Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.
Thread Starter
Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.
On another thread, Clapton posted the following comment in relation to the reappointment of Mike Taylor as the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by Anthony Albanese.
It occurs to me that Mike Taylor is barely known. He has been in the position for nearly five years and obviously has immense power. For example, I have recently been told by a person in CASA that the decision in relation to the $100 million ADS-B subsidy rests solely with the Department.
Can you imagine that? They will be making the decision, yet the decision makers are almost invisible. Mike Taylor is in an incredibly powerful position and I’m sure most agree he is almost invisible. Surely he should be made famous. This is a democracy.
I’m sure he would be prepared to be held accountable for the decisions that are made by the organisations under him. He should be regularly interviewed by the media – just as the media regularly tries to get comments from Bruce Byron and Greg Russell.
Posters comment on the large amount of money paid to both Bruce Byron and Greg Russell, but no comment is made in relation to the pay that a secretary receives. Does anyone know what it is? Is it commensurate with the decisions they have to make?
My main criticism of the Department is that once a bureaucrat comes up to speed in aviation, they disappear. For over three years we had a man called Martin Dolan, who was the Deputy Secretary and responsible for aviation. He no sooner came up to speed when he left the Department. We then had the very capable Mike Mrdak, who came up to speed on aviation but then also left.
The main point is that Australia is an accountable democracy – it is not China, or not yet – and people who are making decisions must be held personally accountable and should be in front of the media at all times.
Most importantly, they must be responsible for the decisions they make which are correct, and also for the decisions they make when they are incorrect. You only have to look at the military procurement program (where no one has been held accountable for the $1 billion Super Seasprite fiasco) to know how the bureaucracy works. Why wasn’t the Secretary of that Department held accountable?
We want top people running our bureaucracies, not “Yes, Minister” type people. I’m sure everyone will agree.
Here is a bit of information about Mike Taylor. His experience primarily appears to be in the bureaucracy and specializing in agriculture – he doesn’t appear to have any experience in aviation. There is further information here.
The fact that he re-appointed Taylor for 5 years shows how incompetent he is and can't see (or doesn't care) that Taylor must ultimately also share total blame for Byron's failings because the Secretary is meant to properly oversee the operations and policies dreamt up by Byron (which is why the Act was changed in 2003 to give the Secretary proper powers of oversight). Taylor knew exactly what was going on - and what was not going on eg regulatory reform, partnership policy, allowing now to come to work - and stood by and let it all happen. As a reward he gets re-appointed for 5 years. Shows just how out of touch Albanese is - I suspect that he will be just as bad as Anderson. Nothing will change. Regulatory reform will drag on forever - or at least until there is a major airline accident.
Can you imagine that? They will be making the decision, yet the decision makers are almost invisible. Mike Taylor is in an incredibly powerful position and I’m sure most agree he is almost invisible. Surely he should be made famous. This is a democracy.
I’m sure he would be prepared to be held accountable for the decisions that are made by the organisations under him. He should be regularly interviewed by the media – just as the media regularly tries to get comments from Bruce Byron and Greg Russell.
Posters comment on the large amount of money paid to both Bruce Byron and Greg Russell, but no comment is made in relation to the pay that a secretary receives. Does anyone know what it is? Is it commensurate with the decisions they have to make?
My main criticism of the Department is that once a bureaucrat comes up to speed in aviation, they disappear. For over three years we had a man called Martin Dolan, who was the Deputy Secretary and responsible for aviation. He no sooner came up to speed when he left the Department. We then had the very capable Mike Mrdak, who came up to speed on aviation but then also left.
The main point is that Australia is an accountable democracy – it is not China, or not yet – and people who are making decisions must be held personally accountable and should be in front of the media at all times.
Most importantly, they must be responsible for the decisions they make which are correct, and also for the decisions they make when they are incorrect. You only have to look at the military procurement program (where no one has been held accountable for the $1 billion Super Seasprite fiasco) to know how the bureaucracy works. Why wasn’t the Secretary of that Department held accountable?
We want top people running our bureaucracies, not “Yes, Minister” type people. I’m sure everyone will agree.
