How ironic:
[W]hile reviewing a recording of the hearing for the purposes of confirming our understanding of what appeared to be errors in the Hansard, it became apparent that there were indeed a number of errors – words omitted or incorrectly transcribed- in the Hansard of 15 February 2013.
Errors in transcripts?
Yes, just like in the transcript of the radio communications with NGA.
Guess how many times this is stated in CASA’s letter:
CASA determines that both the Hansard and our original suggested correction are incorrect and the transcript should read …
Think about that. CASA spent a bunch of time (funded by you) reviewing the transcript and suggesting corrections, but then realised, after spending a bunch more of time (funded by you), that the suggested corrections were incorrect and needed to be corrected, so it spent more time (funded by you) writing to the Committee about it …
This is my favourite:
Dr Aleck, Page 7: The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air were based on the routine auditing processes…
- CASA determines Dr Aleck meant: ‘The only other point I will make is that the information that came to us in relation to the operations of Pel-Air was based on the routine auditing process.
Read carefully and see what word changed, and ask yourself: How much it cost to detect that, and whether the world would have stopped turning if it wasn’t changed.
And this concept is surreal:
CASA determines Mr McCormick meant …
CASA determines Mr Aleck meant …
CASA determines the recording of the hearing is unclear and Mr Farquharson meant …
An inanimate artificial person determines what human beings meant to say. I didn’t determine that I meant to say something different. CASA did!
It is unfortunate for DJ that the same level of forensic analysis was not applied to the transcript of the radio communications with NGA, or to the rest of the investigation.