Creamy starts us on the road well, with a solid dose of irony, a sage assessment of cost and dip in the waters of surrealism. But is that enough? – I wonder why CASA dare take these appalling risks, as Oleo points out:-
MOIE # 1611 –"Due to the sensitivity of the inquiry their pathetic response would not be publicly tabled without approval by the Board and senior members of the Ministers office, so this whole debacle and incompetence is supported at all levels."
The tabled offering is a pitiful defence against overwhelming evidence of much deeper problems. The sheer scale and scope of the bluff is breathtaking – but will it fool anyone? or is this simply a case of 'given enough rope'. etc.
Will the defence of Chambers satisfy James and several others?; CASA have been backed into a corner where they are obliged to defend the person who, it could be argued, created the crack in the dyke. Whether all this was done at the behest of his superiors or not, remains an unanswered question. But, I fear the Chambers notorious handling of matters aeronautical in the Sydney basin will require much support from the department. If proven, the tales surrounding the purported actions of this so called -'shoot from the hip and bluff' - merchant have the potential to haunt the Sleepy Hollow LSD for years to come; so why bother producing two expensive pages in defence? Domino effect is a phrase which springs to mind, perhaps the answer lays there – who knows. Question: is the game worth the candle?
I note much space given to the McComic defence of why the Chambers report was withheld; apart from an understandable, natural reluctance to publicly release a published report which, to industry, presented a badly written nonsense. I understand that the Chambers report is universally seen as much manipulated, plagiarised crock; weakly aping the efforts of better, more qualified men and serving no practical purpose. CASA appear to point out the weakness inherent in their argument, by making much of the report and their forced defence of subsequent actions. None of these theatrical, time consuming ploys can hope to disguise the facts now in the public domain. To name but a few of the programs which have had the exact same treatment as the latest offering, tabled as a Hansard response:-
- ICAO compliance – fail.
- Regulatory reform – fail.
- Industry Complaints Commission program – fail.
- Freedom of Information – fail.
- Confidentiality – fail.
- Public service act – fail.
- Model litigant – fail.
- Enhanced safety – fail.
Is it time for new broom, new board, new Act, new DAS, new attitude, new approach?; and probably, while we are at it, a change of pot plants. However, I would start the process before the Bankstown Chronicles go public, I really would.
Selah.