Water ballast

This is a bit long but gives a good insight into how Smith has got away with NAS so far.....................................(edited to reduce below 12000 words).





TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL CODE) BILL 2002: Second Reading

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (4.36 p.m.) —
This is the same minister who boasted with great fanfare in the House 12 months ago about his aviation reforms delivering aviation competition. We all appreciated—especially Ansett workers and their families, communities in the federal seat of Burke, in Hume, Sunbury and Mount Macedon—that, when it comes to his so-called commitment to aviation competition and the requirement to deliver on that, the collapse of Ansett says it all. He did not comprehend the need for sustainable competition which effectively meant that consumers benefited and which, more importantly, meant that we kept Australians employed in the aviation industry.



What did he beat his chest about on 7 September? I heard him say that CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau must—and he emphasised this by banging the table—sort out their differences on audible alarm systems as a matter of great urgency. It was of great urgency, because unfortunately we had an aviation accident which saw the loss of Australian lives. The record will show that in October 1999 this was first brought to the attention of CASA by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, after another fatality was narrowly avoided. This is a minister who is consumed with his portfolio responsibilities, a minister who would have the House and the Australian community believe that he gives great and proper attention to safety standards and pursues the need for reform in the aviation industry in Australia.

Here we are, 29 months after the minister said to `fix it urgently'. They were his words. There was a responsibility on the aviation industry to fix the problems with respect to the issues of audible alarm systems. For those who understand the aviation industry, the requirement to actually make change with respect to the audible alarm system is a matter of life and death. But what do we have 29 months after the minister said to fix it urgently? Again, I refer the House to events of the last week. In the press this week, for example, in the West Australian, we are reading the horrific recollections of air traffic controllers at the coronial inquiry of the eight victims of the Super King Air that crashed at Burketown because it seems that they were not aware of the oxygen loss.

Go to the report of that inquiry. You will find in that report a record of an air traffic controller—one of the very valuable people who work in the aviation industry that the minister had the hide to have a crack at in question time today because these people are prepared to stand up for their industrial rights—actually crying with powerlessness, recalling not being able to alert the pilot about the problem that was obvious to them but not to the pilot or to the passengers on that aircraft.

Now, 20 months later, in spite of the minister's so-called plea about urgency, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—the agency for which he is responsible, the agency which we have been suggesting for a number of years now is not performing its duties adequately—has still not mandated the audible alarms. All I can say is that, if that represents performance of this minister's duties in an urgent fashion, I would hate to see what he would do if he were tardy in performing his duties. Frankly, his lack of attention to detail, his lack of attention to the fact that he is the responsible minister for aviation activities in Australia, his not acting on the audible alarm front—so far as I am concerned—through proper direction and accountability, has risked the lives of other ordinary Australians since he originally stood up in the House and said that this had to be attended to as a matter of urgency.

What about the press release? It was rushed out with the release of the ATSB final report on the Burketown crash, with promises to fix it by the end of this year. All I can say is that the opposition is going to be monitoring the performance of the minister, yet again, and all the associated aviation authorities to see whether they meet the so-called deadline on this occasion. That will be clearly related to how long this minister's inaction further risks lives of people actually participating in the aviation industry—be it as workers or passengers—because of a lack of attention to his detailed responsibilities as the Minister for Transport and Regional Services.

Let us also go to some other examples of the minister's so-called measured response to his duties. The minister's measured approach also involves committee after committee and no action. What happened to the Aviation Safety Forum? What happened to CASA's aviation regulatory reform processes that received extra funding in the last budget? The minister is instead trying to stretch his measure—stretch the elastic side of his boots in which he likes to march around rural and regional Australia. The measured approach to aviation reform, I also suggest to the House, is to cover off another debt—another agreement entered into in the lead-up to the most recent federal election, another dirty little deal for another coalition mate.

This takes me back to the all-important question of ethics. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Deputy Prime Minister—in association with his boss, the Prime Minister—has been involved in what I believe is a buy-off of Dick Smith for the federal election campaign. The record shows that on previous occasions Mr Smith has been a generous donor to the coalition. It is widely known in the industry that the Prime Minister was involved in a meeting with Dick Smith and the Deputy Prime Minister. If you want any evidence of that, just look at the tape of question time yet again yesterday and look at the reaction of the Prime Minister when the Deputy Prime Minister in glowing terms mentioned Dick Smith and, in doing so, confirmed the Prime Minister's involvement and knowledge of the deal. Look at the Prime Minister's smirks, the arm patting of the Deputy Prime Minister and the swinging around in the chair to show off to the team behind him. It is all on the record, all on the tape of question time yesterday.