Here is a bit of information about Mike Taylor. His experience primarily appears to be in the bureaucracy and specializing in agriculture – he doesn’t appear to have any experience in aviation. There is further information here.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 23rd Sep 2008 at 23:37.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your personal bias shows ACMS and reflects on the credibility and purpose of your post. I hardly think Taylor would seek Smith's counsel on any aviation matter...
"Bachelor of Agricultural Science at the University of Melbourne in 1970 and a Diploma in Economics at the University of New England in 1972."
Obviously a career public servant, hardly qualified to make any decision about transport operations and in particular the technicalities of aviation operations?
"Bachelor of Agricultural Science at the University of Melbourne in 1970 and a Diploma in Economics at the University of New England in 1972."
Obviously a career public servant, hardly qualified to make any decision about transport operations and in particular the technicalities of aviation operations?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taylor has also presided over the Security bungle that exists across Australia, the insane ASIC requirements for Cunnamulla, Ceduna and all.
The funding for Shire Councils to erect their funny fences and appoint mini "Hitler's" to enforce the insane regulations.
So he must be some sort of "Aviation" expert in the Commonwealth sense, it would seem he does know how to waste money which seems to be the primary qualification for any Aviation Administrator in Government.
The funding for Shire Councils to erect their funny fences and appoint mini "Hitler's" to enforce the insane regulations.
So he must be some sort of "Aviation" expert in the Commonwealth sense, it would seem he does know how to waste money which seems to be the primary qualification for any Aviation Administrator in Government.
Thread Starter
ACMS, you obviously do not know me. The fact that you believe that I want someone to “mould into my way of thinking” shows that you have little understanding of the way I work. My success has come from surrounding myself with capable people, asking advice then acting upon that advice. Unfortunately, sometimes you can get wrong advice, and that is where you need to use common sense to decide which advice is correct.
ACMS, I don’t “mould into my way of thinking” – I have no necessity to do that. When people have different views, I listen to them and ask advice from others to see if the views are likely to be correct. I believe a success force is to surround yourself with capable people – the reason you can be successful is by letting them perform and encouraging them. That is the way I have always worked. Do you think there is something different – i.e. that I somehow have the abilities to be successful and don’t need to take notice of anyone? If you do, that is indeed a great compliment to me, but it is not true.
ACMS, you may be interested in knowing that very little of my aviation knowledge comes from something that is ‘invented.’ It virtually all comes from others who have given me advice which I can see is correct.
You seem very biased – no wonder you are anonymous, even though you have made over 1,000 posts.
ACMS, I don’t “mould into my way of thinking” – I have no necessity to do that. When people have different views, I listen to them and ask advice from others to see if the views are likely to be correct. I believe a success force is to surround yourself with capable people – the reason you can be successful is by letting them perform and encouraging them. That is the way I have always worked. Do you think there is something different – i.e. that I somehow have the abilities to be successful and don’t need to take notice of anyone? If you do, that is indeed a great compliment to me, but it is not true.
ACMS, you may be interested in knowing that very little of my aviation knowledge comes from something that is ‘invented.’ It virtually all comes from others who have given me advice which I can see is correct.
You seem very biased – no wonder you are anonymous, even though you have made over 1,000 posts.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Catacombs
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez Dick, change the record.
Yes, ACMS uses a pseudonym, as is his/her/its right and privilege.
Using a pseudonym does not in any way lessen the strength of one's argument, and your persistent insinuating that because you have chosen to waive your right to anonymity somehow makes your arguments more valid is wearing very thin.
Change the record, please.
Yes, ACMS uses a pseudonym, as is his/her/its right and privilege.
Using a pseudonym does not in any way lessen the strength of one's argument, and your persistent insinuating that because you have chosen to waive your right to anonymity somehow makes your arguments more valid is wearing very thin.
Change the record, please.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOM
Well put. I've been there also. Even better is to denigrate anon posters because they are not real people - and don't mould to the righteous way of thinking 
There's a few people in business that are not well known and yet have enormous power. Wonder what makes Mike special - does he realise the power he holds re ADS-B one wonders?
