter you refer to an “interpretation” of “War and Peace”. In the conversation with your officer there was no interpretation needed because they were the words she used, and I as I say, in a condescending manner. This is in the scheme of things a small instance of a pervading problem that we find time and again dealing with Canberra authorities of all stripes. Authorities like ATSB are publicly owned monopoly corporations and have accrued a great deal of power. It shows. 

The flavour that we experience is well illustrated by your general email disclaimer and threatening admonishment, in part quote:- 

.....”The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.”....  

Regards,

Sandy

Also of interest (off the email chains) is a discussion related to Adam Smith's article on the 'Concept of Justice' with the parallels to the governance and big "R" regulation of the aviation industry... Confused   

Quote:Sandy:

....This article goes to the heart of the problems in the governance of aviation in Australia. 

In particular the commentary about “unintended consequences” or in other words the ill effects of the law going beyond controlling in the manner desired by Adam Smith. 
Our current strict liability aviation law is counter to  Smith’s sound philosophy.

Adam Smith's Concept of Justice - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world


https://fee.org/articles/adam-smiths-concept-of-justice/

Sandy,
 
It also goes against the regulation making policies of the Parliament, the A-Gs, the Office of Parliamentary Council, the Productivity Commission and the OBPR, and the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (or whatever it is called now) but it all makes no difference, such is the “Mystique of Air Safety”, and the apparent total disinterest of the Minister.
 
At its core, just two determines people in CAA/CASA have driven this since the late 1980’s --- with plenty of willing accomplices, including in industry, but just two have driven the philosophical underpinnings of Australia having to have complex prescriptive aviation law, all in a criminal law format, with as good as makes no difference, all being strict liability.
 
JUST TWO PEOPLE!!
To almost destroy civil aviation as a major and viable industry in Australia.

Cheers,

Bill Hamilton


Hi Bill,

Just who are those two people?? 

Here’s an interesting Article from BCA magazine. Interesting the divergence from Australian “Policy”.


Quote:Time For Innovation: Grandfatherly Flying Is So Yesterday
Sep 22, 2017William Garvey  | Business & Commercial Aviation 

This year my car turned 17, making it a senior four-wheeled citizen since the median for flivvers is less than 10. However, the average age of a general aviation aircraft today is roughly 40 years. Think about that for a moment. An ancient iPhone is one purchased way back in 2014. Sofa beds get tossed after five years‘ worth of guests, kids and cats. A giant panda is gone after 20. And cars are deemed “classic” at 25. So, that a fleet of mobile machinery now averages two score — and many are a lot older than that — is quite a testament to durability and upkeep.

But there are other reasons for that impressive seniority. Today I pulled BCA’s 1987 Purchase Planning Handbook from the shelf (yes, I’m a bit of a hoarder), and found these stats for the then-new Beech Bonanza A36: seating — 1+4/5; engine — 300 hp; max ramp weight — 3,663 lb.; max speed — 176 kt. Compare those numbers with the G36 Bonanza in our 2017 Handbook: seating — 1+4/5; engine — 300 hp; max ramp weight — 3,663 lb.; high-speed cruise — 174 kt.

So, while the cockpit instrumentation has been markedly improved on the G model, the 2017 machine delivers almost exactly what its A model predecessor did back when Ronald Reagan was exhorting Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall.

Oh, and another point. The 1987 Bonanza sold for $263,000, which admittedly was a chunk of dough back then. But the 2017 version is listed at $815,000, which is, respectively, a whole lot bigger chunk. In fact, that’s double the rate of inflation.

The foregoing factors combined to move just 25 Bonanzas off the production line last year, one in which single-engine aircraft failed to break the 1,000 mark . . . for the eighth year running. So, the post-Recession general aviation recession vexingly continues. But there are some encouraging developments that could produce positive results.

My Aviation Week & Space Technology colleague John Croft notes, “The convergence of four factors — electric engine technology, powerful lithium-chemistry batteries, automatic control systems and flexible new regulations — is opening new ‘degrees of freedom’ in aircraft design.” Arguably of those, the key is regulatory, specifically the new FAR Part 23, which contains the airworthiness standards for light aircraft.

The 
FAA is supposed to review all its major regulatory sections every decade. However, by the time it got around to eyeballing Part 23 in the early 2000s, 30 years had passed. And when the review began, the discussions and areas of interest were based on how things had always been. Greg Bowles, who was the General Aviation Manufacturers Association’s participant, thought the process was ripe for radical change. As it happened, the FAA agreed.

