Merged: Senate Inquiry
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
Boratous, Agreed! This was after all the same individual who apparently proudly stated 'no manager worth a pinch of salt would or should stay in an assigned position more than 3 years'...He stayed for 7 years.
However, 7 years is not a pinch on some of the others cretins glued to their lust for taxpayer funded excessive salaries while 'harboring' many dirty little secrets.
Your quote below is very true and accurate, and once again with these sorts of facts out there I can see no logical reason as to why Senator Xenaphon would NOT want to investigate this further. One can only hope that CASA purge it's bowels of more built up waste matter.
However, 7 years is not a pinch on some of the others cretins glued to their lust for taxpayer funded excessive salaries while 'harboring' many dirty little secrets.
Your quote below is very true and accurate, and once again with these sorts of facts out there I can see no logical reason as to why Senator Xenaphon would NOT want to investigate this further. One can only hope that CASA purge it's bowels of more built up waste matter.
The problem is of course that this comes several years too late. Harbor was always incompetent - and worse - and it is a pity that neither the Director, nor the Board, nor Messrs Aleck and Farquarson did anything about it for all these years even though they knew about his incompetence (and worse). He should have been sacked as soon as Byron left - instead the new Director promoted him and even put him on the Ethics Committee (shock- he wouldn't know how to spell the word let alone know what it means) - despite warnings and evidence to the contrary. Clearly the Board failed miserably in its oversight role by allowing that to occur. So it's good news - but too late and does no credit on the Director, the Board or the current Deputies.
Good to see Senator X is still keeping the fire lit.
I think if he wasn't Minister Fumblenese would have discretely slid the Inquiry findings of his desk and into the bin!
Senator Fawcett (Lib senator for SA) seems to ask the right questions and he also seems to know what he is talking about!
I think if he wasn't Minister Fumblenese would have discretely slid the Inquiry findings of his desk and into the bin!Senator Fawcett (Lib senator for SA) seems to ask the right questions and he also seems to know what he is talking about!
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
Maybe Nick will drop in on them while they are all swanning around Can'tberra this week? A big safety seminar is taking place, so there will be lots of trough feeding and free fun for all to be had. The Minister is attending also, so it will be a real hoot, all those safety discussions, high level wankery and fun and frivolity, yes, the skies will be much safer now.
More grange hermitage please, snap snap.
More grange hermitage please, snap snap.
Government Response
Finally we get a response from the disengaged Minister's office!!
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...nse_221111.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...nse_221111.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: goulburn
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that was worth waiting for and no wonder the public servants weathered the storm they are back where they started...in control.
There has been no substantive reform, no realistic consideration of the issues raised and business and the regulatory bodies continues as normal.
The question must be why did anyone bother?
The only thing that will hold any player to account is the very thing that none of us want.
There has been no substantive reform, no realistic consideration of the issues raised and business and the regulatory bodies continues as normal.
The question must be why did anyone bother?
The only thing that will hold any player to account is the very thing that none of us want.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Senate Reply - casa Takeover
This reply by "the government" - read casa [I don't think casa deserve the capitals!!]
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...nse_221111.pdf
requires an Industry response - Any takers please PM me
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...nse_221111.pdf
requires an Industry response - Any takers please PM me
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
More Bureaucratic madness.
When trying to deal with this sort of thing, try and get your head around the bureaucratic haze in Sen Barnaby Joyce' latest press release.
Remember Truss is the member for Wide Bay/ 1770 and Katter is the member for Julia Ck and environs.
Senator Conroy stated on 7th September that “the NBN will provide a massive economic boost for the Australian economy, particularly in regional and remote communities.”
Well if you are looking for remote Julia Creek with a population of 500 between Mt Isa and Townsville is your piece de resistance and the Labor Party’s NBN goes right under the town. Surely Senator Conroy would be mugged by logic and lobbied by his regional advocates, Windsor, Oakeshott and Co., to connect to J. C. for Christmas. The town even has the same first name as your boss Stephen! Nope – they bypassed logic and left Julia Creek just as they found it, waiting for wireless, with the vision of Windsor, Gillard and Conroy pushing the big regional telecommunications button in Armidale burning in their retina.