Interesting timing Dick propelling Mike to fame around the time the Minister will be undoubtedly seeking Mike's opinion for the new Enid Blyton story - who will be the "Famous Five" to sit over CASA
Well put. I've been there also. Even better is to denigrate anon posters because they are not real people - and don't mould to the righteous way of thinking There's a few people in business that are not well known and yet have enormous power. Wonder what makes Mike special - does he realise the power he holds re ADS-B one wonders?
Interesting timing Dick propelling Mike to fame around the time the Minister will be undoubtedly seeking Mike's opinion for the new Enid Blyton story - who will be the "Famous Five" to sit over CASA
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACMS
In that we are in complete agreement. Smith may not always be right in the views of all, but he does speak out in what he bieves in. I respect his right to have his opinions heard.
If more Australians stood up and spoke out for what they believe in, we may not have the current mess in DoT and CASA.
That is what our democratic Australia is all about.
"Taylor might not ask Dick his opinion on all things Aviation BUT I'm sure Dick will give it anyway. 
If more Australians stood up and spoke out for what they believe in, we may not have the current mess in DoT and CASA.
That is what our democratic Australia is all about.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Taylor could start by spending more time in his place of employment instead of operating out of Melbourne. I guess that is a hangover inherited by example. Is this is a Victorian thing, as all who live there seem touched with a divine right to rule?
The "headhunters" could be looking at anyone james michael. Thrown your hat into the ring yet?
The "headhunters" could be looking at anyone james michael. Thrown your hat into the ring yet?
Jeff Kennett for next CASA CEO?..........................My God man, you might have something there
Dick: I've been in Aviation as a professional for nearly 30 years and I certainly do know who YOU are. As do most of my fellow Professional Pilot's in the real world. We could hardly not after all the air time you get.
No get back to running your Biscuit business and leave the men's work to us.
I can't get the degrading image of you wearing a Qantas Captains uniform greeting Price Charles out of my head. Just like John F'ing Travolta you DIDN'T earn the right to wear that uniform. Amazing what money can buy isn't it mate.
Dick: I've been in Aviation as a professional for nearly 30 years and I certainly do know who YOU are. As do most of my fellow Professional Pilot's in the real world. We could hardly not after all the air time you get.
No get back to running your Biscuit business and leave the men's work to us.
I can't get the degrading image of you wearing a Qantas Captains uniform greeting Price Charles out of my head. Just like John F'ing Travolta you DIDN'T earn the right to wear that uniform. Amazing what money can buy isn't it mate.
Geez guys, give thge bloke a break. Its so boring watching people take pot shots at Dick Smith for the sake of it.....its almost become a sport for some.
Like many, I either passionately agree or disagree with what Dick has to say, but I will always respect the bloke for what he has achieved. he puts his time and money where his mouth is and actually tries to do something about it, rather than the "aint it awfull" crowd here.
least he has the courage to post openly under his real name. How many of us post under our own names.
Like many, I either passionately agree or disagree with what Dick has to say, but I will always respect the bloke for what he has achieved. he puts his time and money where his mouth is and actually tries to do something about it, rather than the "aint it awfull" crowd here.
least he has the courage to post openly under his real name. How many of us post under our own names.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Probably from his submissions to the Senate on Report 400 etc re aviation security that proves what an 'accountable democracy' we are not. I'm certain he would have submitted
NMC
It becomes a sport because of his behaviour that includes doing his utmost to probe people's anon status in defiance of the forum rules, and because he makes public statements on these forums about organisations and individuals.
Frankly, I don't give a tuppeny about exactly where Mike Taylor works - many organisations don't have their CEO headquartered in Canberra.
If we have some issues about Mike's handling of aviation, let's trot out some specifics to debate.Alternatively, perhaps we can look at someone else who will have a major impact on aviation in future as we output all these greenhouse emissions - another unknown - the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change that gobbles up $ based on pure fiction - Dr Martin Parkinson. As if naming either on here adds any value anyway.
