AGM Proxies

[DonRamsay]

Now that'd be really gnasty!

 

 

[Oscar]

Quite seriously, people, I don't think that introducing political ( in the sense of governments, be they Federal or State) commentary helps us. If RAA is to progress, it needs to be able to work with whatever government is the current owner of the portfolio that makes the rules that affect us. Don't think that toss-off political comment may not be noticed and thereby construed by politicians as indicating partisanship (pro or anti) to their persuasion.

 

No matter which way you lean politically, it is in our interests to be considered as a part of the constituency worthy of accommodation. We will NOT get the attention we need to our issues if we are considered by the government of the day to be antipathetic to their interests and political philosophy. We need to be seen as a group of value to whatever flavour of government is in power, if we are to get any attention leading to progress on our issues.

 

Swallow your political affiliation in regard to your flying activities - and if it helps to assuage one's inclinations, please remember that while Labor has done sweet bugger-all for our cause in the last period of its government, the National's Peter Anderson was the one who handed control of regional airfields to local Councils that are turning them into rate-generating real estate all over the place. Perhaps the best that can be said, is that both sides of politics have done sod-all that we need to happen, so if we are to do better in future let's not start with being on the outer with either of the mobs that will certainly hold the Ministerial office relevant to our activities.

 

Or, in cruder terms - don't sh!t in our own nest.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Sage advice Oscar.

 

I'll drop a note to the Mods to see if they can delete the video.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Sage advice Oscar.I'll drop a note to the Mods to see if they can delete the video.

Hang on, I enjoyed watching that video.

 

 

[coljones]

Sage advice Oscar.I'll drop a note to the Mods to see if they can delete the video.

it is your post. can't you delete it?

 

 

[David Isaac]

Nup he cant. You only get 15 minutes of editing time now Col, after that she is locked and loaded ... LOL

 

 

[coljones]

Nup he cant. You only get 15 minutes of editing time now Col, after that she is locked and loaded ... LOL

Hmm! But in the interests of political neutrality on the site I will remain silent.

 

 

[Oscar]

As much as it is rather satisfying to vent one's frustration with politicians ( Hate 'em or loathe 'em, you aren't allowed to hit 'em with a shovel..), if you've never worked in close proximity to Ministerial seats of power it's sometimes difficult to understand just how capricious the process of getting attention can be.

 

A Minister's office functions rather like a tiny fiefdom. Ministerial staff (not the public servants in the relevant Department, but the Minister's personal staff) are a fairly impenetrable wall between the 'general public' and the Minister her or himself. It can take just one of those in a fairly senior position to take a set against an individual or group and trying to get through to the Minister becomes almost impossible: you can write letters, seek meetings etc. on issues that affect you and your attempts may never get to the Minister's attention - no matter how important the issue may be, unless you can generate sufficient interest in the Press that it becomes potentially politically 'dangerous' to ignore.

 

However - and here I can speak from personal experience, having trudged the corridors of Old Parliament House to sit with the Minister and detail the problems - IF you can get the Minister on-side about an issue, a Ministerial direction to her/his Department to 'do something about fixing this' has immense impact. In the particular case in which I was deeply involved, we had spent over a year writing to the Department concerned and getting 'thank you for your letter, we'll get back to you' responses, with no progress. We spent about 20 minutes with the Minister (in that case, Peter Nixon, known by himself with glee as 'the bastard from the Bush') outlining our case; he picked up the phone, called the head of the Department concerned, and told him: 'I want you to meet with these people.... no, in the next day, please'. The result of that was, that after several years of fruitless attempts to get anywhere with the Department, we were suddenly accorded a position on the Motor Vehicle Performance Standards advisory committee and able to properly influence rules and regulations that affected our activities.

 

Ministerial staff are out there in the community just like everybody else, and you never know when one is at least obliquely aware of the nature and activities of groups such as us. It's just not in our interests to get these people off-side.

 

 

[dazza 38]

As much as it is rather satisfying to vent one's frustration with politicians ( Hate 'em or loathe 'em, you aren't allowed to hit 'em with a shovel..), if you've never worked in close proximity to Ministerial seats of power it's sometimes difficult to understand just how capricious the process of getting attention can be.A Minister's office functions rather like a tiny fiefdom. Ministerial staff (not the public servants in the relevant Department, but the Minister's personal staff) are a fairly impenetrable wall between the 'general public' and the Minister her or himself. It can take just one of those in a fairly senior position to take a set against an individual or group and trying to get through to the Minister becomes almost impossible: you can write letters, seek meetings etc. on issues that affect you and your attempts may never get to the Minister's attention - no matter how important the issue may be, unless you can generate sufficient interest in the Press that it becomes potentially politically 'dangerous' to ignore.

