|
Paul Fletcher MP answers Dick Smith’s Wagga Speech
Yesterday I received a letter from Paul Fletcher, the Federal Member for Bradfield, in relation to my Wagga address. The gist of it is he has said:
“As you may be aware, leaders of Australia’s General Aviation (GA) Advisory Group recently presented the General Aviation Flight Plan to the Government to help ensure the sector’s future.” Can anyone explain to me why the General Aviation Flight Plan proposal didn’t include any mention of changing the Civil Aviation Act so it no longer says the lie – that is, safety is the most important consideration. Is it because those involved in preparing the General Aviation Flight Plan do not consider this important, or is it because they realise it is a total waste of time mentioning that this important change is necessary? I look forward to any advice. |
The GA flight plan has one purpose: to make the GA sector shut up before the next Federal election. That is why it says nothing about changing the Act. After that, the embuggerance will continue unchanged or perhaps with a little glitter applied to the regulatory turd that you are being asked to swallow. I always thought pilots were fast learners. I was wrong. The only way you will get meaningful regulatory change is to bludgeon the politicians at the ballot box. The most economical way for AOPA to do that is through mounting cheap and vicious negative electoral campaigns in marginal electorates of ALL parties until frightened politicians give you what you want. You got bought off by smoke, mirrors and flattery at Wagga and that will become apparent after the forthcoming Federal election. You wasted your energy and momentum. |
Wooden tit be nice if CA$A board members had to be elected by the GA people, from the GA people, instead of done internally.
|
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10204371)
The only way you will get meaningful regulatory change is to bludgeon the politicians at the ballot box. The most economical way for AOPA to do that is through mounting cheap and vicious negative electoral campaigns in marginal electorates of ALL parties until frightened politicians give you what you want. I very much doubt that voters in those electorates would give a flying fig about general aviation, and wouldn’t change their voting preference for it and what they’d perceive as some fringe group making noise. They will vote for the party or independent pushing matters of direct importance and impact to them i.e. health, employment, pensions, superannuation, taxes, utility costs, infrastructure etc. etc. An outcome might be achieved by finding independents willing to include GA matters in their portfolio, along with the above. |
The GAAG is a really meaningful acronym --- and we well know that the composition of this group is hand picked to ensure the semblance of being responsive while ensuring the bureaucracy is not bothered by matters in which they have no interest. Like the collapse of an industry.
Bring Back Barnaby!!! Tootle pip!! |
The sound of chirping crickets from the Minister’s office and his Department after the ‘Summit’ is deafening... |
buckshot, the punters don't have to know anything about aviation. negative campaigning is about "don't vote for blogs because he beats his children/dog/cat/wife" you don't have to spell out your agenda to the paroles, just throw mud. its devastatingly effective in marginal seats. |
Bring Back Barnaby!!! As a constituent and as an occasional provider of Charter services and as a President of the local Chamber of Commerce for 2 years, I assure you Barnaby Joyce could not give a tinker's cuss about aviation. Or sheep for that matter. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10204818)
negative campaigning is about "don't vote for blogs because he beats his children/dog/cat/wife" you don't have to spell out your agenda to the paroles, just throw mud.
Hopefully AOPA is smart enough to not want to be tainted or embarrassed by being caught out engaging in lies and rubbish like that. |
Not to mention the electorate.
|
Had to look him up.Looks like another waste of Energy in regards to any meaningful action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fletcher_(politician) |
I have found nautical pursuits to be much more satisfying than aeronautical. The following factors have influenced my change in direction: - Part 61 (still waiting for my new Licence after submitting the appropriate paperwork Jan 17) - increasing costs - closing airports - representative bodies infighting / fighting with each other |
Originally Posted by Horatio Leafblower
(Post 10204842)
Jesus Christ mate.
As a constituent and as an occasional provider of Charter services and as a President of the local Chamber of Commerce for 2 years, I assure you Barnaby Joyce could not give a tinker's cuss about aviation. Or sheep for that matter. Tootle pip!! |
Buckshot:
negative campaigning is about "don't vote for blogs because he beats his children/dog/cat/wife" you don't have to spell out your agenda to the paroles, just throw mud. That's a great thing to suggest, given elements of the media read these pages. Hopefully AOPA is smart enough to not want to be tainted or embarrassed by being caught out engaging in lies and rubbish like that. Let me explain. Politics is not an honourable calling. if you want something you have to fight for it, and if you fight using Marquis of Queensbury rules you have already lost. Tainted? yes. Embarrassed? No. Respected as a no holds barred advocate for Aviation? Yes. To put that another way, play nice and all you will get is the proverbial up your backside. Every time. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.