Aviation Policy and Administration in Australia - Some interesting facts
Come on grip-pipe, take a good grip of your pipe and continue to give it a good shake!
So many have enjoyed your balanced and informed view.
If you go absent while in active duty then we all know who the winners will be!
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
So many have enjoyed your balanced and informed view.
If you go absent while in active duty then we all know who the winners will be!
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An annotated copy of the following is doing the email circuit at present with special emphasis on CASA as it fits into the mould. Perhaps it is time to again air this article;
The rise and rise of the regulators
Robin Speed
From: The Australian
January 15, 2010 12:00AM
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
The rise and rise of the regulators
Robin Speed
From: The Australian
January 15, 2010 12:00AM
IN 2009, more than 50,000 pages of new laws were enacted at the federal, state and territory levels. These were in addition to the 100,000s of pages of existing laws.
The consequences are serious. The first is that Australia will cease to be a world leader in being governed in accordance with the rule of law, and instead become ruled by law (there being a fundamental difference). Secondly, the rule of law will be progressively replaced by the rule of the regulator, the antithesis of the rule of law.
As the number and complexities of laws increase, there is a corresponding decrease in knowing and voluntarily observing the laws by the community. And, as it becomes practically impossible for the community to know, let alone apply the law, ensuring compliance is passed to the persons charged with administering the laws - such as ASIC, ACCC, ATO - the regulators. However, it is not practical for the regulators to enforce the mass of laws against everyone, nor even against one person, all the time. They therefore announce how they will apply the law, impose penalties on those who act otherwise, and reward those who act in accordance with their blessings. A few are prosecuted as a warning to the rest of the community. In this way, the rule of the regulator begins.
The result is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the individual and the law. Increasingly, the relationship is not of the individual knowing and complying with what the law states, but of knowing and complying with what the regulators state the law states, and then knowing the extent to which the regulators will apply the law as stated by them.
For many, the new relationship focuses on not being seen by the regulators; keeping the lowest possible profile on those matters that the regulators prioritise for enforcement. What is of practical importance is the relationship of the individual with the regulators. For in such an environment few have the time, fortitude or money to be visible to the regulators and to apply the law in a way that differs from the one taken by the regulators. This new relationship can also be readily observed by the practical necessity of going cap in hand to the regulators for approval to carry out many transactions. For example, in the last eight years the ATO has issued more than 80,000 private rulings on what it says the law says (these rulings became law to the applicant, regardless of what the High Court might declare the law to mean for the rest of the community). No new law administers itself. More and more people are required to be employed by regulators to enforce an increasing number of laws. This becomes difficult, and the next stage in the shift to regulator rule begins.
One of the first signs of this shift is the conferral on the regulators of more and more powers of search, access to private property, detention, telephone tapping, together with the increase in penalties. This happens not because a material number of Australians have suddenly become terrorists or members of organised crime. Rather, the intimidation of existing powers is believed insufficient to obtain compliance, so greater powers and harsher penalties are deemed necessary. Yet the futility of forcing compliance in this way was seen centuries ago by the penalty of hanging for stealing a loaf of bread. Further, the regulators increasingly find it difficult before an independent court to obtain a conviction. The regulators know that a crime has been committed but are frustrated because they have not the powers to get the evidence or get the court to agree with their view of the law. For those who doubt whether Australia is at this stage, they need look no further than the recent unsuccessful prosecutions by ASIC.
One of the other signs of the rule of the regulator is the attempt to reverse the onus of proof so that the regulators can get convictions to send a clear message to the rest of the community. The Australian courts are a real impediment to regulators in this regard as they insist that no one is presumed to be guilty unless proved so. However, if an Act reverses the onus of proof a court can do nothing. The legislative attempts to reverse the onus of proof come in several forms, often behind a government announcement (regardless of political persuasion) that it is "streamlining" or "codifying" the existing laws. This is often accompanied by government publicity demonising the group to be subject to the new law. It is fundamental to the Australian way of life that everyone, whether an alleged terrorist or member of organised crime group, or an ordinary Australian, is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Any attempts to weaken that principle must be strongly and loudly resisted.