The stoic remote town of Julia Creek, because it has a population of 500, does not qualify for the fibre optic service, even though it runs right under the town. The amazing vision of the Labor Party.
The council has been told by NBN Co that it will cost them $1.14 million to connect and they should just wait for the wireless service.
But why is it that the Town of 1770 with a population of just 80 does qualify for the fibre connection? Why are 30 other towns, many with much less than the magic 500 population figure, getting access to the fibre optic service?
Senator Conroy also said “One of the great benefits provided by the NBN to rural communities will be important eHealth services that will mean people, especially the elderly, will be able to access high end medical support in their own homes and not have to travel great distances to large cities.”
Apparently not if you live in Julia Creek even though the optic fibre cable just beneath them, so close, as they say, if it was a black snake it would bite you. So what was the point in making all those wonderful promises, only to deny people access when the cable turns up?
It is starting to look like a big con Stephen. There is not much point to a railway line without railway stations.
22 December 2011
More information-Matthew Canavan 0458 709433
WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THE ASYLUM?
Remember Truss is the member for Wide Bay/ 1770 and Katter is the member for Julia Ck and environs.
The Regional NBN spin, The NBN reality, The Big Con
Well if you are looking for remote Julia Creek with a population of 500 between Mt Isa and Townsville is your piece de resistance and the Labor Party’s NBN goes right under the town. Surely Senator Conroy would be mugged by logic and lobbied by his regional advocates, Windsor, Oakeshott and Co., to connect to J. C. for Christmas. The town even has the same first name as your boss Stephen! Nope – they bypassed logic and left Julia Creek just as they found it, waiting for wireless, with the vision of Windsor, Gillard and Conroy pushing the big regional telecommunications button in Armidale burning in their retina.
The stoic remote town of Julia Creek, because it has a population of 500, does not qualify for the fibre optic service, even though it runs right under the town. The amazing vision of the Labor Party.
The council has been told by NBN Co that it will cost them $1.14 million to connect and they should just wait for the wireless service.
But why is it that the Town of 1770 with a population of just 80 does qualify for the fibre connection? Why are 30 other towns, many with much less than the magic 500 population figure, getting access to the fibre optic service?
Senator Conroy also said “One of the great benefits provided by the NBN to rural communities will be important eHealth services that will mean people, especially the elderly, will be able to access high end medical support in their own homes and not have to travel great distances to large cities.”
Apparently not if you live in Julia Creek even though the optic fibre cable just beneath them, so close, as they say, if it was a black snake it would bite you. So what was the point in making all those wonderful promises, only to deny people access when the cable turns up?
It is starting to look like a big con Stephen. There is not much point to a railway line without railway stations.
22 December 2011
More information-Matthew Canavan 0458 709433
WHO IS ACTUALLY RUNNING THE ASYLUM?
Although CASA has decided that ICAO writes the bible on licensing requirements, how about considering that it by and large represents member states with little to no General Aviation?
Australia is one of relatively few nations with a large GA industry, and after looking at what the US is doing, CASA appears convinced that Australia needs to adopt practices used by necessity in countries without a pool of experience to draw from.
Joyce 2, Aussie pilots 0
Australia is one of relatively few nations with a large GA industry, and after looking at what the US is doing, CASA appears convinced that Australia needs to adopt practices used by necessity in countries without a pool of experience to draw from.
Joyce 2, Aussie pilots 0
Well it seems that CASA have already thought of everything and have it all in hand. It's twenty years now since CASA gave out exemptions to CAO48 to anyone who asked as a stop gap measure whilst they overhauled the reg, maybe the recommended pay rise will help them finish the job.
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
You are exempted
CASA has issued itself a number of exemptions which it actually does strictly uphold and adhere to:
1) An exemption against having a set of dated workable aviation rules.
2) An exemption that allows it to bypass any ethical code of conduct.
3) Exemption against not being allowed to act maliciously or bully industry.
4) Exemption against not being allowed to be malfeasant.
5) Exemption against using taxpayer funds in a reckless and wasteful manner.
6) Exemption against having talented industry professionals in it's executive management structure.
7) Exemption against having FOI's and AWI's under the age of 90.