 

However - and here I can speak from personal experience, having trudged the corridors of Old Parliament House to sit with the Minister and detail the problems - IF you can get the Minister on-side about an issue, a Ministerial direction to her/his Department to 'do something about fixing this' has immense impact. In the particular case in which I was deeply involved, we had spent over a year writing to the Department concerned and getting 'thank you for your letter, we'll get back to you' responses, with no progress. We spent about 20 minutes with the Minister (in that case, Peter Nixon, known by himself with glee as 'the bastard from the Bush') outlining our case; he picked up the phone, called the head of the Department concerned, and told him: 'I want you to meet with these people.... no, in the next day, please'. The result of that was, that after several years of fruitless attempts to get anywhere with the Department, we were suddenly accorded a position on the Motor Vehicle Performance Standards advisory committee and able to properly influence rules and regulations that affected our activities.

 

Ministerial staff are out there in the community just like everybody else, and you never know when one is at least obliquely aware of the nature and activities of groups such as us. It's just not in our interests to get these people off-side.

How does it work when a polly gets a new port folio or their first port folio. They cannot be expected to be experts straight away (or ever ) , so my question is. Do they rely heavily on senior public servants to give them guidance with decision making and also with educating the politician IRT their port folio ?

 

 

[Oscar]

Yep- right now, all Departments are busy generating three different sets of information: one for the same Minister in the job (which is mostly 'possible Parliamentary questions' likely to arise from election campaign issues that have surfaced), one for a new Minister from the same government coming into the job, and one for a new Minister from the opposite side in case of a change of government. Those briefings ( and they are a pain in the arse to prepare, I can assure you, you get sod-all of your real work done while preparing them) are largely non-political in nature - i.e. they don't cover overtly 'political' implications of decisions etc. that may be taken,- that is left to the Ministerial staff to add - but do tend to evaluate how certain issues may align with any expressed policy of the alternative potential Governments.

 

And 'training' a Minister in how the actual business of her/his Department works is a time-consuming business, especially if the Minister has never held a portfolio before (and while not quite as 'Yes, Minister' as you might think, that show had an awful lot of resonance and rather more sharpened than stretched the truth..)

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Thanks for the political info Oscar, it is interesting!

 

Quite seriously, people, I don't think that introducing political ( in the sense of governments, be they Federal or State) commentary helps us.

Oh, seems you didn't really mean that then....

 

 

[dazza 38]

Thank you for the reply Oscar. I found it very informative.

 

 

[Keith Page]

Hi All

 

I am back -- been away with minimal internet connection.

 

Just wondering because I have been doing a bit of thinking.

 

These Motions for Special Resolutions are they a "big bit premature?" Think so.

 

Beacuse the Reform and Constitional (they are now combined) review committees have not finished their work.

 

Why not wait till their work has finished?

 

If any of these resolutions get up that means the reform and constitutional committee have done all that work for nothing?

 

Am I correct in thinking that?

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Keith

 

In a normal set of circumstances where the CRC and the reform group was indeed working to deliver an outcome in an expected timeframe you would be right. The CRC committee was put on hold due to reform group considerations but in reality that whole group is suffering from "Go Slow" due to participants being time poor and as a result the CRC started back up again.

 

SMS and other "fix it right now" issues to me suggests that reform group is unlikely to deliver anything soon, and CRC same issue.

 

Too soon? well I guess it depends on whether the issues that the resolutions address are issues that can wait.....Only individual voters can determine that.

 

I see it like computers, there is always a new and improved just around the corner, if not careful you can end up waiting your entire life for the never ending just around the corner improvements rather than grabbing what's on offer today and working with it.

 

If one or more of these special resolutions get up it changes absolutely nothing for the reform group who are looking at what an RAAus relevant to today needs to look like. Once that egg is laid a constitution appropriate would be the next step.

 

Andy

 

 

[Oscar]

A very fair question and highly deserving of serious consideration.

 

On balance, even though I am concerned that the various changes may not work out in the long run to have the effect they seek to embrace, I am personally inclined to think that this is a time when change of its own sake may just be beneficial: it is palpably obvious that a continuation of 'business as usual' is simply not viable for RAA's future existence. As things stand, I believe that an ambience of change may be what is needed to RAA to concentrate on the evolution it simply HAS to accomplish in order to become the organisation that serves its members' interests effectively - and if this means having to stumble over a few 'well, THAT didn't work out too well' moments... sometimes a purgative is what is needed to unclog the bowels of the beast.