Robin Speed is president of the Rule of Law Association of Australia.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest we subcontract CASA out to The Mafia.
At least we would all know where we stood in the scheme of things and be better off for it.
At least we would all know where we stood in the scheme of things and be better off for it.
I for one can only surmise; as the Pollies don't listen or care, the Public Service mandarins don't listen or care,
It is neither of the above.
Re-read the Robin Speed article.
Then think about a finding of the "Lane" report in the mid-1980's, which identified the "mystique of air safety" as the mechanism to bluff politicians and non-aviation bureaucrats into believing that "aviation safety" and its maintenance is a specialty known only to the "air safety experts" --- and should be left to them.
In this scenario, the industry, at any level, is the enemy of air safety, and the "public" must be protected from "the industry".
Of course, the general public is right on side with this approach, , "they know" that "Australia's air safety experts" and "Australia's world's best air safety regulations" are the reason that Australia has "the world's best air safety".
Sadly we don't have the world's best air safety record, and never have had. But you would never know from the spin.
"Jet fatalities" are not the only measure of air safety. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that Australia's jet fleet is so small that nil jet fatalities is statistically meaningless, and certainly not a measure of "world's best air safety record" brought about by "world's best air safety regulations".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defeating Fort Fumble on any issue has as much chance as Hoges does of beating the ATO and receiving a compensation payout !!
And Frank, the Mafia actually have prosessess and procedures that work for them, so even the Mafia would struggle to understand how Fort Fumble operates ( and I dont mean that disrespectfully for obvious reasons).The only way to fix the problem is to start fresh, scrap the entire structure/unit/system and build anew from the ground up.Just like building a brand new house next to an old dilapitated farmhouse, as soon as the brand new home is ready for occupation then fill it with the new and grab a bulldozer and a jerry can and remove the old ( metaphorically speaking).....
And Frank, the Mafia actually have prosessess and procedures that work for them, so even the Mafia would struggle to understand how Fort Fumble operates ( and I dont mean that disrespectfully for obvious reasons).The only way to fix the problem is to start fresh, scrap the entire structure/unit/system and build anew from the ground up.Just like building a brand new house next to an old dilapitated farmhouse, as soon as the brand new home is ready for occupation then fill it with the new and grab a bulldozer and a jerry can and remove the old ( metaphorically speaking).....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then perhaps, we subcontract CASA to The Kiwi's and burn and bull doze the present structure while the new one is being built.
Frank,
Why NZ regs? It's great that they work for them but if Australia wants to be taken seriously why not join the big league and follow the FAA or EASA lead?
Just wondering, but ....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Why NZ regs? It's great that they work for them but if Australia wants to be taken seriously why not join the big league and follow the FAA or EASA lead?
Just wondering, but ....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK; Michael Somare could run the show by himself. PNG is close and they need the cash and...........I believe they are an ICAO signatory.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$16,273,973 spent on 'consultants
EDIT to add.
Aposter here claims in his public profile, that he is from CASA-khstan.
I'm guessing they don't call it Fort Fumble or The Principality any more.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks gentleman. No don't think I can give up now, nothing better to do these days so might as well keep trying, lost too many close friends in this business over the years not to.
Frank, liked that post from Mr Speed, it is a significant legal, social and economic problem as he outlines. His point that the regulators are generally defeated if put to the test in a Court is well established with CASA their failure rate is 1 in 2 in the Courts. The others probably roll over just to be done with it.