What you see is the Prime Minister taking credit for bailing out his Deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the National Party, Minister for Transport and Regional Services and member for the seat of Gwydir. It is common knowledge, if you go back over the last couple of years, that Dick Smith did not care who won Gwydir, provided it was not the current minister. He said on a number of occasions that he was going to spend the whole election campaign on the stump in Gwydir, travelling around in his Commodore ute, staying in pubs and talking to the good voters, saying that their local member was, as he described, the `worst transport minister in history'.

Before the end of the campaign, after the September 11 terrorist attack, the erstwhile entrepreneur and aviation amateur suddenly decided to pull out of the campaign and declare his support for the current government and the current minister. Mr Smith was reported as saying—and I should remind the House—that, when it comes to aviation reform, `Australia needs a dictator at times like this.' Before the end of last year, the real deal had been done and it began to emerge. The deal between the Howard government and Dick Smith was the gagging of Dick Smith. The price the Howard government paid—or should I say, the price the Australian travelling public will eventually pay—as was clearly proven in question time yesterday, was giving Dick Smith a third go at his personal obsession of aviation reform.

We should not forget that this is the third time that Dick Smith has been put in charge of aviation reform in this country. First, it was as the chair of the then Civil Aviation Authority; second, as chair of the regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. I expect that on this occasion the government is hoping, if not praying, that perhaps it is third time lucky for Dick Smith. It will take luck because, for all his energy, knowledge and courage, he has messed it up on each of the two previous occasions. This is another, can I say to the House, Howard government gamble.

Dick Smith accuses unions of excessive power. He should remember that he is an individual who happens to have money and influence. This has opened doors for him. I remind the House that not too many people, especially ordinary Australians, get an invitation to attend the Prime Minister's Christmas function, eating Japanese food care of the Australian taxpayers at Kirribilli House. The record shows who was in attendance. Mr Dick Smith was one of them. [start page 1274]

We will never know if Dick Smith's campaign would have successfully unseated the minister for transport in Gwydir. We will never know if Dick Smith ever intended going ahead with his so-called announcements about campaigning in Gwydir. We will never know for sure the deal that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister stitched up with Dick Smith, but we are starting to get a fair idea. What we will know over time is the cost that is to be paid for the influence of Dick Smith on this government. Over time we will see if Dick Smith can strike it lucky and succeed in airspace reform or at least succeed in bludgeoning his way. How beneficial it is to Australia may only become clear in the longer term.

In looking to the Criminal Code, can I simply say when it comes to the Department of Transport and Regional Services it should also look to the code of ethics which the minister for transport applies to his portfolio duties. When the Deputy Prime Minister sits in quiet contemplation, as he does from time to time, I hope he reflects on the undue influence that he has succumbed to in order to try and guarantee his re-election as the member for Gwydir. In short, the opposition will remain vigilant and continue to hold this minister accountable and draw attention to his ongoing failings as the minister for transport.

But I also want to deal with one other issue today. Again in question time we witnessed the blind ideology of the minister for transport today. Earlier in this place today, I illustrated this blind spot in relation to his absolute hatred of maritime unions and how that ideology is a barrier to reform. In question time today the minister criticised a union official in Queensland for criticising Chris Corrigan, the head of Patricks. I think that official was the only one the media could find because, as I have said and stand by, the labour movement has moved on. I refer the House therefore to a statement by the ACTU yesterday in response to the announcement of the proposed merger between Virgin Blue and Patricks, and I quote:

The waterfront dispute of 1998 will not play any part in the approach of the ACTU or the unions in dealing with this issue. Our responsibility is to the staff of Ansett and also to the staff of Virgin.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...206135983.html
Also an editorial on the speech.

tobzalp

From the SMH link above

I see Dick challenge people to call him up and discuss things. I am fairly sure his mind wont be changed. I can see it now..me,"Hey Dick, change NAS",
Dick,"OK." As if.

The real pity is the influencing of Australian politics by a person who time and time again fails to implement anything suitable.

bitter balance

Agent Mulder, that's a pretty big call. Hope you're right for your sake.

Ralph the Bong

Mulder, I'd delete the last line if I were you..

Don Esson

'Speech by Marn Ferguson' sounds likes one of the English-speaking World's classic oxymorons to me!

MoFo

Correction.
Thats Marn Ferson.

How the Hansard reporter changes the verbal shorthand into english and keeps up with the speech is a wonder to behold.