The process that followed was deliberate and slow, but the results are formidable. In the rewrite of Part 23, which came into effect at the end of August, the rules are prescriptive rather than performance based, allowing manufacturers to use consensus standards to show compliance. The 
European Aviation Safety Agency has adopted light plane rules that are virtually identical, and other aviation regulatory bodies are expected to follow suit, which was one of the goals of the process.

According to Bowles, now GAMA’s vice president for global innovation and policy, the new approach enables manufacturers to “actually design and innovate and put the cool stuff in the field.”

That “stuff” is for others to imagine and bring to the fore but could conceivably range from electric and hybrid-electric power to pilotless aircraft to who knows what? The hope is that by adapting rapidly evolving technology to general aviation, prices and complexity will diminish, while safety and general appeal increase. All of those would be welcome developments considering the steady decline of the pilot population and apparent lack of interest in general aviation by millennials in general.

Supposedly this is a generation that doesn’t drive, let alone own cars. So, they’re not likely to embrace expensive, complex flying machines designed when their grandfathers were young. “That’s why this stuff is so important,” says Bowles.
We’ll see. As he says, “Now it’s in our hands.” Or not in any hands.

Barry Justice, the president and CEO of Corporate Aviation Analysis & Planning Inc., a well-regarded business aviation consultancy, who is a former director of flight ops for a Fortune 100 outfit, says there’s heavy investing ongoing to advance flight control technology quickly and business aviation is involved.

He reports that in the past two years, he knows of three flight department managers who were informed that their companies — two insurance providers and one utility — were buying unmanned aerial vehicles and that “The drones now report to you.” More will follow that pattern; it makes sense.

As for flying in pilotless urban Ubers, we’ll see. Justice queried associates and got a Never! response. But he says, if proven safe, he’d hop aboard. As for me, I’d consider trading in my M Coupe only after Google releases its 2,000th FAA-certificated passenger drone. 


Finally and very much in context with the above, Sandy on the concept of 'Just Culture' in the Oz GA environment:

Quote:Is the much touted “Just Culture” the answer to the woes of General Aviation? 

“Just Culture” is a confidence trick that no one should fall for because it is simply an excuse for the injustice of regulation by whim and fancy of a bureaucrat who may be influenced or biased by a myriad of unknowable and unstated (improper?) circumstances. 

This utterly obnoxious concept, sanctioned and promoted by Ministers and their top minions, is  perfectly suited to our highly prescriptive strict liability aviation criminal law that is so convoluted and dense with contradictions that a faceless bureaucrat may decide the definition of “justice” which is completely at odds with the real meaning. 

For example from the CASA website (my underlining and italics):-

“ASICs (Aviation Security Identification Cards) and AVIDs (Aviation Identification) show that the holder has a current security check but only an ASIC can be used at security controlled airports. ASICs are normally valid for up to 2 years and AVIDs are normally valid for up to 5 years.

While an AVID and an ASIC are both evidence that background checks have been undertaken, the background checks for the AVID are not equivalent to the checks for the ASIC.

At a minimum, all pilots must undergo the background checks for an AVID and ASIC. Only those pilots who require frequent access to a secure area of a security controlled airport will need to undergo the more robust background checks for an ASIC.

To streamline processes and remove any duplication, pilots who undergo the background check for an ASIC do not have to undergo the background checking for an AVID.

If you plan to frquently fly into a security controlled airport that has RPT services you need to have an ASIC.”

(Question:-   If one does not frequently fly into a security controlled airport will an AVID suffice? Plenty of small regional towns get an Regular Public Transport flight, a few times per week, why not the AVID? Who will say what is legal?)


The only safeguard for true justice is straightforward practical and commonsense law that is rational and reasonably acceptable. The law must be understandable by the average person to whom it is directed, not be too intrusive on the rights of others and be respectful of our freedoms. 

Were this the case with the laws governing aviation, and particularly General Aviation, there would be no quarrel and justice could be left where it rightly belongs. 

Justice, and most especially the justice of citizens against the might of the State, should be the prerogative of the proper independent Courts of Australia. 