8) Exemption against acting unbiased and treating each individual operator in a fair and equitable manner.
9) Exemption against taking any sort of action of any kind against The Rat, ever.
10) Exemption against acting as an independent regulator which operates without political interference or bowing to ministerial meddling.
1) An exemption against having a set of dated workable aviation rules.
2) An exemption that allows it to bypass any ethical code of conduct.
3) Exemption against not being allowed to act maliciously or bully industry.
4) Exemption against not being allowed to be malfeasant.
5) Exemption against using taxpayer funds in a reckless and wasteful manner.
6) Exemption against having talented industry professionals in it's executive management structure.
7) Exemption against having FOI's and AWI's under the age of 90.
8) Exemption against acting unbiased and treating each individual operator in a fair and equitable manner.
9) Exemption against taking any sort of action of any kind against The Rat, ever.
10) Exemption against acting as an independent regulator which operates without political interference or bowing to ministerial meddling.
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
More CASA hypocrisy??
What I find interesting, somewhat ludicrous and totally disconnected is that ICAO have published a policy on ‘Just Culture’. In turn the member states act on that policy and put it into the states regulations, for Australia this is done by CASA.
Below is the statement from ICAO:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/european_community_icao/doc/paper3.pdf
‘’Just Culture is a culture in which front line operators or
others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are
commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.’’
Now as a result of the senate enquiry we see the government has answered point number 19 as follows:
So how is that the Associate Director of CASA write the following disconnected tripe:
Now maybe I am missing something here, maybe I am not an intellect who sits around smoking cigars in a University library, sitting on a leather sofa, hypothesizing, pondering over the deeper things in life or simply sitting around playing with myself while repeating intellectually mattered statements containing fancy wank wording, but Aleck’s statement contradicts or challenges the ICAO and CASA support of Just Culture, does it not? If it does, then this is once again another example of the stupidity of our own Regulator. I mean, if the Regulator doesn’t support or agree with ICAO policy or even their own implemented legislation what hope does industry have??
Some peole obviously get paid too much taxpayer money to fund their ego stroking lifestyles and feed their own self importance at the expense of an aviation industry turning into porridge. And as for CASA's own inernatl 'just culture', well , I rest my case.
Tools.
Below is the statement from ICAO:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air/international_aviation/european_community_icao/doc/paper3.pdf
‘’Just Culture is a culture in which front line operators or
others are not punished for actions, omissions or decisions taken by them that are
commensurate with their experience and training, but where gross negligence, willful violations and destructive acts are not tolerated.’’
Now as a result of the senate enquiry we see the government has answered point number 19 as follows:
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that, in order to enhance ‘just culture’ and open reporting of incidents, aviation operators should ensure that their relevant managers are adequately trained in procedural fairness.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
However, it is noted that CASA’s Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAPS SMS-1(0) - Safety Management Systems for Regular Transport Operations) already refers to concepts of ‘just culture’ in the context of an operators organisation.
The committee recommends that, in order to enhance ‘just culture’ and open reporting of incidents, aviation operators should ensure that their relevant managers are adequately trained in procedural fairness.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
However, it is noted that CASA’s Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAPS SMS-1(0) - Safety Management Systems for Regular Transport Operations) already refers to concepts of ‘just culture’ in the context of an operators organisation.
So how is that the Associate Director of CASA write the following disconnected tripe:
Just Culture or just culture? A cautionary tale
Speaker:
Jonathan Aleck
Date:
12:30pm - 1:30pm, 31 May 2011
‘Just Culture’ is a term and a concept widely, if variably, used and understood generally to describe an organisational environment in which individuals are encouraged to disclose instances of their own or others’ errors and mistakes, without fearing a punitive or disciplinary response, and with a view to providing a basis on which the likelihood of similar errors and mistakes occurring in the future can be reduced.
The objective is a noble one, intended to make the conduct of otherwise beneficial activities involving unavoidable risks of harm, damage, injury or death safer, by fostering a learning environment in which information about inadvertent shortcomings and deficiencies (‘honest mistakes’) are shared openly, free from apprehension of the consequences of fault or blame for ‘wrongdoing’, but without necessarily minimising or eliminating accountability for one’s acts or omissions.