 

It might just be that 'Constitutional Reform' is, on balance, no more than a change in a palliative care regime and what emerges as the obvious way forward is in fact a seriously major overhaul to the operational arrangement of RAA. It could be, for instance, more effective for RAA to become a two-headed monster: on the one hand, providing a commercially-based service to its members in regard to registration, compliance, certification, operations etc., and on the other, a vociferous lobby organisation to promote our interests at local, regional and federal level. The creation of such an entity would take more than 'Constitutional Reform', however.

 

I believe we are at the situation where all options need to be on the table and seriously considered. That is not going to happen where the organisational culture is 'don't frighten the horses'. Should CASA develop a maintenance regime for privately owned and non-commercially operated aircraft that dovetails with the RPL philosophy (which could be considered as 'GA-light'), if RAA cannot be effectively 'competitive' as the stream for aircraft owners and pilots to continue their activities as they wish - RAA might well revert to a glorified club for mainly 95-10 machines.

 

Is that what we want?

 

 

[Keith Page]

KeithIn a normal set of circumstances where the CRC and the reform group was indeed working to deliver an outcome in an expected timeframe you would be right. The CRC committee was put on hold due to reform group considerations but in reality that whole group is suffering from "Go Slow" due to participants being time poor and as a result the CRC started back up again.

 

SMS and other "fix it right now" issues to me suggests that reform group is unlikely to deliver anything soon, and CRC same issue.

 

Too soon? well I guess it depends on whether the issues that the resolutions address are issues that can wait.....Only individual voters can determine that.

 

I see it like computers, there is always a new and improved just around the corner, if not careful you can end up waiting your entire life for the never ending just around the corner improvements rather than grabbing what's on offer today and working with it.

 

If one or more of these special resolutions get up it changes absolutely nothing for the reform group who are looking at what an RAAus relevant to today needs to look like. Once that egg is laid a constitution appropriate would be the next step.

 

Andy

Hi Andy

You mentioned "Go Slow" as I see the situation the reform groups/commmittees have a colossal task to achieve.

 

What they are doing is "big" because as they move forward they must at all times be checking that they have the proposed reform somewhere correct.

 

These special resolution will change the goal posts and all the work the reform groups will have completed will become nul and void hence all their work over the last few months will have become useless.

 

I think put some effort into helping the reform groups move forward than the Special Resolutions, Andy as you say the people are time poor,

 

Then why make more work for them?

 

If I had done all that work I would not very happy.

 

Regards

 

Keith Page

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

All what work?

 

A quick look at the members page doesn't show that much progress has been made at all.

 

I for one wont be waiting. I don't agree that the changes undo anything? As I said Reform group is trying to determine what RAAus should look like in the future how does some constitutional changes around our constitution as it is today make any difference to that determination.

 

In any event the proposals were run past the CRC for comment before they were submitted. I don't believe anyone on the CRC said wait.

 

So no, no waiting by me, but feel free to take any position you like

 

Andy

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . These Motions for Special Resolutions are they a "big bit premature?" Think so.Beacuse the Reform and Constitional (they are now combined) review committees have not finished their work.

Why not wait till their work has finished?

 

If any of these resolutions get up that means the reform and constitutional committee have done all that work for nothing?

 

Am I correct in thinking that?

Keith,

 

The short answers are:

 

- no, not premature as the sooner these changes happen the better for RA-Aus;

 

- no need to wait until CRC has finished as there is no significant crossover or conflict with their work;

 

- no, the CRC will not have significant re-work on the basis of these proposed reforms in fact, they may actually reduce the amount of work that the CRC has to do.

 

I think I have mentioned the following before but in case you missed it, at the risk of boring others, I'll repeat the process for coming up with these proposals for change.

 

I have been in contact with the CRC and Reform Committee for several months on these issues. They are fully aware of what we are proposing and have provided us with a number of very good suggestions for changes which have been incorporated in the proposed Special Resolutions. I had also passed the draft of the Special Resolutions to the General Manager for a check on practicality aspects as he will have to live with the changes if adopted, and to Spencer Ferrier and the Board. In addition to all of those people perhaps another 20 sets of eyes have been over the drafts.

 

From the very beginning of the development of these changes, I have been in consultation with the CRC so as to avoid crossing over the areas that they and the Restructure Committee are concentrating on. If you think about it, those Committees, now one as you say, are looking at some very big picture stuff like the form of incorporation for RA-Aus, Board size and composition and how it Board Members become Board Members.

 

Keith, does this answer your concerns?