I remain curious at Dick's spotlight on Taylor when there are so many issues in aviation that direct intervention or lobbying might assist. Just my thoughts
Probably from his submissions to the Senate on Report 400 etc re aviation security that proves what an 'accountable democracy' we are not. I'm certain he would have submitted
NMC
It becomes a sport because of his behaviour that includes doing his utmost to probe people's anon status in defiance of the forum rules, and because he makes public statements on these forums about organisations and individuals.
Frankly, I don't give a tuppeny about exactly where Mike Taylor works - many organisations don't have their CEO headquartered in Canberra.
If we have some issues about Mike's handling of aviation, let's trot out some specifics to debate.Alternatively, perhaps we can look at someone else who will have a major impact on aviation in future as we output all these greenhouse emissions - another unknown - the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change that gobbles up $ based on pure fiction - Dr Martin Parkinson. As if naming either on here adds any value anyway.
I remain curious at Dick's spotlight on Taylor when there are so many issues in aviation that direct intervention or lobbying might assist. Just my thoughts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once in the APS the main aim is to move from position to position gaining promotions as you go. I saw people moving on after 6 months, promoted to new positions. Before I witnessed this I always thought you had to actually work and deliver results to get promoted. Nope you just spend you days surfing the intranet looking for new jobs. Unless it's Friday of course when you have morno's and you spend the morning having tea and sticky buns.
Saw this first hand
Saw this first hand
Thread Starter
Jim Irwin, in relation to Mike Taylor you say:
If that is so, we want to know everything about the man – his experience, his training and his ability in relation to a visionary policy for aviation. He should be invited to (and appearing at) meetings of the industry, the unions, and everyone else who is affected by the aviation regulatory system.
My experience of the Department under Mike Taylor is one of complete resistance to change. That is, not really taking any notice of anyone other than the major airlines. For example, the ASIC card mentioned above has been a giant misallocation of resources. There is no equivalent in the US, and after all, that country is the home of September 11.
It was introduced here by a Department which obviously has no understanding of how such costs will further damage an industry. From what I can make out, every member of that Department has no interest in general aviation flying – they don’t fly, they don’t pay for an ASIC card or anything similar, and there is almost the philosophy that we saw in the Yes, Minister episode on the hospital that had no patients. That is, if you basically have a nil or very small GA industry, there are fewer problems. This is outrageously disloyal to Australia, however the bureaucrats in the Department seem to get away with it.
ACMS, I have no problems with people posting under a pseudonym if they need to do it. However if they do it to defame people with inaccurate statements it is quite different. For example, you state:
I’ve checked the photo in my Solo Around the World book. It shows clearly that when I landed at Balmoral Castle (the only place where I met Prince Charles) I was wearing my Multifabs survival suit with a T-shirt underneath, as I’d just flown over the Atlantic Ocean. I wore that suit all that day until I arrived in London. A Multifabs survival suit is not a “Qantas Captain’s uniform.”
Kreugers, you state:
You are 100% correct. To have a bureaucrat from the Department of Agriculture in effect now responsible for aviation is a catastrophe in my view. No doubt Mike Taylor is a brilliant bureaucrat. However as stated above, he is immensely powerful, and history shows that there will be no meaningful reform.
My suggestion is that you look through the records and see if there has been one visionary statement in relation to the future of Australian aviation from Mike Taylor. I believe you will find nothing.
If the situation remains the same for the next five years, it wouldn’t matter if there were ten CASA Boards – they would be able to do nothing. When I was the Chairman of CASA, the Department ruled supreme, and simply stopped any reform that we wanted to do. The Department obviously has its direct contacts with the powerful – i.e. Qantas and the other major airlines – and constantly advises the Minister on what will keep him out of the media in their view.
During my involvement in aviation in Australia, I have never heard one bureaucrat (from the Secretary down) ever ask anyone about their views in relation to the general aviation industry in Australia, and how we could reverse the decline.
By the way, there is nothing in the PPRuNe rules which stops people from posting under their own name. As I have constantly said, if you want to have influence, use your own name – then there is a greater chance that people will listen.
James Michael, you state:
James, all the direct intervention and lobbying will be futile under the present system, where the Department operates supreme, and can (and does) stop any change which they do not support. Presumably they do a phone around to Qantas and a few of the other airlines, and then the decision is made behind the scenes.
