Merged: Senate Inquiry
They failed to mention ‘his’ gender reassignment… 
Another patsy for the Frankenstein to consume.
I’m sure he’ll be extraordinarily well advised by a loyal team who’ll be behind him all the way.
The dynamic 2 star duo are going to be a lot of fun to watch at Estimates.
(PS: RIP GA in Australia.)
Another patsy for the Frankenstein to consume.
I’m sure he’ll be extraordinarily well advised by a loyal team who’ll be behind him all the way.
The dynamic 2 star duo are going to be a lot of fun to watch at Estimates.
(PS: RIP GA in Australia.)
Management: "What do you mean there is no one with any experience to recruit?"
Chief Pilot: "Well Sir we don't have any GA airports, or Industry, so people are not learning to fly anymore."
Management: "We will just start an MPL program, no one needs those bug smasher flying skills anymore. After all it's just a big computer game!"
The new generation.
Lets hope we are all pleasantly surprised
Chief Pilot: "Well Sir we don't have any GA airports, or Industry, so people are not learning to fly anymore."
Management: "We will just start an MPL program, no one needs those bug smasher flying skills anymore. After all it's just a big computer game!"
The new generation.
Lets hope we are all pleasantly surprised
It doesn't seem that anyone else has made the point about the new DAS having been a former test pilot. So what? Glad you asked. What it means is that the only Senator with any aviation experience has just been trumped by the new DAS with equivalent if not greater aviation experience. From my experience with former military pilots they tend to hang on to their deference of the senior rank even in civvie life. Those with greater knowledge may correct me but I'm sure an AVM outranks an LC. Mrdak has once again demonstrated why he is the master of manipulation when it comes to the PS versus the Parliament. I'm sure AVM Skidmore has dealt with PS Mandarins before but of course now he is working for one. An interesting contest.
No contest.
Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.
A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it.
Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.
A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta hand it to you Lookleft, an astute post. I hadn't really thought about the "Skidmore vs Fawcett knowledge and experience"side of things
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
'Wake Up Terry' is also a former test pilot however he is flat out staying awake for his midday Bonox or managing to get through his hourly bladder test these days! Never mind, I'm sure he will get along well with Skidmore, swap a few test pilot stories, just hope the DAS doesn't find a horse head in his bed
And Creamy, you are ever so naughty. I had already thought what you just said, but I said to self 'self, do I post these thoughts, or do I let the new DAS commence his new role (January?) before I pass comment on how he is settling in'. But just like a Brisbane FOI at 'The Pink' on a Friday afternoon I didn't want to fire off too early! But you beat me to it.....
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
'Wake Up Terry' is also a former test pilot however he is flat out staying awake for his midday Bonox or managing to get through his hourly bladder test these days! Never mind, I'm sure he will get along well with Skidmore, swap a few test pilot stories, just hope the DAS doesn't find a horse head in his bed
And Creamy, you are ever so naughty. I had already thought what you just said, but I said to self 'self, do I post these thoughts, or do I let the new DAS commence his new role (January?) before I pass comment on how he is settling in'. But just like a Brisbane FOI at 'The Pink' on a Friday afternoon I didn't want to fire off too early! But you beat me to it.....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A figure head, for the Captains bed?
The interest now is in who will be appointed to hold his jacket and do the heavy lifting. We must pray to our pagan gods of choice that no one 'internal' gets promoted. Skidmore (temptation resisted) will need a Paul Tyrell and a Mike Smith "type" to back him up; as he will have precious little knowledge of what makes an airline tick and sweet bugger all idea of how GA lives on the razors edge. He will have Fawcett – Semper Fidelis and all that. (Nice one Lefty, Choc frog standard....). Mark you, Cosgrove (as a military example) never cut the mustard on the Qantas board, rolled about in the clover with the rest of them. Anyway there is a meeting Friday, 'we' apparently need to convince the new boy that Part 61 is a crock and perhaps he'll throw it back down the cesspit it came from, where it belongs: we must do this for free after CASA spent gods know what producing a crippled beast, to harmonise with the Frankenstein choir.
We (IOS) will soon see if the new boy has any bollocks, brains, integrity and resolve. The first thing; as a gift to a badly mauled, disillusioned, cynical industry should be to put the brakes on this 800 page Part 61 aberration; scale it down to a NZ sensible size (with slight modifications) and have an indaba with industry, to see how best 'we' manage the monster. Mind you, if he can't work it out for himself what, I ask, is the point in hiring the blighter, at great expense to industry? But, my expertise is also valuable. To have me donate it to the DAS cause, he will need to earn my respect in the first instance and convince me; beyond a shadow of doubt, that his heart, mind and soul are dedicated to restoring the industry. Homework before examination is the go, not to rely on cribbing from other folks notes and hard work, that's cheating, dontcha know...
Then initiate every single Senate recommendation – without delay: then initiate every single recommendation the Rev. Forsyth made; fire the top three layers of management, have a no holds barred credit card audit, sort out the despicable MoU and start legal proceedings against those who 'disturbed' the TSI act and humiliated this industry by being involved in the Pel Air debacle – all of them.
