Sarcs #
2115 "Most of the additional 58 pages seem to have been gobbled up in a large number of written QONs, some of which would have taken the Senators considerable time to research & compose...interesting?"
Having a friendly bet on how far a glacier will travel in a given amount of time is a lifelong project; you'd need to go back every decade or so, to check your marker; even then at the age of 70 you could probably kick a football further than the marker travelled. We are watching the great glacier race the Truss Flash v the Senate Speedy Bill. The only interesting part is the Fawcett commentary – have a look at the 'Fawcett 263' question posted @2115. You could reasonably expect a brand new CPL to answer that question – it's not a difficult one. However, the considered response is some months away, but more importantly the impetus and relevance of the question is lost, leaving the simple 'beer mat' calculations required wallowing in the mists of time; waiting only to return as some bland statement saying that CASA will 'check' the runway lengths to ensure robust safety is maintained. Your glacier may have progressed more than the question in the six months it takes to get that predictable answer.
Of course the Senate is in a race with the Truss entry – the poser is "Will you adopt the recommendations of the report you commissioned and we paid for? Once again, not a difficult question: check your glacier, no surprises there – in the same time period it is a racing certainty that the glacier will have actually moved.
The Rev. Forsyth report in recommendations 6, 7, 18, and 34 maps out a perfectly acceptable, do-able system for speeding thing up. With an active board and the reforms in place, perhaps the six month hiatus between questions being asked and answers returned could be diminished. The need to spend Senate time trapping slippery creatures in dark corners could be significantly reduced, just for lack of questions. Then, perhaps we could get progress reports instead of a fortune being wasted on producing obvious answers to questions that should not ever need to be asked.
Time could then be spent productively: maybe even on a review system to prevent the double jeopardy horrors of the Quadrio case or the persistent administrative embuggerance inflicted on James. Neither of these cases can be considered with pride or satisfaction. But stand they do, along with so many other instances as examples of just how the system is manipulated, by the unscrupulous as and when required. Peer review not trammelled by an 'in-house', solo ICC would help. Imagine, Boyd + 2 looking over a charge sheet rather than a CASA employed, career minding lawyer – now that beats watching glaciers moving any day.
Aye well – I expect by this time next year a clear decision on the colour scheme for the executive dunny will have been made; but that's the cost of progress.
Toot toot.