Sandy Reith 

To which Stan replied:

http://proaviation.com.au/advocacy/confi...reporting/
 
The above goes some way to illustrating how well “just culture” works in the CASA world. It is designed that way and like all legislation open to [their] interpretation. We should finally concede that unlike most first world cultures, Australia consists of two separate systems, an out of control bureaucracy and a very acquiescent populace separated by an embarrassing group of politicians mostly unemployable in the real world with a few exceptions. When we consider that it takes programs like The ABC 4Corners to expose ground water pollution by the RAAF or illegal diversion of precious water etc. etc. where does the actual management of the country come into play.  There is absolutely NO accountability on any ones part except for aviation’s “strict liability” implications. The ballot box won’t change anything because it’s always the same faces or promises. Maybe time for quite a few more (political) parties before an election, instead of the splinter groups now within the majors. Coalitions formed on exacting terms before an election which they can then be held to account for in terms of unity.
 
Stan van de Wiel
  
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
The PC war game - and how to play it

Tolstoy’s manuscript ‘War and Peace’ has a meagre 587,287 words (American version) even less in the English version 561,093. It is ‘longish’, but a mere midget when compared to likes of ‘Men of Goodwill’ which ran to a mighty 2,070,000 words – in French. The top rated contender in English  ‘Clarissa’ and weighs in at 943,000 words.

Hoody's sensitive crew having a ‘sook’ about the public mention of a lightweight ‘novel’ like W&P which runs to 1440 pages seems a little petulant, when you consider the Pel-Air report is about one third the size. At least Tolstoy refrained from gilding the Lilly, did work from factual data and did little harm to man nor beast.

“Having explained the nature of the incident I was advised not to make my explanation into "War and Peace" (1st. ed. 1225 pages by L. Tolstoy).

"If the advice had been given in a light hearted or joking manner then maybe think nothing of it. But no, it was given in a condescending tone in order to display superiority and the classical learning of this clever person compared to an ignorant peasant pilot.”

The Hi Viz response is a classic; the way he redefines the ‘War and Peace’ slight into being a helpful, touchy-feely, warm and fuzzy placebo for a disparaging remark is ‘delightful’. Then he adds to it - now read this bit – “We understand that pilots are often extremely busy people etc.” Which is load of bollocks – pilots are obliged to ‘file’ reports, under threat; a bird strike for example – is a pointless, time waster. Engineering must be informed, the company needs to know, particularly if the damage prevents further operation; but what bloody use is the report to the ATSB?  Will the data be used to prevent a ‘re-occurrence’? Have ATSB really got the god like powers they believe they have and able to control the behaviour of the bird population; or, will the good fairy godmother descend and admonish those pesky birds? Is there an educational ATSB publication on the migratory bird species which make their ways to our shores each summer, from as far away as Siberia? Does ATSB provided data to pilots on when these birds fly in; or, the route they take; or, whether they travel at night; or what heights they operate at; or, in what quantity? Not too many pilots been made aware that little ‘hazard’ to navigation has there. Perhaps ATSB could use some of the time available to mention these things, do something of use and value, instead of bleating on and being 'upset' about the War and Peace 'incident' and being ‘miffed’ at Sandy’s well founded beef.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR33t_kSuNwGDji5I2Rz1U...WOLnW_rC6Q]


Quote:"Migratory waterbirds include species such as plovers, sandpipers, stints, curlews and snipes.

These incredible birds make round trip migrations of up to 26,000 kilometres each year between their summer breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere and their feeding areas in the south. These trips are made in several weeks, with brief stops at staging sites along the way to rest and refuel for the next leg of their journey.

The corridor through which these waterbirds migrate is known as the East Asian - Australasian Flyway.

• It extends from within the Arctic Circle, through east and south-east Asia, to Australia and New Zealand.

• Stretching across 22 countries, it is one of eight major waterbird flyways recognised around the globe.

At least two million migratory waterbirds visit Australia each year during our summer.


More ‘data’ pages and words are generated, each year on accident and incident than Tolstoy ever wrote; and yet we wait years for the ATSB to pen their reports and issue safety recommendations. Then after a long wait we get the milk and water, PC reports which essentially say little, mean less and do sweet sod all to prevent reoccurrence. Safety recommendations are almost a thing of the past, a myth, a tale to scare the children. Tell you what – for homework, look at the last decade of SR issued, then look at say the CASA ‘adoption’ rate of those SR, it’s pitiful. Coroners have no chance either, their calls and recommendations are quietly suffocated in the storage cupboards of Sleepy Hollow, before being tipped into a common grave.

