Warning long post!
The Truss speech has the Kingcrat's grubby (and probably bloody) little paws written all over it. What it shows is that now all the rhetoric of the election campaign is over the time for getting down to governing is here and the DoIT head sherang has got the rope around the neck of his minister and is herding him towards the top paddock.
Who can blame him after all he has an awful lot to lose (namely his job) if he was to simply adopt the government stated policy as writ and allow the IOS direct control of his minister. The Kingcrat if nothing more is a true survivor, he has survived in the top job through various changes of government and has been a loyal servant to Truss before.
The DoIT head has also been around for a good chunk of the much criticised reg reform program and it would be suicidal for him to simply administer the wishes of the growing and unruly masses of industry who have the audacity to suggest that we now adopt the NZed regs....no bureaucrat could survive being partly responsible for wasting 200 million plus of taxpayers money.
That is the conundrum facing Truss because, much like FF’s exploitation of the ‘mystique of aviation’ as a tool to bluff and keep government’s on side, so too does the Minister rely on the entrenched head of DoIT. If real change was to ever occur with strong ‘political will’, then the Coalition should have been sourcing and then grooming a top bureaucrat for the job a long time before the election. When they took back government and first announced the standard be-headings of head bureaucrats,Kingcrat should have been one of them.
Well that chance has been lost but it isn’t all bad news because although watered down the Truss speech does show a shift in the Kingcrat’s standard spin and that he is accepting of the fact that there needs to be change and soon. He also knows that the dirt file is growing on him (e.g. QON 1 of the last Senate Estimates) and that he is still facing a hostile group of Senators that could continue to grow in numbers come July next year. {The Senators and Minister also know that the effect of the PelAir enquiry was to put all of them on notice and the clockis effectively ticking.}
And then there is Senator Fawcett (and despite what Creamy says about him being a Liberal stooge and beholden to party politics), a Senator is a different animal not so obligated to holding the party line and more free to speak their mind in regards to national and state interest. {Example of this in recent years would be Doug Cameron and more in the past Bill Heffernan.}
DF has already shown his intentions in numerous Senate Estimates hearings and of course in the introduction to the Senate of the PelAir report... “Australia’s travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better….I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring.”
There is also the small subject of the previous government’s aviation white paper, which the DoIT head will have some serious concerns about because he knows that the Coalition government will be amending it with some major policy changes...remember this from last Estimates:
Senator FAWCETT: In broad terms, dealing with the regulation that CASA oversights specifically, particularly in the context of a regulatory process that has now stretched over a decade, and with changes of CEOs or directors of aviation safety there has been quite a change in approach to that, not just the current but previous. I am looking to understand what strategic guidance, as in long-term vision, comes from the policy area of your department, Mr Mrdak, that guides the people who are involved in regulatory reform in how the government wishes that go forward? Which stakeholders are involved? Can you talk me through how you set the policy directions for that?
Mr Mrdak: The first priority of the aviation white paper is to bring a lot of that regulatory reform process to a conclusion. You are absolutely right, it is a process which started almost a decade and a half ago with various guises. It has been through various iterations. The white paper actually set out an intention to bring some of the key suites of regulatory documents to a close. What we have been involved with is trying to do that.
The stakeholders involved are diverse depending the regulatory package involved be it maintenance, pilot licensing or whatever. There has been a diversity of industry interest. The big elements like the maintenance suite for the heavy end of the industry will come into play on 1 July with the changes. There are other suites which will come together.
The drafting process is nearly complete for just about all of the packages now. We threw additional resources to pay for drafters and the legal processes to expedite that. I think the bulk of the package is now due to be completed by the end of this calendar year. They have been through various consultative processes.
You are right, what we have tried to do is get a suite of modern regulations that get the right balance for CASA in terms of industry behaviour and the like. We try to be prescriptive where we need to be but less prescriptive wherever we can. We certainly involve ourselves in that element. Much of our work over the next two years has to be trying to keep that suite of regulatory reform documents coming to a conclusion.
Senator FAWCETT: One of the issues we have seen is that under Mr Byron, for example, there was very much an approach saying industry are the current practitioners and they probably know best so let them bring forward a solution. If CASA has a safety case as to why that should not be adopted then they can argue that out. It appears now from feedback we are getting from industry that that focus has swung more to 'we will consult but at the end of the day CASA will do what it sees fit'. That is a fairly substantial change in direction. I am wondering was that direction set by policy from your level or was that left largely to the discretion to the director of aviation safety?
Mr Mrdak: To be honest I suspect some of the change of focus has come through industry consultation. I know in some of the regulatory suites certain segments of industry have sought greater certainty including in the maintenance suite. They were looking for much more prescription around some of the elements to end what they saw as some uncertainty for them in how the regulations will be implemented. I think that process has come from industry feedback from certain parties about what they want to see in the regulatory focus. The simple adoption of a safety management system approach in certain areas was not going to meet the needs of some levels of the industry.
Senator FAWCETT: The concern, though, is what I am hearing from certain sections of the industry—and EMS is one, on the rotary side. I did not get time to confirm this with Mr McCormick today, but my understanding is that the person in CASA who is writing the regulatory reform has a general aviation fixed-wing background and a light helicopter conversion, but no experience in multi-engine IFR helicopters or in the EMS industry, and yet is now trying to tell operators throughout that industry what their future regulations and operating standards are going to look like. They are very unhappy with that. So my question comes back: why has there been this change to basically have CASA dictating what is going to occur as opposed to constructively engaging with industry? Is that a policy that has come from government or is it something that has just evolved with changes of personality?
Mr Mrdak: I do not know the specifics of that particular regulatory regime. I am just not familiar with that level of detail. I would have to seek advice from Mr McCormick in relation to that matter. I would say it is problem in more likely to be the latter. It probably has evolved as the circumstances of the consultation, industry views and CASA views have formed. But I cannot comment on that specific example, I am sorry.
And then there is possibly the most revealing AQON from the last Estimates that, although appearing as a full and comprehensive answer, really is just another carefully constructed, obfuscated (with no real substance) answer. This answer goes directly to the performance of the department under Albo and Labor’s aviation white paper:
QON 81 Aviation & Airports
Senator Fawcett asked:
Senator FAWCETT: When can the parliament expect to see some of the updates that you have been saying the minister has been getting about the various implementation of the white paper?
Mr Mrdak: We can certainly provide you some advice on the status of the measures. They range, as I said. We have been implementing many measures, such as our approach to bilateral negotiations, right through to the suite of regulatory measures and NASAG. There is a lot. I think today legislation was introduced to the House of Representatives concerning particular elements of protection of assets and the like. A range of legislation has been introduced. We are well progressed in most elements of the white paper. Also, the real achievement of the white paper was to bring together for the first time the comprehensive policy positions around the full suite of industry measures covering aviation and provide a range of objectives going forward. That is where the white paper has served a very good purpose.
Senator FAWCETT: Certainly, either individually or as a committee member, I would welcome a more detailed update or briefing.
Mr Mrdak: We would be happy to do that for you.
Here’s a link for the weasel worded (lots of them) answer
:AQON 81 pg 5