Then, after morning tea; we can get down to real issues and clean out the vermin droppings gifted to him from the last residents of the Sleepy Hollow. The LSD needs to be seriously looked at, some of their 'stunts' beggar belief. Which should take us through to lunch. It's not hard; not with the all encompassing executive horsepower, as set up by Aleck (whispering death) to be above the law and all; – that will help steer it through. Save the new boy some time (hint) - get the 'white hats' working; all spoils go to Caesar.
Yup, six phone calls before lunch must be within the competence of the "new" DAS; else why was the 'position' (and the dough) gifted to him?: does his credit card get scrutinised by the "executive" manager of the 440 strong 'corporate' team, or just by the chief financial officer? No matter – all will be well when managing the 'rental agreement' for corporate (self owned) housing and first class seats on multiple flights. Big trough, no wukkers.
I shall pay attention, failure will be easily detected – temptation will not be resisted. The game is rolling, the new boy has entered the arena – it would be better if he hit the ground running (just saying). Probably better to have the Sleepy Hollow worm farm rewired, best do the pot plants as well – just in case.
Bonne chance – "Ave, Imperator, morituri (we, of the IOS) te salutant".
Selah...
). Mark you, Cosgrove (as a military example) never cut the mustard on the Qantas board, rolled about in the clover with the rest of them. Anyway there is a meeting Friday, 'we' apparently need to convince the new boy that Part 61 is a crock and perhaps he'll throw it back down the cesspit it came from, where it belongs: we must do this for free after CASA spent gods know what producing a crippled beast, to harmonise with the Frankenstein choir. We (IOS) will soon see if the new boy has any bollocks, brains, integrity and resolve. The first thing; as a gift to a badly mauled, disillusioned, cynical industry should be to put the brakes on this 800 page Part 61 aberration; scale it down to a NZ sensible size (with slight modifications) and have an indaba with industry, to see how best 'we' manage the monster. Mind you, if he can't work it out for himself what, I ask, is the point in hiring the blighter, at great expense to industry? But, my expertise is also valuable. To have me donate it to the DAS cause, he will need to earn my respect in the first instance and convince me; beyond a shadow of doubt, that his heart, mind and soul are dedicated to restoring the industry. Homework before examination is the go, not to rely on cribbing from other folks notes and hard work, that's cheating, dontcha know...
Then initiate every single Senate recommendation – without delay: then initiate every single recommendation the Rev. Forsyth made; fire the top three layers of management, have a no holds barred credit card audit, sort out the despicable MoU and start legal proceedings against those who 'disturbed' the TSI act and humiliated this industry by being involved in the Pel Air debacle – all of them.
Then, after morning tea; we can get down to real issues and clean out the vermin droppings gifted to him from the last residents of the Sleepy Hollow. The LSD needs to be seriously looked at, some of their 'stunts' beggar belief. Which should take us through to lunch. It's not hard; not with the all encompassing executive horsepower, as set up by Aleck (whispering death) to be above the law and all; – that will help steer it through. Save the new boy some time (hint) - get the 'white hats' working; all spoils go to Caesar.
Yup, six phone calls before lunch must be within the competence of the "new" DAS; else why was the 'position' (and the dough) gifted to him?: does his credit card get scrutinised by the "executive" manager of the 440 strong 'corporate' team, or just by the chief financial officer? No matter – all will be well when managing the 'rental agreement' for corporate (self owned) housing and first class seats on multiple flights. Big trough, no wukkers.
I shall pay attention, failure will be easily detected – temptation will not be resisted. The game is rolling, the new boy has entered the arena – it would be better if he hit the ground running (just saying). Probably better to have the Sleepy Hollow worm farm rewired, best do the pot plants as well – just in case.
Bonne chance – "Ave, Imperator, morituri (we, of the IOS) te salutant".
Selah...
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Oct 2014 at 19:04. Reason: Another Senate thread goes past the half Mil reads mark – well done all.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon, Having dealt with RAAF officers,I am somewhat in agreement with others here that Mr Skidmore will not be the answer to CASA's problems.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 29th Oct 2014 at 19:54. Reason: seperating steers and heifers
No shortage of people here rushing to pass judgement on a bloke they know essentially nothing about.
I'd suggest he has all of the above. Whether he can run CASA in a way that makes everyone here happy is another thing altogether - he's probably got more chance of sorting out the Middle East. At least give the bloke a couple of hours in the job before crucifying him. 
We (IOS) will soon see if the new boy has any bollocks, brains, integrity and resolve.
I'm certain he has all of the above.
I'm also certain that he doesn't have any real experience in the dark arts of real government. Even if he wanted to, his chances of killing the regulatory reform Frankenstein are therefore nil.
You will be able to tell if I'm right, if his first official comment on the regulatory reform program is to the effect that it is on track to be completed soon.
I'm also certain that he doesn't have any real experience in the dark arts of real government. Even if he wanted to, his chances of killing the regulatory reform Frankenstein are therefore nil.
You will be able to tell if I'm right, if his first official comment on the regulatory reform program is to the effect that it is on track to be completed soon.
