Hansard p5. (9 pdf) : Senator HEFFERNAN: Welcome, Mr Mrdak. I would just like to emphasise the disruption and the unfairness demonstrated—not necessarily by the department—on questions on notice. They came back, and I have no idea how long they were in the minister's office, and were received by this committee on Friday at two or three o'clock in the afternoon. Religiously and with great precision DAFF have their questions back on the given day, and we commended Minister Ludwig yesterday for that. But sadly the questions on notice from Minister Albanese's office are always late. It is unfair to the committee and, as a consequence of the late afternoon on Friday, the hardworking people in the secretariat had to work on Friday night and Saturday just to process the questions. I think that is most unreasonable. There is no strategic reason. Bugger it—the questions and the answers are the questions and the answers, and if they are on paper we ought to be entitled to see them in time to get our head around them. They can often be important issues—and I am sure that Senator Fawcett is about to raise important issues—that we need to thoroughly process in the best interests of the Australian public.
"There is no strategic reason. "
does this mean, no matter what, there is no wriggle room??
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, I want to come to the issue of the process of the department to respond to reports of the Senate. You would be aware that a report was tabled into a couple of areas of your responsibility last week. In accordance with various decisions of the Senate the minister has three months to respond. That three-month period will fall right in the middle of the caretaker period, which means that significant safety issues could potentially be stretched out beyond four or five months before resolution, which is unacceptable. Could you tell the committee what your plan is to make sure that those issues are addressed in a timely manner, given the overlapping of significant time frames?
Here again, same message perhaps ????
Why am I having trouble making the 'cock up' model work?, (freely acknowledge NFI how to read 'Polly' speak). But, given the flavour of public comment in yesterdays press and the comments above, a political dunderhead could be forgiven for wondering if, perhaps, there is a move afoot to sweep the mess under the carpet. Although, I expect a Creamy solution is more likely to be applicable; the ministers office must be hellish busy, given the wide range of briefs and the current toxic political climate. Either way, given that no one wants dirty washing done in public, there is a strong case for a behind closed doors solution (frustrating) being implemented. Although I do hear (on the wind) that ICAO can't (dare not) ignore the report and is paying the issue some attention; which makes some sense. Anyone know if ICAO has a mandate to just 'butt in'?: probably not allowed anyway as we have a cunning, registered a difference preventing it.
Seriously though anyone got a clue, given the nature of the report as to what, if anything ICAO can or is allowed to do??? – Leadsled – Creamy???
Interesting passage of play from the opening gambit. Mrdak was doughty in defence, tough competitor but he does seem to mind his manners when dealing with Fawcett, I wonder why. Perhaps the clue is in the NASAG, there was an interesting exchange (pages 138 to 140) which probably best relates to the management of regulatory reform.