Like other elegantly simple and seemly self-evident ideas whose time has come, ‘just culture’ has attracted a large, supportive and remarkably uncritical following. Its utility has won the virtually unequivocal approbation of a growing number of professionals in the energy and resources, medical, and transportation sectors, amongst other spheres of activity, including those of law and politics.
Without delving deeply into arcane and sometimes dauntingly complex theoretical arguments, ‘justice’ and ‘culture’ can fairly be seen as contested concepts, readily subject to tendentious and disingenuous deployment. Caution is good counsel, from a practical and intellectual perspective alike, and it is in that light that I will consider some real and telling examples of the risks an undiscriminating embrace of ‘just culture’ may entail for the very objectives many of its proponents so enthusiastically endorse.
Jonathan Aleck is Associate Director of Aviation Safety of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). He previously served as Chief Legal Officer and Executive Manager of CASA’s Legal Services Division.
From September 1998 to August 2003, Dr Aleck served as the Representative of Australia on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montréal. Immediately prior to his appointment to the ICAO Council, he served as General Manager of CASA’s Aviation Safety Compliance Division, and before that as Regional Manager of the Authority’s West Region.
Before and since arriving in Australia in 1988, Dr Aleck has combined a professional and academic career as a lawyer, a legal consultant and a university lecturer. He has taught law and politics at the Australian National University (in both the Faculty of Law and the Public Policy Programme), the University of Canberra, the University of Hawaii and the University of Oregon in the United States, and the University of Papua New Guinea. During his tenure on the ICAO Council he was a Visiting Lecturer in the Institute of Air and Space Law (Faculty of Law) at McGill University in Montreal. He currently serves as a Vice-President on the National Executive Council of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law.
Dr Aleck earned his law degree (JD) at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Oregon, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.
Speaker:
Jonathan Aleck
Date:
12:30pm - 1:30pm, 31 May 2011
‘Just Culture’ is a term and a concept widely, if variably, used and understood generally to describe an organisational environment in which individuals are encouraged to disclose instances of their own or others’ errors and mistakes, without fearing a punitive or disciplinary response, and with a view to providing a basis on which the likelihood of similar errors and mistakes occurring in the future can be reduced.
The objective is a noble one, intended to make the conduct of otherwise beneficial activities involving unavoidable risks of harm, damage, injury or death safer, by fostering a learning environment in which information about inadvertent shortcomings and deficiencies (‘honest mistakes’) are shared openly, free from apprehension of the consequences of fault or blame for ‘wrongdoing’, but without necessarily minimising or eliminating accountability for one’s acts or omissions.
Like other elegantly simple and seemly self-evident ideas whose time has come, ‘just culture’ has attracted a large, supportive and remarkably uncritical following. Its utility has won the virtually unequivocal approbation of a growing number of professionals in the energy and resources, medical, and transportation sectors, amongst other spheres of activity, including those of law and politics.
Without delving deeply into arcane and sometimes dauntingly complex theoretical arguments, ‘justice’ and ‘culture’ can fairly be seen as contested concepts, readily subject to tendentious and disingenuous deployment. Caution is good counsel, from a practical and intellectual perspective alike, and it is in that light that I will consider some real and telling examples of the risks an undiscriminating embrace of ‘just culture’ may entail for the very objectives many of its proponents so enthusiastically endorse.
Jonathan Aleck is Associate Director of Aviation Safety of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). He previously served as Chief Legal Officer and Executive Manager of CASA’s Legal Services Division.
From September 1998 to August 2003, Dr Aleck served as the Representative of Australia on the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in Montréal. Immediately prior to his appointment to the ICAO Council, he served as General Manager of CASA’s Aviation Safety Compliance Division, and before that as Regional Manager of the Authority’s West Region.
Before and since arriving in Australia in 1988, Dr Aleck has combined a professional and academic career as a lawyer, a legal consultant and a university lecturer. He has taught law and politics at the Australian National University (in both the Faculty of Law and the Public Policy Programme), the University of Canberra, the University of Hawaii and the University of Oregon in the United States, and the University of Papua New Guinea. During his tenure on the ICAO Council he was a Visiting Lecturer in the Institute of Air and Space Law (Faculty of Law) at McGill University in Montreal. He currently serves as a Vice-President on the National Executive Council of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law.