Last edited by Creampuff; 29th Oct 2014 at 21:14.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No judgement has been passed, as yet. However the meter is running and we are paying the freight. Running a bunch of people trained and willing to follow orders is a piece of cake. This (as suggested) messiah of the middle east has no 'real life' experience, absolutely none. He will need help and cooperation (lots of) if he is to succeed. As a 'leader of men' he should know the first rule is gain the respect and trust of those he commands. This is not a simple matter of drafting a few orders and standing back to watch the fun – there are careers, millions of dollars (peoples own dollars, not government dollars) invested, often against the mortgage and kids school fees. It matters.
This is real life aviation and with the best will in the world, without him knowing what's at stake and how the system really works – he had better get his skates on, do his homework and surround himself with 'sound' advice. Until I see different, to me it's just another talking head stuffed in the trough, a valid moving target. No one I know is in the mood for another McComic go around or any more plain and fancy pony pooh. He has accepted the job, the meter is running – now he has to knuckle down and get on with it. Industry works hard to pay the inflated salary and trimmings, takes all the legal and fiscal hits and IMO has every right, particularly after the last little episode to carefully and closely scrutinise every stitch in this mans knitting.
We shall see; but first we test, then we trust. I work for a living, lots to do before smoko, best crack on then.
Toot toot.
This is real life aviation and with the best will in the world, without him knowing what's at stake and how the system really works – he had better get his skates on, do his homework and surround himself with 'sound' advice. Until I see different, to me it's just another talking head stuffed in the trough, a valid moving target. No one I know is in the mood for another McComic go around or any more plain and fancy pony pooh. He has accepted the job, the meter is running – now he has to knuckle down and get on with it. Industry works hard to pay the inflated salary and trimmings, takes all the legal and fiscal hits and IMO has every right, particularly after the last little episode to carefully and closely scrutinise every stitch in this mans knitting.
We shall see; but first we test, then we trust. I work for a living, lots to do before smoko, best crack on then.
Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 29th Oct 2014 at 21:32. Reason: Bravo Creamy..
Mrdak v Boyd - 2 card play.
Gotta hand it to you Lookleft, an astute post. I hadn't really thought about the "Skidmore vs Fawcett knowledge and experience"side of things
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
This could indeed be a stroke of genius by MrDak. Very interesting potential twist, having a new DAS that could use that experience and knowledge to challenge the Senators.
No contest.
Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.
A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it.
Like McCormick, Skidmore's stuffed. Wouldn't have a clue how to fix regulatory reform, and will be smart enough to pretend it's on track for completion 'soon'.
A lucrative public sector job prior to moving on, and that's it.
Time will tell if indeed (reserve active) AVM Skidmore is an M&M plant to foil LC (retired) Senator Fawcett but it is interesting that they both come from a similar pedigree.
However perhaps we should look at this apparent connection (both former ADF & test pilots) from a different perspective and also consider where both these gents went after leaving the ADF..
Mark Skidmore -
Director Flight Operations
Raytheon Australia
December 2012 – November 2013 (1 year)Canberra, Australia
Casual position providing specialist aerospace advice in support of flight operations for Raytheon Australia.
{Interesting interview when MS 1st took up the position at Raytheon: Interview with Mark Skidmore - Raytheon Australia's Director of Flight Operations}
Director
Swift Aerospace Consulting
February 2013 – Present (1 year 9 months)Canberra
Swift Aerospace is a small consulting company that provides consulting services to the defence and civil aerospace community. These consulting services are based on the knowledge and experience of the Director who has 33 years service in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot and commander of aerospace units and several years in Defence Industry providing airworthiness and flight safety leadership. The primary market foci for Swift Aerospace are the defence aerospace industries that support the ADF and are in need of the skill sets provided by a retired senior member of the RAAF. However, given the scope and experience of the director, his airworthiness and flight safety knowledge is also applicable across the civil aerospace community.
Raytheon Australia
December 2012 – November 2013 (1 year)Canberra, Australia
Casual position providing specialist aerospace advice in support of flight operations for Raytheon Australia.
{Interesting interview when MS 1st took up the position at Raytheon: Interview with Mark Skidmore - Raytheon Australia's Director of Flight Operations}
Director
Swift Aerospace Consulting
February 2013 – Present (1 year 9 months)Canberra
Swift Aerospace is a small consulting company that provides consulting services to the defence and civil aerospace community. These consulting services are based on the knowledge and experience of the Director who has 33 years service in the Royal Australian Air Force as a pilot and commander of aerospace units and several years in Defence Industry providing airworthiness and flight safety leadership. The primary market foci for Swift Aerospace are the defence aerospace industries that support the ADF and are in need of the skill sets provided by a retired senior member of the RAAF. However, given the scope and experience of the director, his airworthiness and flight safety knowledge is also applicable across the civil aerospace community.