I'll have whip round at the pub tonight - see if we scrape up enough for a box of Kleenex (the soft ones), wrap 'em up with a pretty ribbon, tied in  bow and have a bicycle chappie deliver them; there now sweetums, all better now.

Toot (quack) toot.
Reply
6D AGAD update on ASRR - Dodgy

There was no official proclamation from our 'do nothing', miniscule for non-aviation AGAD but I just happened to stumble across the DoIT ASRR webpage today and noticed that yesterday an official update had been made - Huh

Quote:In October 2017, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Darren Chester MP agreed to the release by the Department of an update on progress with implementing the Government's response to each of the recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report as at 31 July 2017.

The progress report adopts the terminology of ‘Completed’, ‘Completed— Implementation Ongoing’, and ‘In Progress’.

‘Completed’ means the action requested by the Government has been taken whether in terms of the production of new or revised documentation, or the completion of a required review or report.

‘Completed —Implementation Ongoing’ refers to circumstances where the action requested by the Government has been taken, but giving practical effect to the changes requires the adoption and ongoing use of new arrangements through policies, procedures and practices, largely by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

‘In Progress’ means the action requested by the Government is currently being undertaken. A timeframe for expected completion has been included for those items.
  • Implementation Progress Report as at 31 July 2017 PDF: 422 KB [Image: readspeaker_listen_icon.gif]
 
Read it and weep Undecided

Just a suggestion but perhaps the department should consider adding lines like...

"..Obfuscation ongoing.."

or..

"..Completed - Recommendation officially obfuscated.."

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Just ask the Minister - Rolleyes

From reviewing parts of the elongated STD - Surface Transport Division Big Grin - I get the distinct impression miniscule Chester is just as useless and inept, not to mention totally insincere, on his supposedly pet subject of roads and road safety... Undecided

Extracts from the STD:
Quote:Senator GALLACHER: Why don't you as the department get out in front?

Ms Zielke : In the US they have had their companies sign up to a process. As you said, they're not all following the same standard. They are doing it on a voluntary basis. And that's the same as we find—

Senator GALLACHER: Because they were threatened with legislation. They were threatened with regulatory change. Accepting that the regulatory change takes a long while, that regulatory change was put on the industry. (Hmm - why does that sound so familiar Huh ) They then came up with a voluntary date and they came up with competitive pressures in which Toyota has hit the lead by saying all their vehicles will have AEB in 2017. But we don't see any evidence of that leadership in this area from your department in Australia. I struggle to understand why, because no-one wants to see 1,300 people killed and enormous numbers of people seriously injured, let alone the $30 billion plus cost to the economy of road safety. I think this is a really urgent and important issue, but it seems to get avoided. You have 12 people in the whole department looking in this direction? For a $30 billion cost to the economy? For 1,300-plus deaths and enormous numbers of seriously injured? Thirteen people, or 12 people, is the evidence. I really can't be critical of anybody in there because there are not enough of you to make a difference. I just want to know why.

Senator STERLE: You should ask the Minister. Big Grin


Senator GALLACHER: I want to revisit road safety, and I'm just trying to do some fact finding here; there's no right or wrong in all of this. The National Road Safety Strategy 2011 to 2020 targets a reduction of 30 per cent in both fatalities and serious injuries. It's easy to count the deaths. How close are we to being able to measure serious injuries at a national level using a nationally consistent definition of serious injury, given that 2017 is all but gone?

Ms Zielke : I'll pass to Mr James to respond to that.

Mr James : As you mentioned, it's been—

Senator GALLACHER: I don't need a recap; Big Grin I just need to know when we're going to get a nationally consistent measuring stick.

Mr James : Currently there is a pilot project with the states and territories, a national project led by the department, and it is close to finishing its report.

Senator GALLACHER: This year?

Mr James : Yes, in time hopefully for the ministers' meeting in November. And then if that pilot shows it is possible to use a single definition and to match the data properly between health and crash sources it would then proceed to do the full matching and a retrospective cast for 10 years next year.

Senator GALLACHER: So, we anticipate that in 2018 we will have a nationally consistent definition of serious injury, which is seven years after we started.

Mr James : That is the aim.

Senator GALLACHER: Thank you. Now, in 2017 the minister announced that two pieces of research would be undertaken—one to look at drug driving and one to look at distracted driving. I understand that the research has been completed. When do we expect the results to be released?