CASA is well and truly down that path. As I see it they never really set out to add more but were allowed to carry over the monumental regulatory suite they have which was a left over from the days of DCA and the infancy of aviation. Now like all regulators when they stuff it up they immediately seek stronger powers so by default they cover up their incompetence, laziness and stupidity by making everything and anything an offence of some sort, that way they can get you whenever they like. It is the stupid sods of politicians who have acquiesed to this rule by regulator by stealth and because they like it as well, that way they do not have to do any deep thinking about anything, can hide behind the regulatory activity and then claim to have right on their side. As I remarked in an earlier post on another topic we are now cursed by the 'law and order' mentatility in public life, where the answer to every ill, every failing and each and every little inconvieniance suffered by Bloggs is to be met with more enforcement and more law and more police (or regulatory staff).
First check out the CARs and CASRs and see how many breaches are now of a 'Strict Liability' Nature which prevent a general rebuttal in a Court of Law on the facts presented unless one has the ability to prove 'mistaken fact' not impossible but difficult. Natural Justice issues are also possible but this is going to be an expensive road for anybody. So the scales are already tipped in favour of the regulator and as we have see they have been funded to unbelievably extravagant levels so can throw millions of taxpayers dollars at you if they want to and generally do.
Second, CASA have issued over 15,000 (probably more but I could not be bothered to check) dispensations against their own rules. In such a system the capacity for favouritism and bias to be fostered is monumental and more than self evident, that said, it is also indicative of how useless the regs are and how convoluted they are that basically everyone has to get a blessing from CASA via a dispensation to do what is sensible or practicable. As most would agree it is a deplorable way to do business.
Imagine how much money operators could save, including the mangy roo, by reducing their regulatory compliance burden. Probably all start making a decent profit and return on capital.
Anyway we could improve safety incrementally but regulation improves nothing. We are probably as safe as we can get as humans and quite frankly the research shows what we see now is the f*!@kup factor and not much will change that really. More does not mean better and more does not mean worse, more is more.
Anyway new motto in life to ''keep sticking it up them - they don't like it up em'.
Frank, liked that post from Mr Speed, it is a significant legal, social and economic problem as he outlines. His point that the regulators are generally defeated if put to the test in a Court is well established with CASA their failure rate is 1 in 2 in the Courts. The others probably roll over just to be done with it.
CASA is well and truly down that path. As I see it they never really set out to add more but were allowed to carry over the monumental regulatory suite they have which was a left over from the days of DCA and the infancy of aviation. Now like all regulators when they stuff it up they immediately seek stronger powers so by default they cover up their incompetence, laziness and stupidity by making everything and anything an offence of some sort, that way they can get you whenever they like. It is the stupid sods of politicians who have acquiesed to this rule by regulator by stealth and because they like it as well, that way they do not have to do any deep thinking about anything, can hide behind the regulatory activity and then claim to have right on their side. As I remarked in an earlier post on another topic we are now cursed by the 'law and order' mentatility in public life, where the answer to every ill, every failing and each and every little inconvieniance suffered by Bloggs is to be met with more enforcement and more law and more police (or regulatory staff).
First check out the CARs and CASRs and see how many breaches are now of a 'Strict Liability' Nature which prevent a general rebuttal in a Court of Law on the facts presented unless one has the ability to prove 'mistaken fact' not impossible but difficult. Natural Justice issues are also possible but this is going to be an expensive road for anybody. So the scales are already tipped in favour of the regulator and as we have see they have been funded to unbelievably extravagant levels so can throw millions of taxpayers dollars at you if they want to and generally do.
Second, CASA have issued over 15,000 (probably more but I could not be bothered to check) dispensations against their own rules. In such a system the capacity for favouritism and bias to be fostered is monumental and more than self evident, that said, it is also indicative of how useless the regs are and how convoluted they are that basically everyone has to get a blessing from CASA via a dispensation to do what is sensible or practicable. As most would agree it is a deplorable way to do business.
Imagine how much money operators could save, including the mangy roo, by reducing their regulatory compliance burden. Probably all start making a decent profit and return on capital.
