Editing the voice of the Citizenry
The self-appointed gatekeepers in action.
❝-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MIGMAN DFRAS Submission
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:16:30 +1100
From: Peter "MiGMan" Inglis - migman@migman.com
To: JSCFADT@aph.gov.au
Hello (public servant "M", name omitted, who had responded to my initial inquiry about submissions)
I note that my submission to DFRAS has been listed on the parliamentary website.
Thank you for that. However there are a couple of puzzling issues:
- Why does the submission as posted terminate at page 8 of 25 pages? In fact it terminates at footnote 9 in a list of 25 explanatory notes to the comparison table.
- The conclusion table on page 10 has been entirely omitted.
- Was the remaining 15 pages deemed irrelevant to the inquiry?
- Why is the submission presented as a scan of a poor photocopy when it was presented (submited) as a colour pdf document?
Thanking you,
Regards,
Peter "MiGMan" Inglis - migman@migman.com
MiGMan's Flight Sim Museum - www.migman.com
❞ The Committee Secretary, Dr Margot Kerley, replied:
❝Dear Mr Inglis, thank you for your e mail. I apologise for the quality of the copy on the Committee's website. We will have our technical people look at this.
The committee is only able to authorise as a submission material expressly created for the purpose of the Committee's inquiry and not created previously for another purpose.
Thank you for your contribution,
Dr Margot Kerley
Secretary
❞ Dr. Margot Kerley then replied to me via email, and I in turn replied to that email:
email: 15-Dec-06 4:21 PM
Kerley, Margot (REPS): "Dear Mr Inglis, thank you for your e mail. I apologise for the quality of the copy on the Committee's website. We will have our technical people look at this."
Peter "MiGMan" Inglis: "Yes, I spoke to (another public servant) about it. The original submission was in high quality colour pdf format. Other submissions have been published at the original quality."
Kerley, Margot (REPS) : " The committee is only able to authorise as a submission material expressly created for the purpose of the Committee's inquiry and not created previously for another purpose."
❝Peter "MiGMan" Inglis: "The entire 25 page submission was created expressly as a submission to the Comittee's inquiry." The submission is in 6 sections and intended to be read as a whole:
- About this submission
- Politics or Prudence?
- Achieving Regional Air Defence Superiority for Australia.
- Use of simulations in Planning, Training and analysis.
- Increased Literacy of the general public on Aerospace and Defence matters.
- The Author and The Flight Sim Museum
The document is linked to external references, as are other submissions. All the hyperlinks disappear when the document is presented as a Black and White scan of a photocopy.
Regards,
Peter "MiGMan" Inglis
❞
❝email December 21st, 2006
Hi Dr. Kerley,
I am following up on the communications of one week ago between myself, (public servant "M", name omitted, who had responded to my initial inquiry about submissions) and yourself regarding the posting of my submission to DFRAS website.
My request at that time was to have my submission, No.35, presented:
- Intact - there are 17 pages missing at present
- At original colour pdf quality
- With hyperlinks to sources and reference material intact.
- Other submissions which your department has already posted in this exact format are nos: 05, 09, 16, 19, 21, 23, 29, 31 and no. 36.
- I attach the original submission, and the version posted on DFRAS website.
Why is there a difficulty or delay in posting my submission, no.35, at the same quality?
Regards,
Peter "MiGMan" Inglis - migman@migman.com
MiGMan's Flight Sim Museum - www.migman.com
❞ Eventually, after many communications, the submission was posted in an edited form, and can be read at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs.php.
Note: web page is gone.
Does the Australian Federal Government not have a system in place for archiving these proceedings?
Perhaps they want to make it difficult for future generations to follow an audit trail and ask "difficult" questions?
