It is interesting to take a look at the reference to which the Acting DAS refers i.e. pg 201-202 Hansard Supp Est 20/10/2009. This was the DAS second appearance and second major speech before the Senate Estimates and was given after some deckchair shuffling and much bloodletting. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the name changes, deletions and job titles of those sitting at the FF table:
1st appearance:
Thursday, 28 May 2009 Senate Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr Peter Cromarty, General Manager Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Group, CASA
Mr John McCormick, Chief Executive Officer
Mr Shane Carmody, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Strategy and Support
Mr Mick Quinn, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Operations
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Ms Betty Edwards, Chief Financial Officer
Mr Simon Denby, Group General Manager, Aviation Licensing Group
There's a couple of names in that lot which have a couple of bit parts in the PA debacle!
2nd appearance:
Tuesday 20 October 2009 Supplementary Estimates
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Mr John McCormick, Director of Aviation Safety
Mr Greg Hood, Executive Manager, CASA Operations Division
Dr Jonathan Aleck, Chief Legal Officer
Mr Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager, Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation Division
Dr Pooshan Navathe, Principal Medical Officer
Mr Terry Farquharson, Executive Manager, Office of the Director of Aviation Safety
Now to the part that the good Doc refers...
"Mr McCormick—
Before concluding, I would like to make an important point, one that should probably have been made long before now. CASA is certainly no stranger to criticism, complaints and variably informed expressions of dissatisfaction with the things we do and the way we do them from the diverse industry we regulate, amongst others. I welcome this, as a responsible director of any regulatory authority should welcome balanced, reasonable and constructive advice about where we may have gone wrong, or where we may at least be seen by some to
have gone wrong, or where we might do better. Well-meaning criticism can be helpful, even if it is wide of the mark, and it gives us a better understanding of the way our actions are perceived and experienced.
So let me be clear: I have absolutely no interest in discouraging or dissuading our critics from drawing CASA’s actual or assumed shortcomings to my attention, to the government’s attention, or to the attention of the Australian public. As I said, I welcome and embrace this. At the same time, however, let me be equally clear in highlighting the very significant difference between candid, robust criticism of CASA’s actions as an organisation and what cannot fairly be characterised as other than mean-spirited, tendentiously self-serving and frequently false accusations about, and the vindictive public disparagement of, individual
CASA officers by name and by station.
This is wrong and unfair and, in some cases, I think it is downright cowardly. It does nothing to advance the interests of air safety or organisational improvement, and it almost certainly is not intended to do either. If left unaddressed, it impugns the reputations and integrity of committed, capable and professional individuals who are dedicated to the critical, and sometimes thankless, regulatory and other safety related tasks, and it takes a serious toll
on the morale of the entire staff in ways that, I dare say, some of those who try to conceal what is often nothing more than demagogic vitriol behind the facade of a pointed evaluatory critique could not begin to understand.
CASA is and I, as the Director of Aviation Safety, am, and all our employees are fully accountable for our words and actions, including our regular appearances before this committee, Chair. Clearly, these critics have no intention of exposing themselves to anything like the kind of scrutiny to which we are, and should be, subject. Frankly, I seriously doubt whether many of them could withstand it if they were. To those who constantly challenge CASA to lift its game I say, ‘Thank you and keep it coming.’ To those whose intent is merely to insult, denigrate, vilify and, in some instances I suspect, to defame individual CASA officers, unless and until they might be held accountable for their words and actions, I can
only say, ‘Shame’. Thank you, Chair."
Kharon said: Pipe 1 – By agreeing to be the cats paw the "Doc" is now firmly tied to the sinking ship. Attempting to threaten and denigrate honest critics, while grovelling and slobbering before the Senate, previously treated with open, hostile contempt; is quite a party trick.
I'm not so sure "K"? Given that the Acting DAS (ADAS) could go straight to that reference (2nd DAS speech) and given that the Doc's letter is almost verbatim from that speech, I'd be more inclined to believe that the Doc was the original speech writer and the script for this play is his script!
Certainly food for thought hey?? Doc