Anyway we could improve safety incrementally but regulation improves nothing. We are probably as safe as we can get as humans and quite frankly the research shows what we see now is the f*!@kup factor and not much will change that really. More does not mean better and more does not mean worse, more is more.
Anyway new motto in life to ''keep sticking it up them - they don't like it up em'.
Let me summarise so far.
When you put humans in charge of regulation there are imperfections and this results in sub-optimal safety outcomes.
When you put humans in charge of aircraft there are imperfections and this results in sub-optimal safety outcomes.
So, the last thing we want is regulators and pilots in the one aircraft as we run double the chance of sub-optimal outcomes.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
When you put humans in charge of regulation there are imperfections and this results in sub-optimal safety outcomes.
When you put humans in charge of aircraft there are imperfections and this results in sub-optimal safety outcomes.
So, the last thing we want is regulators and pilots in the one aircraft as we run double the chance of sub-optimal outcomes.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Last edited by Frank Burden; 6th Sep 2010 at 08:28.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now we have another three years of Albanese.
Remind me again what his aviation policy was? The White Paper wasn't it.
Remind me again what his aviation policy was? The White Paper wasn't it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Country NSW Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, if I recall Albanese was proposing yet another study into a study into the study into the study into the feasibility and need for another airport in Sydney. In the interim, there is another train load of cash for airport security, and enough to resurface one regional airport and that was about it. They have a white paper which was distributed to use in case you ran out of soft white paper. Other than that steady as she goes.
Meanwhile if in doubt they will drag out the 12 x 6 glossy phots and graphs to show how it is all blue sky and growth and in 12 months time ramp up the exicse to pay for some more regulators, after all we desperately need stronger regulation, shovel out about half a mil to the DAS of CASA and about the same for the board and they can all sit around and say 'what a good boy am I'.
Not to mention the ten second grabs for the nightly news of posed consternation and promises to keep the travelling public safe because a turbine attached to some one's aeroplane shats itself or a wheel bursts, some other poor bugger has bought in PNG and grave tit tutting about foreign carriers now and then. As I said steady as she goes.
Meanwhile if in doubt they will drag out the 12 x 6 glossy phots and graphs to show how it is all blue sky and growth and in 12 months time ramp up the exicse to pay for some more regulators, after all we desperately need stronger regulation, shovel out about half a mil to the DAS of CASA and about the same for the board and they can all sit around and say 'what a good boy am I'.
Not to mention the ten second grabs for the nightly news of posed consternation and promises to keep the travelling public safe because a turbine attached to some one's aeroplane shats itself or a wheel bursts, some other poor bugger has bought in PNG and grave tit tutting about foreign carriers now and then. As I said steady as she goes.
I have someone on the inside that is feeding me information direct from the Amber Office.
Plan A was to ensure as many as possible regional airports needed security screening to give the local unemployed something to do. This general principle is now being further developed. But wait for the new twist following the screamingly successful election!
Now that we have a new Government assisted by some well placed independents, Plan B is to install a bullet train between Tamworth and Port Macquarie. All international flights to an from Australia will originate or terminate at one of these two gateway locations. Four people will be employed to fill every job.
This will mean that John and Mary Citizen will use the NSW and other State rail services for onward and efficient travel off the Tamworth/Port Macquarie nexus route.
The railway unions will be much happier and the country will be much richer as result as we all have a share.
All very simple really, you just need to use your imagination and know how to say 'oink oink' at the right time.
The Screamer and his team (note lower case 't') will have very little to do so they will have their function changed to include rail regulation. The Minister will make statements that 'there will be a brilliant set of new regulations expected by mid-2011 including a definitive rule on everything imaginable'. And we will all praise the deserving multitudes.
(Alby Neesa knows that the Screamer and his team will fail to deliver but when you are in Government it is about saying something about what may happen in the future rather than delivering anything which could possibly be construed as an outcome. Those elections come around so quickly everyone will have forgotten anyway!)