Mr James : Soon. Ministers will consider those reports at a road safety ministers meeting on 9 November, followed by the ministerial council meeting on the 10th.

Senator GALLACHER: And a question on notice: can you provide a history, since the disbanding of the former Federal Office of Road Safety, which I think was in 1999, of resourcing from around 1998 to today? I want to see a trajectory of how many people used to be there and how many people there are now, on notice.

Ms Zielke : I'm happy to take it on our best endeavours in that regard.

Senator GALLACHER: Best endeavours is fine by me.

Ms Zielke : But we'll do whatever we can in relation to that.

Senator GALLACHER: What level of funding do you currently provide to the Australasian New Car Assessment Program?

Ms Zielke : It's somewhere in the order of $1 million a year. I will confirm that for you, though.

Senator GALLACHER: Is that funding guaranteed through the forward estimates?

Ms Zielke : I think the current arrangement is that the current contract expires next year and will be reconsidered again at that stage. But it's been funded for many, many years since it was started.

Senator GALLACHER: But your evidence here tonight is that it's the pre-eminent mechanism for consumers to make a judgement about road safety.

Ms Zielke : About the safety of a vehicle.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay. Are you aware that they conducted a test very recently of an 11-year-old Toyota versus a new Toyota in a head-on collision? Are you aware of the results of that test?

Ms Zielke : Yes. It clearly showed how much our standards have improved over the years. I'm sure you've seen the photographs as well, and watched the footage. It was extremely confronting to see the difference in the standards.

Senator GALLACHER: And are you aware that the vehicle that was used in the test—the 11-year-old vehicle—was being marketed by the retailer or motor vehicle reseller as a car suitable for a young driver?

Ms Zielke : This is one of the issues Minister Chester has particularly—

Senator GALLACHER: But are you aware of that?

Ms Zielke : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: So, we know that 11-year-old vehicles are not as good as today's vehicles. Everybody gets that. But those 11-year-old vehicles are being marketed to the most vulnerable road users as a good car for a young driver. And we know from the result of that test that the young driver will be dead and the person in the other vehicle will have survived.

Ms Zielke : Have you seen the work being done on the used car safety ratings and the alignment with the ANCAP safety ratings as well?

Senator GALLACHER: With $1 million worth of federal funding you're trying to crack a nut that's costing the economy $32 billion, killing 1,300 people and injuring an unquantified number of people in serious injuries. That's the sum total of the federal department's $1 million, plus 12 people battling the world in another section. Big Grin

CHAIR: I think it's hard for the witness to respond to these things.

Senator GALLACHER: I'm pretty sure it is!

CHAIR: Well, so—

Senator GALLACHER: But is the funding of $1 million guaranteed over the forward estimates?

CHAIR: I understand that, but he needs to draw it out in questions.

Ms Zielke : It will be reconsidered by government at the end of the contract.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay. Given that there are a number of really professional, well-regarded research groups in the community—two would be the Australian College of Road Safety and the other would be AAA—both of those entities have published comprehensive reports and suggestions for improving road safety, many of which are simple and non-regulatory and could be introduced without waiting for the current review of the NRSS. Has there been any government response to these recommendations? Do you, as a department—did you receive the AAA—

Ms Zielke : We did, and there have been exchanges between the department and the organisations, and they've of course written to the minister as well.

Senator GALLACHER: So, is there an official response? The Australian Automobile Association presented me with a copy of their proposals. It's been presented to the department and the minister. Is there an official response? Do you pick the low-hanging fruit—things that could be introduced simply without regulatory impact? Do you do that sort of stuff?

Mr James : Of course we look at these submissions and we provide advice on them, and a number of the ideas—many of them in those submissions—are certainly being considered by the states and federal government in the context of developing the next national road safety strategy action plan. That's a process obviously of negotiating what everyone can commit to for that exercise.

Senator GALLACHER: Does the department, having concluded a research program on distracted driving, facilitate or encourage field trials or tests of devices that would limit access to text and emails while driving in the Commonwealth fleet?

Ms Zielke : Not that I'm aware of, but suggestions such as that in all vehicles is part of what's canvassed in the report Mr James was talking about.