Senator Fawcett -
Career
David served in the Australian Defence Force for over 22 years. An Army pilot, he flew helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and was the Senior Flying Instructor at the School of Army Aviation in Queensland. Graduating as an experimental test pilot from the Empire Test Pilots’ School (UK), he finished his full time career in Defence as the Commanding Officer of the RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit. Elected to the House of Representatives as the Member for Wakefield (SA) in 2004, he served in the Parliament until 2007. David continued to fly as a test pilot and ran a small business working in the Defence and Aviation sectors prior to being elected to the Senate.
Read David’s full biography here.
David served in the Australian Defence Force for over 22 years. An Army pilot, he flew helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and was the Senior Flying Instructor at the School of Army Aviation in Queensland. Graduating as an experimental test pilot from the Empire Test Pilots’ School (UK), he finished his full time career in Defence as the Commanding Officer of the RAAF Aircraft Research and Development Unit. Elected to the House of Representatives as the Member for Wakefield (SA) in 2004, he served in the Parliament until 2007. David continued to fly as a test pilot and ran a small business working in the Defence and Aviation sectors prior to being elected to the Senate.
Read David’s full biography here.
He then attended Navy Command and Staff College before returning to serve as ARDU‘s first (and only) Army Commanding Officer from 2001 to 2003. Fawcett reports that RAAF responded well to him occupying a post that had been more traditionally considered an RAAF appointment:
“As I used to point out to people, it’s really just sort of taking things back to the way they used to be. I think back to my great-uncle Bob Fawcett, who flew with No 1 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in 1918, when the Army had all the aircraft, before the Air Force even came into existence.”
“As I used to point out to people, it’s really just sort of taking things back to the way they used to be. I think back to my great-uncle Bob Fawcett, who flew with No 1 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in 1918, when the Army had all the aircraft, before the Air Force even came into existence.”
Commander, Aircraft Research and Development Unit
RAAF
January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA
Provide command and leadership for ARDU. ARDU was a diverse organisation of about 400 personnel providing T&E, EW and Range operations.
RAAF
January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA
Provide command and leadership for ARDU. ARDU was a diverse organisation of about 400 personnel providing T&E, EW and Range operations.
Finally the following article from the Strategist (which I'm reliably informed is avidly read by most former/current high ranking officers of the ADF) was written by Senator Fawcett back in 2012:
Minister, mandarins and the military
Who is really in charge of the Defence Department? Many would guess the military chiefs, which is logical enough. Some would even say the Minister—civil control and all that. Or perhaps, given the recent discussion about the influence of Ministerial advisers over the public service, others would suggest we should be looking to the Secretary—Sir Humprey always did seem to get his way.
Another way to ask the question would be to consider who got the blame when reviews such as Rizzo, Black and Coles highlighted a lack of accountability, confused responsibilities and dysfunctional linkages between levels of authority across the Department? No clear answers there.
There is something even more telling, however, than the inability to identify who is really in charge of Defence. How is it that so many commentators can describe what has gone wrong, but so few ask why, or attempt to suggest a better way? It’s said that a fish rots from the head. If we accept that organisational dysfunction stems from problems at the head of Defence, perhaps that’s where we need to start—at the top. But just what is the relationship between executive Government and the Department?
Distant could be one way to describe the relationship. The Defence Minister sits on one side of Lake Burley Griffin and the Department on the other—literally and figuratively. Even those Ministers who choose to engage with Defence in a more proactive way don’t actually get much formal insight into ‘the process’ that leads to the briefs they receive. For example, how much ‘re-drafting’ by the many layers of review has the brief received in the time between leaving the subject matter expert and being delivered to the Minister? Does the brief still say the same thing, or have the priorities and agendas of other groups (or the central agencies) transformed the message? The Minister would seldom know, because Defence has a policy to ‘speak with one voice’, which limits the ability of the Minister to hear dissenting views where they exist.
On the other side of the equation, the brief the Minister takes to the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSCC) may not actually reflect recommendations made by Defence. Think of the Super Hornet acquisition by Minister Nelson, a decision made without the recommendation of Defence. While the Minister was happy to own that particular decision, not all such Ministerial interventions are quite so transparent. The point is that accountability has to flow both ways in a functional relationship. Changes to submissions instigated by the Minister, or by Ministerial advisers, should always be formally captured in an auditable process. The Government also needs to be aware of the true opportunity cost of decisions it makes. Decisions to approve additional operational commitments or even to defer an acquisition have flow-on effects for planned training, maintenance activities, logistics contracts, personnel and defence industry.
Is there a better way? Certainly most successful public, not-for-profit, and even private companies seem to think so. Most of them adopt the construct of a governing board. This provides a proven framework for structured engagement between key elected stakeholders (directors) and the executives who have operational control. Through the board, the Chair is able to provide strategic guidance to the organisation, and hold executives to account for performance, and compliance with relevant regulations. The board doesn’t run the organisation on a day-to-day basis, but it has insight into the internal and external environments that shape the CEO’s challenges and decisions. Some private companies also choose to have a board of reference, which provides a structured means of retaining corporate memory, as well as obtaining a broader perspective on current issues and strategic direction.