He is a very powerful man, and has the ATSB under his control.
My experience of the Department under Mike Taylor is one of complete resistance to change. That is, not really taking any notice of anyone other than the major airlines. For example, the ASIC card mentioned above has been a giant misallocation of resources. There is no equivalent in the US, and after all, that country is the home of September 11.
It was introduced here by a Department which obviously has no understanding of how such costs will further damage an industry. From what I can make out, every member of that Department has no interest in general aviation flying – they don’t fly, they don’t pay for an ASIC card or anything similar, and there is almost the philosophy that we saw in the Yes, Minister episode on the hospital that had no patients. That is, if you basically have a nil or very small GA industry, there are fewer problems. This is outrageously disloyal to Australia, however the bureaucrats in the Department seem to get away with it.
ACMS, I have no problems with people posting under a pseudonym if they need to do it. However if they do it to defame people with inaccurate statements it is quite different. For example, you state:
I can't get the degrading image of you wearing a Qantas Captains uniform greeting Price Charles out of my head.
Kreugers, you state:
No one seems to understand or want to confront the fact that industry specific knowledge, skills and experience are vital when developing programs and legislation that affect the real world.
My suggestion is that you look through the records and see if there has been one visionary statement in relation to the future of Australian aviation from Mike Taylor. I believe you will find nothing.
If the situation remains the same for the next five years, it wouldn’t matter if there were ten CASA Boards – they would be able to do nothing. When I was the Chairman of CASA, the Department ruled supreme, and simply stopped any reform that we wanted to do. The Department obviously has its direct contacts with the powerful – i.e. Qantas and the other major airlines – and constantly advises the Minister on what will keep him out of the media in their view.
During my involvement in aviation in Australia, I have never heard one bureaucrat (from the Secretary down) ever ask anyone about their views in relation to the general aviation industry in Australia, and how we could reverse the decline.
By the way, there is nothing in the PPRuNe rules which stops people from posting under their own name. As I have constantly said, if you want to have influence, use your own name – then there is a greater chance that people will listen.
James Michael, you state:
I remain curious at Dick's spotlight on Taylor when there are so many issues in aviation that direct intervention or lobbying might assist.
Thread Starter
ACMS, you state:
I think you are implying that I somehow bought influence with Qantas. So everyone can know the facts (and they are very simple), here they are.
I was in my 30s when I planned to fly around the world solo by helicopter. Just as any young adventurer does, I wrote to various companies to see if I could get sponsorship. Companies such as Mobil (who had originally sponsored Bert Hinkler and Charles Kingsford Smith) came in with sponsorship for fuel, and Qantas came in with sponsorship for some airfares. This was in return for giving the organisations publicity.
That is exactly what happened. So rather than my money being able to buy something, it was actually the reverse – simple commercial sponsorship by companies hoping to get a return for the resources they put in.
ACMS, it is such a pity that you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder. I believe it is still important that you are accurate and stick to the facts.
Just like John F'ing Travolta you DIDN'T earn the right to wear that uniform. Amazing what money can buy isn't it mate.
I was in my 30s when I planned to fly around the world solo by helicopter. Just as any young adventurer does, I wrote to various companies to see if I could get sponsorship. Companies such as Mobil (who had originally sponsored Bert Hinkler and Charles Kingsford Smith) came in with sponsorship for fuel, and Qantas came in with sponsorship for some airfares. This was in return for giving the organisations publicity.
That is exactly what happened. So rather than my money being able to buy something, it was actually the reverse – simple commercial sponsorship by companies hoping to get a return for the resources they put in.
ACMS, it is such a pity that you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder. I believe it is still important that you are accurate and stick to the facts.
Moderator
Thread Title: Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.
It is not: Who is Dick Smith?
We all know that already!
If posts in this thread do not adhere to the thread title and remain objective, the posts, the users or possibly even the thread may disappear!
It is not: Who is Dick Smith?
We all know that already!
If posts in this thread do not adhere to the thread title and remain objective, the posts, the users or possibly even the thread may disappear!