Meanwhile, The Screamer and the team will be able to hold meetings, public consultations, conduct the public wringing of hands, the ceremonial shrugs of its not our fault blame but look at the OLDP, and generally spend as many dollars as they need to meet their public but indolent statements of progress.
When something happens The Screamer will tell anyone that its not his fault as he didn't want them to operate in Australia anyway so they took their problems offshore. Bloody good outcome all around!
All too unbelievable I know but don't be surprised if you see the Australian Transport Safety Agency (ATSA) emerge from the post election celebrations.
Remember, you heard the word from Frank first but .....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Plan A was to ensure as many as possible regional airports needed security screening to give the local unemployed something to do. This general principle is now being further developed. But wait for the new twist following the screamingly successful election!
Now that we have a new Government assisted by some well placed independents, Plan B is to install a bullet train between Tamworth and Port Macquarie. All international flights to an from Australia will originate or terminate at one of these two gateway locations. Four people will be employed to fill every job.
This will mean that John and Mary Citizen will use the NSW and other State rail services for onward and efficient travel off the Tamworth/Port Macquarie nexus route.
The railway unions will be much happier and the country will be much richer as result as we all have a share.
All very simple really, you just need to use your imagination and know how to say 'oink oink' at the right time.
The Screamer and his team (note lower case 't') will have very little to do so they will have their function changed to include rail regulation. The Minister will make statements that 'there will be a brilliant set of new regulations expected by mid-2011 including a definitive rule on everything imaginable'. And we will all praise the deserving multitudes.
(Alby Neesa knows that the Screamer and his team will fail to deliver but when you are in Government it is about saying something about what may happen in the future rather than delivering anything which could possibly be construed as an outcome. Those elections come around so quickly everyone will have forgotten anyway!)
Meanwhile, The Screamer and the team will be able to hold meetings, public consultations, conduct the public wringing of hands, the ceremonial shrugs of its not our fault blame but look at the OLDP, and generally spend as many dollars as they need to meet their public but indolent statements of progress.
When something happens The Screamer will tell anyone that its not his fault as he didn't want them to operate in Australia anyway so they took their problems offshore. Bloody good outcome all around!
All too unbelievable I know but don't be surprised if you see the Australian Transport Safety Agency (ATSA) emerge from the post election celebrations.
Remember, you heard the word from Frank first but .....
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
steady as she goes
Remember, just because youre paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
Don't worry- be happy.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation has a new look
Albanese has expressed his political maturity of late by ditching the specs on a few occasions.
Did an angry person hit him during a senate hearing perhaps ?
Or is it his way of creating more transparency, broadening his outlook upon aviation ? Maybe it was a ploy to attract more of the female vote ? Or maybe it is an attemp to change one's appearance and blend in with the crowd in case Bob 'mad bob' Katter spots him ?
Did an angry person hit him during a senate hearing perhaps ?
Or is it his way of creating more transparency, broadening his outlook upon aviation ? Maybe it was a ploy to attract more of the female vote ? Or maybe it is an attemp to change one's appearance and blend in with the crowd in case Bob 'mad bob' Katter spots him ?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
did you hear the one about A charity pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenic Homosexuals that descended into chaos when somebody shouted ' He's behind you.
did you hear the one about A charity pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenic Homosexuals that descended into chaos when somebody shouted ' He's behind you.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCA
DCA Department of Civil Aviation used to be retired airline pilots, air traffic controllers, etc, all of whom had an aviation back-ground and therefore to one point or another, a genuine interest in aviation and an agenda to implement viable regulation.
The only (first step required) way to restore such integrity is to re-instate such people to the 'board' prepared to contribute at a volunteery level and eventually dismiss most self-serving fat cats.
The only (first step required) way to restore such integrity is to re-instate such people to the 'board' prepared to contribute at a volunteery level and eventually dismiss most self-serving fat cats.