The 2011 review by Lord Levene (PDF) for the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed that the model of a board can work for Defence. The Secretary of State (Minister) chairs the Board and is advised by the Chief of Defence Staff, the Permanent Secretary, the Procurement Executive, as well as non-executive directors who bring broader perspective and experience to the table.
In the Australian context, a Defence Board wouldn’t replace the role of the NSCC. The Board would provide a structured, regular forum for the Minister to engage with, and be informed by, a range of voices within Defence. It would enable him to be a more effective decision maker when dealing with the Department, and speak with more confidence and authority in NSCC when advocating for the Department.
For the Board concept to be effective in Australia, we’d need to redefine the roles of some senior appointments. This would include empowering the Service Chiefs to have command and control over all the resources they need to do their job—a pre-requisite for accountability to the Minister as Chair of the Board. A consequence of the increased control for the Service Chiefs would be a corresponding decrease in the number of groups within the Defence Organisation. This would be balanced by making the Secretary responsible for overseeing compliance both with strategic guidance and with policies relevant to achieving best-practice in non-operational matters across the three services. The Minister would then be in a position to make informed decisions on what should be done, to hold Service Chiefs accountable for subsequent outcomes, and to judge their efficacy in the task. Where exigencies require changes, trade-offs or exceptions to guidance, the Board provides a framework for these issues and the related flow-on effects to be assessed, debated and implementation coordinated.
The structured framework of the Board would also provide some degree of quality assurance for the taxpayer when the personalities, interests, or competence of the Chief of Defence Force (CDF), Secretary and Minister did not align as well as we might hope or expect. To return the rotting fish analogy, the Defence Board and the associated changes in senior roles would see the head of the organisation model the approach that must be adopted at all levels within Defence: informed decisions by accountable individuals.
The Defence Board in and of itself would not be a silver bullet to address the oft-lamented failures in the Defence Organisation. It is, however, the right place to start fixing the rot—at the heady interface of Minister, Mandarins and Military.
Senator David Fawcett is a Liberal Party representative for South Australia. He was a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade enquiry into Defence Acquisition. His additional comments to the report (PDF) argue that the changes to Governance discussed above are just one aspect of the suite of reforms to the Australian Defence Organisation required to achieve effective and sustainable change. Image courtesy of Department of Defence.
Who is really in charge of the Defence Department? Many would guess the military chiefs, which is logical enough. Some would even say the Minister—civil control and all that. Or perhaps, given the recent discussion about the influence of Ministerial advisers over the public service, others would suggest we should be looking to the Secretary—Sir Humprey always did seem to get his way.
Another way to ask the question would be to consider who got the blame when reviews such as Rizzo, Black and Coles highlighted a lack of accountability, confused responsibilities and dysfunctional linkages between levels of authority across the Department? No clear answers there.
There is something even more telling, however, than the inability to identify who is really in charge of Defence. How is it that so many commentators can describe what has gone wrong, but so few ask why, or attempt to suggest a better way? It’s said that a fish rots from the head. If we accept that organisational dysfunction stems from problems at the head of Defence, perhaps that’s where we need to start—at the top. But just what is the relationship between executive Government and the Department?
Distant could be one way to describe the relationship. The Defence Minister sits on one side of Lake Burley Griffin and the Department on the other—literally and figuratively. Even those Ministers who choose to engage with Defence in a more proactive way don’t actually get much formal insight into ‘the process’ that leads to the briefs they receive. For example, how much ‘re-drafting’ by the many layers of review has the brief received in the time between leaving the subject matter expert and being delivered to the Minister? Does the brief still say the same thing, or have the priorities and agendas of other groups (or the central agencies) transformed the message? The Minister would seldom know, because Defence has a policy to ‘speak with one voice’, which limits the ability of the Minister to hear dissenting views where they exist.
On the other side of the equation, the brief the Minister takes to the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSCC) may not actually reflect recommendations made by Defence. Think of the Super Hornet acquisition by Minister Nelson, a decision made without the recommendation of Defence. While the Minister was happy to own that particular decision, not all such Ministerial interventions are quite so transparent. The point is that accountability has to flow both ways in a functional relationship. Changes to submissions instigated by the Minister, or by Ministerial advisers, should always be formally captured in an auditable process. The Government also needs to be aware of the true opportunity cost of decisions it makes. Decisions to approve additional operational commitments or even to defer an acquisition have flow-on effects for planned training, maintenance activities, logistics contracts, personnel and defence industry.
Is there a better way? Certainly most successful public, not-for-profit, and even private companies seem to think so. Most of them adopt the construct of a governing board. This provides a proven framework for structured engagement between key elected stakeholders (directors) and the executives who have operational control. Through the board, the Chair is able to provide strategic guidance to the organisation, and hold executives to account for performance, and compliance with relevant regulations. The board doesn’t run the organisation on a day-to-day basis, but it has insight into the internal and external environments that shape the CEO’s challenges and decisions. Some private companies also choose to have a board of reference, which provides a structured means of retaining corporate memory, as well as obtaining a broader perspective on current issues and strategic direction.
