Must be almost 5PM Friday:
Had a bit of time to do some reading and this popped up:
[Read more in the Sydney Morning Herald article by Kim Sawyer who is an honorary fellow with the school of historical and philosophical studies at the University of Melbourne.
The power of the selfish incentive ]The power of the selfish incentive
in a Google search for :
"power to prosecute by civil aviation safety authority"
We have traditionally adopted an approach where regulators are mandated to detect and prosecute corruption. This approach empowers industry regulators such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, auditors-general, ombudsmen, law-enforcement agencies and state-based commissions to fight against corruption. But the approach has become a patchwork quilt. There is no uniform legislation across Australia in areas such as fraud prevention, anti-corruption commissions, or whistleblowing; and little evidence of the costs and benefits of our fight against corruption. The anecdotal evidence that exists suggests the fight is highly inefficient; the failure to effectively prosecute the AWB and Reserve Bank of Australia cases of bribery suggests a culture of non-compliance that is tolerated by regulators and policymakers. We depend too much on investigative journalists for transparency.
or the final para which says:
In the fight against corruption, Australia must now consider a market-based approach that gives whistleblowers incentives. As the US experience has shown, this confers substantial pay-offs to governments and taxpayers. It is an insurance policy for a culture of compliance. And it would permit Australian whistleblowers the opportunity to show the real benefits of the public-private partnership called whistleblowing.
From the November 2012 Senate inquiry and casa's response:
Note 5.10.11 above and in casa's web site, the following is a direct cut and paste:
Prosecution
Where CASA receives information that suggests that there may have been a breach of the legislation, the matter may be considered for investigation and referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in accordance with CASA’s enforcement strategy and procedural guidelines and having regard to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. This would generally include any contraventions that:
1. Are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety rules;
2. Are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
3. Involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
4. Seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention.
Enforcement Manual, Chapter 11 Criminal Action - Prosecution
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...nf/009r011.pdf
This says in part:
11.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to explain the process of referral of matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), the use of prosecution as an enforcement tool, the responsibilities of CASA and its officers in relation to such referrals and the procedures to be taken when such action is being considered.
Surely that means ALL infringements should be referred and casa has the power to prosecute.
Just do some careful reading of the Manual and how the process has been misused by casa.