Dr Aleck earned his law degree (JD) at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Master of Arts degree in political science from the University of Oregon, and a Doctorate of Philosophy in law from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.
Some peole obviously get paid too much taxpayer money to fund their ego stroking lifestyles and feed their own self importance at the expense of an aviation industry turning into porridge. And as for CASA's own inernatl 'just culture', well , I rest my case.
Tools.
Last edited by gobbledock; 30th Dec 2011 at 02:36.
So how is that the Associate Director of CASA write the following disconnected tripe:
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
Oh Centaurus, ye of little faith. Didn't you know aviation safety is based upon such intellectually worded profoundly robust grandiose statements?
Are you unappreciative of all the cigar smoking, brandy sipping, slipper wearing, group hypothesizing sessions spent by these people so they can share such superb wording for all and sundry to ogle over?
My personal favorites of the good doctors statement were 'unequivocal approbation', arcane, tendentious and disengenuous.
Such iconic wisdom. Mix that in with some intellectual knowledge of tribal law and jungle politics and top it off with a dash of Bachelor Of Arts and you have the making of an evening where it would be more fun watching paint dry or watching an elderly retiree picking weeds out of his immaculately manicured acreage one inch at a time!
Funny, the environment I come from is such that people who use such superlative wording usually do so as a cover for the fact they have a tiny pee pee.
Are you unappreciative of all the cigar smoking, brandy sipping, slipper wearing, group hypothesizing sessions spent by these people so they can share such superb wording for all and sundry to ogle over?
My personal favorites of the good doctors statement were 'unequivocal approbation', arcane, tendentious and disengenuous.
Such iconic wisdom. Mix that in with some intellectual knowledge of tribal law and jungle politics and top it off with a dash of Bachelor Of Arts and you have the making of an evening where it would be more fun watching paint dry or watching an elderly retiree picking weeds out of his immaculately manicured acreage one inch at a time!
Funny, the environment I come from is such that people who use such superlative wording usually do so as a cover for the fact they have a tiny pee pee.
such that people who use such superlative wording usually do so as a cover for the fact they have a tiny pee pee.
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
CASA Executive Salaries - oink oink
Compressor Stall, don't worry, I have not felt the need to measure my own pee pee, however I have had the mispleasure of working with a number of individuals who did.
Now, down to buiness:
I thought I would put together a little package to highlight the earnings within the CASA executive group. It’s a nauseating breakdown of where your taxpayer money is going. The details below are ONLY for the executive group, not other staff such as inspectors, plebs, skirt riders and admin people have been included. I have also included the consultancy fees!! As you will see those piggies certainly have their robust snouts planted deeply within the trough.
Suppliers Goods and services Consultancies and service contracts:
2011($’000) = 15,793 and 2010($’000) = 14,232. Yes indeed, millions and millions on spent on those sweet Consultants.
Director’s remuneration:
The number of non-executive directors of the Authority included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.
Less than $150,000 = 4 .Total number of non-executive directors of the Authority 4. Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors 2011= $315,798, 2010 = $280,681
Senior Executive Remuneration Expense for the Reporting Period:
Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2011, 2010 and Short-term employee benefits: Salary (including annual leave taken):
2011 - $4,125,845
2010 - $3,501,683
Annual leave accrued
2011 – $415,990
2010 - $310,457
Performance bonus
2011- $643,516
2010 - $458,704
Allowances
2011 - $109,969
2010 - $187,539
Total short-term employee benefits
2011 - $ 5,295,320
2011 - $4,458,383
Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322
Total post-employment benefits
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322
Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave
2011- $186,414
2010 - $ 148,499
Termination benefits
$150,271
Total =
2011 = $ 6,026,124
2010 = $5,206,475
Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus Paid for Substantive Senior Management -
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements) I have included 2011 only:
Of interest is the executive positions grew by 4 since 2010
Variable Elements: With the exception of performance bonuses, variable elements are not included in the ‘Fixed Elements and Bonus Paid’ table above.