At least our Marn is giving the right people a kick up the butt ,even if it has to be done under privilage of Parliament. Go marn baby!

Four Seven Eleven

It strikes me that there are two possible scenarios regarding Martin Ferguson's speech.

On the one hand, he could be entirely wrong, in which case the accusations he makes would indeed be defamatory were it not for the fact that they were uttered under the cloak of parliamentary privilege

If Mr Ferguson’s allegations are true, then serious crimes may have been committed and an enquiry is warranted. Mr Ferguson’s allegations are of serious threats to a Minister of the Crown, resulting in the appointment of an individual to a paid position under the Crown. The extraction of tax-payers’ money and a position of influence under the aegis of a threat should be treated seriously.

On the assumption that the allegations are incorrect and are false, then Dick Smith’s reputation has been unfairly sullied.

Regular readers of these forums would understand that I am not a supporter of Mr Smith’s methods in attaining his ‘reforms’ and I have previously taken issue with Mr Smith when he has:

1) Made false accusations against me
2) Made veiled threats against me
3) Extracted information from me on a broken promise
4) Repeatedly ignored questions about the safety of NAS.

However, I do find it hard to believe that he is capable of the criminal activity alluded to. Either way, whether by an action initiated by Mr Smith, a duly constituted enquiry into possible breaches of the law or by a comprehensive and detailed clarifying statement by the Minister, these sorts of allegations cannot be allowed to remain unanswered. The issue of airspace reform and public safety calls for the highest levels of ethics and accountability. The introduction of NAS and the incidents which have occurred are of significant public interest.

Any allegations of impropriety particularly by holders of an office of profit under the Crown are worthy of the closest scrutiny, even if only to clear the names and reputations of those involved.

Four Seven Eleven

“No deal” says Mr Smith.

We can only take Mr Smith at his word on this statement, but it only addresses half of the question.

How the `worst transport minister in history' (Dick Smith’s assessment) decided to appoint the man who ‘nobody takes seriously on aviation’ (John Anderson’s assessment) to such an important position in aviation reform may never be known.

Martin Ferguson said:
Dick Smith said on PPRuNE:
The ”campaign” referred to was of course, the introduction of NAS – as opposed to airspace reform generally. Quite specifically, the ‘campaign’ did not countenance LLAMP as an option. This is confirmed by Mr Smith’s own website, with statements such as “Finally, the Airservices Low-Level Airspace Management Plan (LAMP) is a no goer as CASA have stated they will not allow an increase in the dimensions of mandatory radio areas which is a fundamental requirement of LAMP.”

By Mr Smith’s own admission, however, there was an ‘understanding’ between the Minister and himself that the ARG’s public terms of reference were not to be adhered to.

The public was told that the ARG would do the following:
Whatever Dick Smith was doing whilst a paid member of the ARG, he was, by his own admission, not doing what the Minister told the public the ARG was doing. He has said that, far from being appointed as disinterested assessors of the two proposals, “There was no suggestion that people were put on the ARG to be independent and disinterested. They were placed on the ARG because of their knowledge and expertise in their particular fields. The Minister actually wanted people with strong opinions, as there had been years and years of no decision making.” Dick Smith has so far not told us what was discussed between him and the Minister to lead him to the conclusion that the public terms of reference were to be ignored, and that he was to use the ARG to continue to campaign in favour of NAS, rather than assess NAS against LLAMP. (The public, who paid Dick Smith during this period, might have been forgiven for believing that he would be an assessor, rather than a campaigner.)

Whatever agreement, deal etc. occurred between Dick Smith and the Minister in respect of his paid ARG duties, Dick Smith continued to campaign for NAS, going so far as to post pro-NAS (and anti-LLAMP) information on his own web-site. This was at the same time as the tax-payer was paying him to be an assessor of two competing systems.

So the following questions remain unanswered in respect of Dick Smith’s involvement in airspace reform:

1. What arrangement was there between Dick Smith and the Minister, which led Mr Smith to believe that the published terms of reference did not apply to him?
2. Why did the Minister pay Mr Smith if he did not intend Mr Smith to follow the terms of reference?
3. Why was someone who was actively campaigning in favour of one of the two competing proposals allowed onto the assessment group?

Finally, a question from the heart – and perhaps a rhetorical one at that. What is it going to take to undo all of the harm that has been done through the airspace reform program over the last few years, and finally achieve the reforms which are desirable and necessary to bring aviation safety and viability into the twenty-first century? Can we afford another debacle like the NAS implementation?