Although senators had sought parliamentary privilege for people and organisations who lodge submissions, it has been explained that under the parliamentary rules, privilege can only be conferred on proceedings that are in fact part of the Parliamentary process, whereas the ASRR’s review is at the behest of the Minister, not the Parliament but is not an instrument of the parliament.
This is a bit too much like the now infamous interpretation of "air transport" used to squeeze airport leases to a satisfactory conclusion for my taste. Give the review to the Senate under Pel Air recommendation 13, perhaps after we get the minuscule 's long awaited response (at some point in the distant future).
"The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes...."
That way people who feel they need confidentiality will get it by being able to give evidence 'in camera'...just a thought?? Hate to think we would have to revisit R13 at a later date just to salvage the integrity of the Minister...now that would be a waste.
[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment, which is a substantial measure itself, because it used to be the Head of Government Security’s safe. We put anything in there that we’ve been given; we require an extra degree of security around it; and we already have one document in there.
“Everything potentially sensitive will be kept in the safe; it can only be accessed by one person and that person is not me; it’s one person who is general manager here. So even if I want to look at something there it’s got to go back to him. Anything we put in a safe we are not copying, there is an original in the safe, and that’s it. So if someone makes a confidential submission and wants it totally protected we can do that; no one can refer to it, and it goes back in the safe when the panel’s finished with it. What it boils down to I think, is if people don’t tell us what they want to tell us, we can’t do anything about it.
Pause: just for a second, and consider the practicalities of this fatuous statement. They are expecting 300 submissions, they have one 'key holder' and no mention of a document 'log in - log out' system. Anyone with practical experience of committee work knows that to manage 300 documents over a period of what, six months, what happens; and it's just not going to work.
I think if somebody tried to extract vengeance because of a submission to our review, it would be pretty obvious that that’s what’s happened, and I just don’t think CASA would be that unwise.
I think the Vicar has only ever seen CASA at work through the haze generated over the trough at the happy, clappy, feel good, all mates together "Safe Skies" circus. So when this establishment figure turns up to have a 'chat' you can reasonably expect to be politely listened to – but will you be heard?
The Panel acknowledges that all the submissions including confidential submissions may be made available to ‘interested government departments and government instrumentalities under certain circumstances
Add to this a seriously 'secret squirrel' review, this panel could spend the next six months ducking in and out of the local cat houses, boozing in bordellos, riding skateboards around the park, sparing some little time between morning tea and lunch to "chat" with industry; then hire some catamite to script a smooth 60 pages on glossy paper. Transparent – I think not.
Nope, the high priest of the establishment is going to have to do a lot better than the closing speech of the last 'safe skies' stitch up to convince the IOS, anyone hear it? 10 minutes of thank you and platitude, not a positive statement in sight except a determination to do it all again. Is the mystery wielder of the wet lettuce leaf finally unmasked?
Speaking of wet lettuce - I note Phelan who is usually big on word counts devotes 810 words to the Forsyth saga and a paltry 172 to the potential of it all becoming just another round of old bollocks.
Now the other thing that keeps niggling at me is the exit of Mr Hart from the ICC. Now I know we are looking at a couple of years ago now since he resigned, but why does a man of integrity, sound judgement and fairness just pull the pin overnight? It would be great if Nick and friends could question him under parliamentary privilege?
I for one would dearly love to hear what the inestimable Hart has to say in interview, maybe when the Senate crew get hold of this imbroglio - some time next year (perhaps).
Added - While I'm 'at it' comrade Sarcs seems to have hit the wrong thread (maybe) anyway, it's worth a read –
HERE – on Pprune. It looks as though W. Entsch (Wazza) has added some fuel to the fire – sorry no link – Try Torres Post.
Boogar !!- I omitted the robust Freudian slip. (Big smile).
[We] even have a safe in the office I’m sitting in at the moment,
There you see, all tucked up 'sitting' in the safe; dreadful Grand ma, just awful.