The following variable elements are available as part of the senior executives’ remuneration:
(a) Performance bonuses: Bonuses were based on the performance rating of each individual. The maximum bonus that an individual could receive was 15 per cent of his/her total employment cost.
(b) On average senior executives are entitled to the following leave entitlements: Annual Leave (AL): entitled to 20 days (2010: 20 days) each full year worked (pro-rata for part-time SES) Personal Leave (PL): entitled to 18 days (2010: 18 days) or part-time equivalent; and Long Service Leave (LSL): in accordance with Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976.
(c) Senior executives are members of one of the following superannuation funds: Australian Government Employee Superannuation Trust (AGEST): this fund is for senior executives who were employed for a defined period. Employer contributions were set at 9 per cent (2010: 9 per cent); Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS): this scheme is closed to new members, and employer contributions were averaged 28.3 per cent (2010: 24 per cent); Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS): this scheme is closed to new members, with current employer contributions set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent); Public Sector Accumulation Plan (PSSap): employer contributions were set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent), and the fund has been in operation since July 2005; and Other: There were some senior executives who had their own superannuation arrangements (e.g. self-managed superannuation funds). Their superannuation employer contributions were set between 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent (2010: 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent).
(d) Variable allowances: Superannuation payments were provided to all senior executives: $489,675 (2010: $357,830); and Accommodation allowance up to $28,500 for the Director.
And this – During the reporting period, there were 31 employees whose salary plus performance bonus were $150,000 or more. In 2010 there were only 15. This was calculated by reference to the gross payments line of the group certificate. These employees did not have a role as senior executive and were therefore not disclosed as senior executives.
And do not forget that each other executive receives a daily away allowance commensurate with their salary. The average is around $300.00 - $450.00 PER DAY. And accommodation and sundries are already paid for. So if you go to say an ICAO function and they provide lunch and nibblies then your $450.00 allowance per day is a nice additional earner on top of those chunky salaries.
What I like is the apparent need to offer salaries competitive with the non-public service sector, yet the non-public service sector makes you work your absolute ass off, these trough dwellers sit on their fat clackers doing sweet FA.
Now, down to buiness:
I thought I would put together a little package to highlight the earnings within the CASA executive group. It’s a nauseating breakdown of where your taxpayer money is going. The details below are ONLY for the executive group, not other staff such as inspectors, plebs, skirt riders and admin people have been included. I have also included the consultancy fees!! As you will see those piggies certainly have their robust snouts planted deeply within the trough.
All aboard the gravy train, toot toot. Next stop is the taxpayer purse, toot toot!
2011 / 2010 Highlights
Suppliers Goods and services Consultancies and service contracts:
2011($’000) = 15,793 and 2010($’000) = 14,232. Yes indeed, millions and millions on spent on those sweet Consultants.
Director’s remuneration:
The number of non-executive directors of the Authority included in these figures are shown below in the relevant remuneration bands.
Less than $150,000 = 4 .Total number of non-executive directors of the Authority 4. Total remuneration received or due and receivable by directors 2011= $315,798, 2010 = $280,681
Senior Executive Remuneration Expense for the Reporting Period:
Total expense recognised in relation to senior executive employment 2011, 2010 and Short-term employee benefits: Salary (including annual leave taken):
2011 - $4,125,845
2010 - $3,501,683
Annual leave accrued
2011 – $415,990
2010 - $310,457
Performance bonus
2011- $643,516
2010 - $458,704
Allowances
2011 - $109,969
2010 - $187,539
Total short-term employee benefits
2011 - $ 5,295,320
2011 - $4,458,383
Post-employment benefits:
Superannuation
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322
Total post-employment benefits
2011 - $544,390
2010 - $ 449,322
Other long-term benefits:
Long-service leave
2011- $186,414
2010 - $ 148,499
Termination benefits
$150,271
Total =
2011 = $ 6,026,124
2010 = $5,206,475
Average Annual Remuneration and Bonus Paid for Substantive Senior Management -
Total remuneration (including part-time arrangements) I have included 2011 only:
Salary range Execs Actual Salary Bonus
$150,000 - $179, 999 (6) $166, 044 $15, 928
$180, 209 - $209,999 (7) $199,740 $22,244
$210,000 - $239, 999 (1) $232,001 $36,000
$240,000 - $269,999 (5) $255,648 $42,338
$450, 000 - $479, 999 (1) $479, 404 - - - - - -
Of interest is the executive positions grew by 4 since 2010
Variable Elements: With the exception of performance bonuses, variable elements are not included in the ‘Fixed Elements and Bonus Paid’ table above.