The 2011 review by Lord Levene (PDF) for the UK Ministry of Defence confirmed that the model of a board can work for Defence. The Secretary of State (Minister) chairs the Board and is advised by the Chief of Defence Staff, the Permanent Secretary, the Procurement Executive, as well as non-executive directors who bring broader perspective and experience to the table.
In the Australian context, a Defence Board wouldn’t replace the role of the NSCC. The Board would provide a structured, regular forum for the Minister to engage with, and be informed by, a range of voices within Defence. It would enable him to be a more effective decision maker when dealing with the Department, and speak with more confidence and authority in NSCC when advocating for the Department.
For the Board concept to be effective in Australia, we’d need to redefine the roles of some senior appointments. This would include empowering the Service Chiefs to have command and control over all the resources they need to do their job—a pre-requisite for accountability to the Minister as Chair of the Board. A consequence of the increased control for the Service Chiefs would be a corresponding decrease in the number of groups within the Defence Organisation. This would be balanced by making the Secretary responsible for overseeing compliance both with strategic guidance and with policies relevant to achieving best-practice in non-operational matters across the three services. The Minister would then be in a position to make informed decisions on what should be done, to hold Service Chiefs accountable for subsequent outcomes, and to judge their efficacy in the task. Where exigencies require changes, trade-offs or exceptions to guidance, the Board provides a framework for these issues and the related flow-on effects to be assessed, debated and implementation coordinated.
The structured framework of the Board would also provide some degree of quality assurance for the taxpayer when the personalities, interests, or competence of the Chief of Defence Force (CDF), Secretary and Minister did not align as well as we might hope or expect. To return the rotting fish analogy, the Defence Board and the associated changes in senior roles would see the head of the organisation model the approach that must be adopted at all levels within Defence: informed decisions by accountable individuals.
The Defence Board in and of itself would not be a silver bullet to address the oft-lamented failures in the Defence Organisation. It is, however, the right place to start fixing the rot—at the heady interface of Minister, Mandarins and Military.
Senator David Fawcett is a Liberal Party representative for South Australia. He was a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade enquiry into Defence Acquisition. His additional comments to the report (PDF) argue that the changes to Governance discussed above are just one aspect of the suite of reforms to the Australian Defence Organisation required to achieve effective and sustainable change. Image courtesy of Department of Defence.
Maybe the AVM (active reserve) Skidmore appointment is a master stroke by M&M, however I think he should be careful of the Boyd (Fawcett) 2 card play...
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 29th Oct 2014 at 21:55.
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
This DAS will get a short probation period. The last lot spoilt it for the future. He has enough time before he takes up the role to get across it, and he needs to do something akin to Kharon's suggestions or he will drop the grenade.
Then it'll be...."he'd like to find the Sergeant who forgot to hook him up, 'cause he ain't gonna jump no more". Strawberry jam etc....
Then it'll be...."he'd like to find the Sergeant who forgot to hook him up, 'cause he ain't gonna jump no more". Strawberry jam etc....
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 29th Oct 2014 at 22:10. Reason: Whistle if you don't know the words.
ARDU‘s first (and only) Army Commanding Officer from 2001 to 2003.
January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA
January 2001 – December 2002 (2 years)RAAF Edinburgh, SA
Last edited by Lookleft; 30th Oct 2014 at 09:46. Reason: If you are a fool post only "Wind up alert!"
Stand corrected Lefty DF was apparently CO after Skidmore in 2003: Aircraft Research and Development Unit RAAF
MTF...
MTF...
Last edited by Sarcs; 30th Oct 2014 at 13:39. Reason: Corrected for TO..thanks!
Nope DF never outranked MS
According to your Wikipedia link.
MS was a Group Captain in 2000
DF was a Lieutenant Colonel in 2003
A Group Captain is equivalent to a Full Colonel.
A LT colonel is one rank below.
DF never outranked MS
Download the ADF badges of rank if you prefer.
MS was a Group Captain in 2000
DF was a Lieutenant Colonel in 2003
A Group Captain is equivalent to a Full Colonel.
A LT colonel is one rank below.
DF never outranked MS
Download the ADF badges of rank if you prefer.
MMSM Steve on new DAS.
Former Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore named director of air safety
FORMER Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore says he has taken on one of aviation’s most controversial jobs because he is keen to get involved in supporting Australia’s aviation industry and sees the regulator’s role as critical.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Allan Hawke yesterday confirmed Mr Skidmore’s appointment as director of aviation safety, the regulatory hot seat recently vacated by John McCormick.
The appointment comes at a pivotal time for the air safety regulator, which has been under fire from industry players for its handling of regulatory reform and approach to policing.
The industry is still waiting for a response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which called for sweeping reforms at the regulator, saying its “hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to
a lack of trust between it and operators.
As an aviation military and industry veteran who has connections with general aviation though his monoplane 1946 Globe Swift, Mr Skidmore is aware of the discontent simmering in sections of the industry.
“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.
“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there. Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.
“I’ve got to get my feet under the desk and get an opportunity to find out what’s going on and talk to people.’’
Mr Skidmore has experience in the private sector, working with Aerospace Technical Services, which was acquired by Raytheon Australia.
