4dogs mentioned the Auditor General:
To me, the I-G proposal is about obviating the need for a continuing series of Senate activities to examine what/how/why/when these agencies are doing things in order to get some transparency. For example, the Auditor-General doesn't operate as a "fix" for each of the agencies examined - but the process does force the agency executives to carefully examine the "what/how/why/when" in terms of the potential fallout from public exposure. If an agency fails to protect the relevant Minister from embarrassment, then (in betting terms) the "fix" will soon be "in"!
Well the last couple of audits (from 2000) weren’t complimentary of FF but the trouble is they now refute the ANAO findings an continue to obfuscate any real meaningful action (FF are masters at saying they’ll do something then do SFA!), for those interested
ANAO 2000 report.
ANAO 2002 report (follow up).
ANAO 2010 report.
So it is kind of a dead duck! Unless of course the Senators insist that the whole department gets itself audited in order to prove they had no involvement in obfuscating essential information from the ATSB investigation:
6.13 Mr McCormick informed the committee that the information from the Chambers Report was used to seek additional funding from the government to improve surveillance activities.14
Which would appear to mean that Mrdak and the department (therefore the Minister) were privy to the findings of the ‘Chambers Report’.
It therefore follows that some of the department were well aware of the systemic issues highlighted in the ‘Chambers report’ and were also party to the implications of withholding that information from the ATSB.
However FF might be good but the Dept is even better at spinning themselves out of the ****e…but it is a good question to ask if for no other reason but to see them squirm!
In case you missed it, as the posting was a bit frenetic this am, “K” had posted this:
004 # 1915 - I was thinking along the same lines. I note in the latest answers to QON, pot plants and the FAA had almost the same number of words in the reply. Pot plant and FAA expenditure "in the budget" and "all fixed" in two terse, one line replies. The FAA may well be happy with such an agnostic argument and caviller treatment; but let me assure you, the official auditors of Government Pot Plant are not, they are demanding real answers to very tough questions. Perhaps we can get a result at guestimates.
The Pete the pot plant QON was answered like this:
Question no.: 124
Senator NASH: That does not surprise me. Having ascertained that it is $150,000, thank you, Chair. I would hate to think that CASA has to go through the same restrictions that we in this building do and not have plants. I am sure they do a great deal for those of us in this place who need a little bit of greenery every now and again. If you could just take on notice for me the current amount of plants that you have, the current cost of maintenance, who is maintaining them and why you are moving to get a new maintenance regime?
Answer:
Details of CASA’s operating expenses are contained in the Annual Report.
And QON 126 (rehash I know) was answered like this:
Senator FAWCETT asked:
Senator FAWCETT: I would like to refer you back to the FAA audit that was conducted a couple of years ago. My understanding is that there were a number of deficiencies found during that. Can you give us a status report of rectifications of those?
Mr J McCormick: We can take most of that on notice, if you like. What I can give you now is that the majority issue was around the fact that we did not have sufficient training, in their mind, for our inspectorate. We had already set in place a training school which is now up and running and, in particular, their concerns were over the inspectors who oversaw what is called FAR 129 foreign operators operating RPT, regular public transport, into the US. It was around the amount of training that people had done, where most of the training in the past of say six or seven years ago revolved a lot around on-the-job training and then people had their
basic training either that way or through a course to start with was perhaps not as extensive as it should have been. Since then we have rectified that completely.
Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take those on notice.
Answer:
CASA was advised by the FAA in late 2010 that, as CASA had rectified all identified deficiencies, all of these matters are considered resolved.
So those two QONs (at least) deserve a revisit by the Senators??
By the way here is the link for viewing the Guesstimates tomorrow:
http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament
And Creamy this might make you feel all warm and fuzzy! Hot off the cyberpress today:[YOUTUBE]
Doin a Kelpie!