The following variable elements are available as part of the senior executives’ remuneration:
(a) Performance bonuses: Bonuses were based on the performance rating of each individual. The maximum bonus that an individual could receive was 15 per cent of his/her total employment cost.
(b) On average senior executives are entitled to the following leave entitlements: Annual Leave (AL): entitled to 20 days (2010: 20 days) each full year worked (pro-rata for part-time SES) Personal Leave (PL): entitled to 18 days (2010: 18 days) or part-time equivalent; and Long Service Leave (LSL): in accordance with Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976.
(c) Senior executives are members of one of the following superannuation funds: Australian Government Employee Superannuation Trust (AGEST): this fund is for senior executives who were employed for a defined period. Employer contributions were set at 9 per cent (2010: 9 per cent); Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS): this scheme is closed to new members, and employer contributions were averaged 28.3 per cent (2010: 24 per cent); Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (PSS): this scheme is closed to new members, with current employer contributions set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent); Public Sector Accumulation Plan (PSSap): employer contributions were set at 15.4 per cent (2010: 15.4 per cent), and the fund has been in operation since July 2005; and Other: There were some senior executives who had their own superannuation arrangements (e.g. self-managed superannuation funds). Their superannuation employer contributions were set between 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent (2010: 9 per cent to 15.4 per cent).
(d) Variable allowances: Superannuation payments were provided to all senior executives: $489,675 (2010: $357,830); and Accommodation allowance up to $28,500 for the Director.
And this – During the reporting period, there were 31 employees whose salary plus performance bonus were $150,000 or more. In 2010 there were only 15. This was calculated by reference to the gross payments line of the group certificate. These employees did not have a role as senior executive and were therefore not disclosed as senior executives.
And do not forget that each other executive receives a daily away allowance commensurate with their salary. The average is around $300.00 - $450.00 PER DAY. And accommodation and sundries are already paid for. So if you go to say an ICAO function and they provide lunch and nibblies then your $450.00 allowance per day is a nice additional earner on top of those chunky salaries.
What I like is the apparent need to offer salaries competitive with the non-public service sector, yet the non-public service sector makes you work your absolute ass off, these trough dwellers sit on their fat clackers doing sweet FA.
A very Merry year indeed for Fort Fumbles supposedly finest!
Last edited by gobbledock; 2nd Jan 2012 at 21:03.
---- but Aleck’s statement contradicts or challenges the ICAO and CASA support of Just Culture, does it not?
It is a huge leap to assume that:
(1) The CASA Kulture actually supports the ICAO Just Culture, or even interprets Just Culture as ICAO sees it. I think, to CASA, it is just culture.
(2) CASA sees a genuine Just Culture approach as producing better air safety outcomes than produced by the present complex, convoluted and contradictory mass of criminal law that constitutes aviation law and enforcement in Australia.
A good example of the same words meaning different things is the Australian approach to Safety Management Systems, which (if you understand the underlying philosophy) turns the ICAO recommendations on their head, so that SMS is rapidly just becoming another "enforcement tool" in Australia.
Having said all that, it is Dr. Aleck who is probably one of, if not the only, senior CASA executive who actually understand the ICAO intent of the Just Culture, probably the reason he is no longer head of the Legal Services Branch (or whatever it is now called) ----- too much Just Culture equals too few convictions.
As I am certain we would all agree, absolute enforcement of the letter of the law (or whatever I, as a CASA FOI/AWI thinks it is) is the best way to enforce air safety.
However, given how little progress we have made, in so may years, in improving our air safety outcomes (particularly compared to US) we obviously need more of it, and harder.
Because it couldn't possibly be that the whole approach in Australia is wrong, could it????
Tootle pip!!