He said this gave an opportunity to get a feel for the industry as business development manager working on projects, bids and tenders as well as a test pilot.
He left in 2012 to set up his own consultancy, which worked with his old employer and other companies. “I’ve had an opportunity to talk and understand and find out what’s happening out there in the industry,’’ he said.
The new DAS also believes his RAAF background will help him in the new job. He started in the RAAF as an officer cadet in the late 1970s and became a pilot in the 1980s on F-111s.
He led RAAF research and development squadrons and was promoted to Air Commander Australia, holding oversight for Australia’s air operations, and reached the rank of Air Vice Marshal before retiring in 2012.
He says as air force Commander he was in charge of a big organisation and lots of staff, but it was not just a case of ordering people around; much of it involved negotiations, discussion and working with people to set up and achieve an agenda for the future.
“I see this much the same way,’’ he said. “I’m going to take that forward, I want to work with people, I want to listen, I want to set up teams and be able to achieve our strategic objectives.’’
Asked about the biggest challenge he saw so far, he said this would be getting the opportunity to grow CASA’s reputation and rebuild trust with the industry.
He believed CASA was a good organisation that had done a lot of good work but acknowledged there was a perception it did not listen and this needed to be addressed.
However, CASA was also a regulator and there were rules and regulations it had to apply.
“Sometimes there’s going to have be tough decisions and we’re going to have to do that,’’ he added.
Mr Skidmore’s appointment produced a positive response from industry figures ready to beat a path to his door with demands for their sectors.
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the association looked forward to an end to “ the rudderless ship that is CASA, the implementation of the industry supported recommendations of the ASRR, and the addressing of the CASA-created Part 61 crisis’’.
Mr Hurst said Mr Skidmore had “a massive task” turning around the culture of CASA, adding it must work with industry to identify real safety risks and “improve the safety, economic and growth outcomes for all stakeholders”.
Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell described Mr Skidmore as “a very sound aviation professional’’ with whom the RAAA looked forward to working with as it attempted to reinvigorate Australian aviation and aerospace “at all levels’’.
“There are particular and pressing challenges in regional aviation that we will be discussing with the new DAS as soon as possible,’’ he said.
Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said Mr Skidmore’s managerial experience would be invaluable in his CASA role. “We look forward to working with the new director with particular focus on the urgent need for airport regulatory reform, which is long overdue,’’ she said.
FORMER Air Vice Marshal Mark Skidmore says he has taken on one of aviation’s most controversial jobs because he is keen to get involved in supporting Australia’s aviation industry and sees the regulator’s role as critical.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Allan Hawke yesterday confirmed Mr Skidmore’s appointment as director of aviation safety, the regulatory hot seat recently vacated by John McCormick.
The appointment comes at a pivotal time for the air safety regulator, which has been under fire from industry players for its handling of regulatory reform and approach to policing.
The industry is still waiting for a response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, which called for sweeping reforms at the regulator, saying its “hard-line approach” to enforcement was inappropriate and had led to
a lack of trust between it and operators.
As an aviation military and industry veteran who has connections with general aviation though his monoplane 1946 Globe Swift, Mr Skidmore is aware of the discontent simmering in sections of the industry.
“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.
“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there. Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.
“I’ve got to get my feet under the desk and get an opportunity to find out what’s going on and talk to people.’’
Mr Skidmore has experience in the private sector, working with Aerospace Technical Services, which was acquired by Raytheon Australia.
He said this gave an opportunity to get a feel for the industry as business development manager working on projects, bids and tenders as well as a test pilot.
He left in 2012 to set up his own consultancy, which worked with his old employer and other companies. “I’ve had an opportunity to talk and understand and find out what’s happening out there in the industry,’’ he said.
The new DAS also believes his RAAF background will help him in the new job. He started in the RAAF as an officer cadet in the late 1970s and became a pilot in the 1980s on F-111s.
He led RAAF research and development squadrons and was promoted to Air Commander Australia, holding oversight for Australia’s air operations, and reached the rank of Air Vice Marshal before retiring in 2012.
He says as air force Commander he was in charge of a big organisation and lots of staff, but it was not just a case of ordering people around; much of it involved negotiations, discussion and working with people to set up and achieve an agenda for the future.
“I see this much the same way,’’ he said. “I’m going to take that forward, I want to work with people, I want to listen, I want to set up teams and be able to achieve our strategic objectives.’’
Asked about the biggest challenge he saw so far, he said this would be getting the opportunity to grow CASA’s reputation and rebuild trust with the industry.
He believed CASA was a good organisation that had done a lot of good work but acknowledged there was a perception it did not listen and this needed to be addressed.
However, CASA was also a regulator and there were rules and regulations it had to apply.
“Sometimes there’s going to have be tough decisions and we’re going to have to do that,’’ he added.
Mr Skidmore’s appointment produced a positive response from industry figures ready to beat a path to his door with demands for their sectors.
Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia chief executive Phil Hurst said the association looked forward to an end to “ the rudderless ship that is CASA, the implementation of the industry supported recommendations of the ASRR, and the addressing of the CASA-created Part 61 crisis’’.