Mr James : And certainly work I'm aware of with the states and territories—again, there is some active research that's being done on these types of technologies and work between us all on what might be the most promising ones going forward. But that's work in progress at the moment.  Dodgy

Senator GALLACHER: So, work related to road safety is a really significant issue for all organisations that employ people in Australia. You see many of the leaders in mining introducing really smart, up-front policies and procedures to limit distraction in vehicles. Does the federal government have a policy position in respect of this? I mean, can I get a job with the Commonwealth and go out in a Commonwealth car and happily text and email all the way to wherever I'm going? Or do you have a policy position that says you don't do that?

Ms Zielke : It's currently illegal to do that. So, if I was driving a Commonwealth vehicle and was doing that I would be acting illegally.

Senator GALLACHER: Yes. So, you're relying on the police; you're not switching it off in the vehicle.

Ms Zielke : We're not undertaking additional activities at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: Why not?

Ms Zielke : Minister Chester is working with his state and territory colleagues at the moment to investigate what more could be done in relation to distraction. Part of that is talking with manufacturers about what other technologies might be used in vehicles.

Mr James : I would add that there is also the National Road Safety Partnership Program. This involves a number of mining companies and other firms interested in road safety and a number of states and other organisations to look at how to get road safety into fleet practices, corporate practices and business. I met with that group a couple of weeks ago in Perth.

Senator GALLACHER: So I could deduce from your answer that you don't actually have a policy in place about what people should and shouldn't do when they are driving a motor vehicle. Ms Zielke, you say, 'They should have known it's illegal and the police will catch them if they do it.' Is that the answer?

Ms Zielke : I was just stating the obvious—that it is an illegal activity at the moment.

Senator GALLACHER: We know that thousands of people are fined every day. We do know that people break the rules. So I'm asking whether your department has a policy on texting and emailing in a Commonwealth car.

Ms Zielke : Our department does not have a policy in addition to the current fact that it's illegal to do that.

Senator GALLACHER: Okay.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Via the Oz today:



IPA: cull needed to free firms from red tape
[Image: 018ccd0d625f2ccaa04a6460a8a30f29?width=650]
IPA researcher Daniel Wild.
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM November 7, 2017
  • [size=undefined]GREG BROWN
    [Image: greg_brown.png]
    Journalist
    Canberra

    @gregbrown_TheOz

    [/size]

Unelected regulators are hampering business with red tape, ­according to the Institute of Public Affairs, which is calling for a cull of government bodies to ­return power to the parliament.

The IPA, a right-wing think tank, has warned the growth of red tape in Australia is at a “crisis point” and puts much of the blame on regulators that impose rules on business with little public accountability.

“Urgent action is needed from policymakers to reduce the burden of red tape on businesses, ­individuals and community groups,” said IPA research fellow Daniel Wild. “Red tape is the key cause of low and declining business investment, which is currently lower as a percentage of gross domestic product than under the Whitlam government. Low business investment is the central cause of low labour productivity and slow wages growth.”

An IPA report, released today, finds red tape is caused by regulatory bodies and the overlap of state and federal regulations.

The institute previously has estimated that red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion a year, the equivalent of 11 per cent of gross domestic product. “This means each Australian household would be $19,300 better off each ... year (if there were no red tape),” the report says.

It argues unelected regulatory bodies are bad for democracy, with 497 public bodies involved in the design or enforcement of the federal regulatory system.

[Image: 109843d0f643df51c329ca02dbc526e5?width=650] 
“Regulatory agencies are increasingly able to implement regulation and impose red tape without requiring the approval of parliament, and, therefore, the Australian people,” the report says. “Australian governments have vested increasing decision-making power outside parliament and into ‘independent’ bureaucratic agencies.

“These undemocratic, unelected officials have enough discretionary power to effectively make government policy.”

The report labelled the banking, corporate and competition regulators as “monolithic organisations” that are statutorily independent from parliament.

“The idealised notion of independent regulatory authorities operating in a democratic system doesn’t match reality.
[*]
“The consequence is an increasing amount of public policy is determined outside of the Australian parliament by unelected regulators. Regardless of one’s thoughts about the policy implemented by these regulators, this undermines the Australia’s democratic policy process.”

The research noted surveys showing 69 per cent of small and medium businesses say dealing with red tape takes “a lot of ­effort”, whole 68 per cent think their industry is overregulated.

It found 55 per cent of company directors think red tape the biggest impediment to growth.





[*]


MTF...P2  Tongue

A -ducking- men, to that. P7.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)