Mr Hurst said Mr Skidmore had “a massive task” turning around the culture of CASA, adding it must work with industry to identify real safety risks and “improve the safety, economic and growth outcomes for all stakeholders”.
Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell described Mr Skidmore as “a very sound aviation professional’’ with whom the RAAA looked forward to working with as it attempted to reinvigorate Australian aviation and aerospace “at all levels’’.
“There are particular and pressing challenges in regional aviation that we will be discussing with the new DAS as soon as possible,’’ he said.
Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said Mr Skidmore’s managerial experience would be invaluable in his CASA role. “We look forward to working with the new director with particular focus on the urgent need for airport regulatory reform, which is long overdue,’’ she said.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go –
Under starters orders and -
Racing – the first half mile at a sedate pace; tea and biccy's while the 'department' decides what the response to one of the three outstanding reports will be. Not an auspicious beginning. You will note that the director is going 'wait' before becoming involved and elects to use the well trained, toothless "Australian", the 'official' spin publisher for his first waffle.
Re hashed - "I think initially for me I'll get the office refurnished, comfy like; then I can have a sit down and see which way I am supposed to spin the Senate, Forsyth and Canadian reports to keep my masters happy, Uncle Beaker can help. I can't just barge in and take over, tell the government what my vision is and how I want to address the "mumblings", I'm only the director – I don't run the joint. Oh no; I'll wait-a-bit more, make some friends and then wait until I'm ordered to do 'stuff". Can't act without orders dontcha know – now, would you like a Tim Tam with your tea?". "Then, some time next year after my six weeks of Christmas leave and two weeks off for stress (decorating is hell) I shall entertain some of the 'mumblers', that'll get things moving along nicely".
Better polish up the mirrors and service the smoke machine; Oh and tell the Wodgers they have a job for life. –
Well chaps (and chapettes) seems we are no longer the Ills of Society
IOS is out, the first cheap shot is fired, dismissed – we are to become mutterers, mumble's murmurers. Yup, sweeping change is on the way. Why must we be constantly reminded he is a pilot?, "being a pilot myself I have also 'run' into those type of things"; I think we got the message – he's not not just a pilot, but THE pilot – Oh my giddy Aunt, it's stellar stuff; you can feel the impact from space – hell, I got so underwhelming engrossed I let my cornflakes get soggy. No matter, the dogs like 'em better that way.
Toot toot.
“I think initially for me it’s going to be waiting for the government’s response to the ASRR and seeing how that’s going to shape CASA into the future,’’ he said. “So I’m keen to see that, I look forward to getting that response.
Re hashed - "I think initially for me I'll get the office refurnished, comfy like; then I can have a sit down and see which way I am supposed to spin the Senate, Forsyth and Canadian reports to keep my masters happy, Uncle Beaker can help. I can't just barge in and take over, tell the government what my vision is and how I want to address the "mumblings", I'm only the director – I don't run the joint. Oh no; I'll wait-a-bit more, make some friends and then wait until I'm ordered to do 'stuff". Can't act without orders dontcha know – now, would you like a Tim Tam with your tea?". "Then, some time next year after my six weeks of Christmas leave and two weeks off for stress (decorating is hell) I shall entertain some of the 'mumblers', that'll get things moving along nicely".
Better polish up the mirrors and service the smoke machine; Oh and tell the Wodgers they have a job for life. –
Well chaps (and chapettes) seems we are no longer the Ills of Society
“Really in the regards to the rest, yes, I’ve heard murmurings and mumblings out there. Obviously, being a pilot myself you run into those type of things.
Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 30th Oct 2014 at 19:22. Reason: Can't get the dogs to eat the bananas, wonder why?.. Passing strange that is..
Game over; Mr. Mrdak has found what the British insurers at Lloyds once called a "Nodding Donkey" - underwriters who could be persuaded to take on almost any risk after a long lunch and a glass of port. The nodding donkeys led their insurance syndicate members into insuring horrendous risks like Piper Alpha, which claimed Malcolm Frasers fortune.
AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.
Now just wait till a CASA minion finds an arithmetic mistake in his aircraft’s maintenance release and he gets the same treatment as Toller.
AVM. Skidmore might be playing with a dead bat, but I doubt it - nodding donkey. Pass the port.
"Skidmore acknowledged that some in the aviation community had concerns about CASA, but was positive about the general relationship between industry and the regulator.
“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.
“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.
“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”
Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.
“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."
“My impression is CASA has a good relationship with industry,” Skidmore said.
“There’s obviously mumblings and murmurings around the edges but one of my priorities is to get out, listen to people and find out what some of those concerns are.
“I want to build and enhance the reputation of CASA out there with industry.”
Skidmore, who flies his own Globe Swift classic aircraft, said that as a general aviation private pilot he had “never had concerns about CASA or where it was going”.
“One of the reasons I applied for the position and I am very happy to be taking up the position is because I see an opportunity to lead an organisation that is so critical in regards to the safety of aviation in Australia,” he said."
Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Oct 2014 at 20:31.