Merged: Senate Inquiry
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post highlights what many have been fighting for so long without much to show for the effort. It's too simplistic to say CAsA is running a protection racket for "compliant" organizations who have been shown to be unsafe to the very real and tangible wellbeing of the travelling public. Indeed too many lives have been wasted by waxing over one accident so that nothing is learnt to prevent the next. We can highlight this concept with a time line starting, (just for example), with Seaview, progressing to Monarch, progressing to Whyalla, progressing to Lockhart River, progressing to Pel Air...etc.. etc..
The real problem is cronyism at all levels of government and industry. We will possibly see and confirm this if someone from Kowloon gets the DAS job. We probably see this now with the Canadian report and we can say with a degree of accuracy that the mix of characters across the spectrum with Rex is a valid observation. Politicians won't help you obviously. They are thin on loyalty excepting only if you are powerful enough to keep them in power.
It's nothing to do with mates rates, more like a secret society with funny handshakes and this needs to be addressed by someone outside of Australia. The UN sticks out like a sore thumb and specifically the convention on human rights. Tim Wilson at Australian Human Rights Commission is probably the best start point. He has yet to be tarnished and has instant UN access. If that fails, cc the complaint to head office in Geneva or wherever is home these days for that lot.
It simply needs someone with enough real person signatures and identities to make the complaint.
Even Slater and Gordon will take this on if the complainants agree on a common theme and there's a quid in it for them. Past approaches have failed because the Australian aviation industry is full of "alpha" male and female players who, if locked in a room by themselves would all agree the system is crooked but wouldn't in a million years come up with a common goal. They would end up killing each other after the third drink.
I've seen it all before. the last time about 3 months was wasted fighting over the acronym that best suited the purpose. Christ! No wonder I gave up.
In my Army days an appreciation was simple;
1) Situation.. Well we know about that.
2) Mission.. This is tricky. It should be one sentence.
3) Execution.. How do we go about achieving the mission. UN perhaps.
4) Admin and logistics.. Well, book keepers and note takers are needed.
5) Command and control.. Faaark! "alpha" males (and females). This is where you loose me.
When you lot can agree to a mission statement and commander, let me know. Until then, I'll just hang around for therapy.
BTW. I have no case that CAsA needs answer to me. My matter was settled years ago. Indeed I could say I had a win of sorts, (only cost me money. I retained my sense of humor) and still talk with some from the factory. However I can see what the problem is, and although many ask my opinion personally, few take notice to act on my advice. I can only support your efforts and urge you to maintain the impetus. You are, what we call in the Army, divided, and as such you will be conquered.
Kick some arse Ziggy, they need a job and a leader.
The real problem is cronyism at all levels of government and industry. We will possibly see and confirm this if someone from Kowloon gets the DAS job. We probably see this now with the Canadian report and we can say with a degree of accuracy that the mix of characters across the spectrum with Rex is a valid observation. Politicians won't help you obviously. They are thin on loyalty excepting only if you are powerful enough to keep them in power.
It's nothing to do with mates rates, more like a secret society with funny handshakes and this needs to be addressed by someone outside of Australia. The UN sticks out like a sore thumb and specifically the convention on human rights. Tim Wilson at Australian Human Rights Commission is probably the best start point. He has yet to be tarnished and has instant UN access. If that fails, cc the complaint to head office in Geneva or wherever is home these days for that lot.
It simply needs someone with enough real person signatures and identities to make the complaint.
Even Slater and Gordon will take this on if the complainants agree on a common theme and there's a quid in it for them. Past approaches have failed because the Australian aviation industry is full of "alpha" male and female players who, if locked in a room by themselves would all agree the system is crooked but wouldn't in a million years come up with a common goal. They would end up killing each other after the third drink.
I've seen it all before. the last time about 3 months was wasted fighting over the acronym that best suited the purpose. Christ! No wonder I gave up.
In my Army days an appreciation was simple;
1) Situation.. Well we know about that.
2) Mission.. This is tricky. It should be one sentence.
3) Execution.. How do we go about achieving the mission. UN perhaps.
4) Admin and logistics.. Well, book keepers and note takers are needed.
5) Command and control.. Faaark! "alpha" males (and females). This is where you loose me.
When you lot can agree to a mission statement and commander, let me know. Until then, I'll just hang around for therapy.
BTW. I have no case that CAsA needs answer to me. My matter was settled years ago. Indeed I could say I had a win of sorts, (only cost me money. I retained my sense of humor) and still talk with some from the factory. However I can see what the problem is, and although many ask my opinion personally, few take notice to act on my advice. I can only support your efforts and urge you to maintain the impetus. You are, what we call in the Army, divided, and as such you will be conquered.
Kick some arse Ziggy, they need a job and a leader.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Oct 2014 at 09:18. Reason: Terry turned up sober today and Gibbo remains unmedicated.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend indeed.
The answer to a question asked of a minister in the house of reps caught my attention -
The statement "We are the only friends small business has in this chamber." set the old wheels in motion, why is Truss not addressing some of the burden for aviation along the same lines as the minister for small business?.
Apart from the 'heavies' a high percentage of aviation businesses could be seen as 'small' – in the strict sense. No doubt the benefits of the 'red-tape' reform will be passed along and will assist but 'small aviation' needs an additional layer of protection.
The industry is capital intensive, the commercial risks are high, the returns relatively low. Industry accepts that as a given and continues – anyway. But, there is no similar rhetoric from Truss relating to removing the additional onerous burdens and stresses CASA force upon industry. No other small business is as ruthlessly persecuted to maintain absolute blind, unchallenging obedience to an arcane, becoming ridiculous rule set – without recourse. No other industry is 'self funding' to degree demanded of aviation. Imagine trying to sell that to 'small business' while telling them that if and when it pleases the 'regulator', they fund, chooses to close them down, they will.
I am uncertain of the number of jobs lost and the taxable revenue now unavailable to government due to forced closure of aviation business during the McComic era, when a scourge akin to Ebola swept through; but it was plenty. The accident rates have nor reduced due to this philosophy, the skies are no safer, the red tape mounts, the regulation more manically determined on micro management – for why?? and where is the minuscule ? and what is it doing?
'Our' minuscule, unlike Mr Billson, continues to sit, snoozing or staring into space and will not, unlike like Billson raise a finger to help a dying industry. At least Billson acknowledges the value of 'small business'. It was refreshing to hear a little heat, just a few words from a minister; even if it's all hot air, at least Billson is 'seen' to be having a go – with some passion.
I just wonder if the ostrich like Truss hopes the Senate will, once again, dig his chestnuts out of the fire. There are a few in the flames:-
The medical issues, not just the CVD troops, but an entire range of incompetence, embuggerance and ineptitude managed by an unaccountable megalomaniac. A CASA in miniature.
The regulatory issues: parts 61 and 145 for example. Gods alone know what the true, total cost to industry is as it struggles to (a) comprehend the rubbish and (b) try to find a way of compliance which will ensure the commercial viability and legal safety of their businesses.
There are outstanding, serious matters related to the manner in which industry is managed and regulated, which have not been acknowledged for almost a twelve month now, let alone addressed.
There are grave concerns regarding the quality and value of our accident investigating; not only ignored, but wilfully disregarded.
There are huge problems in the manner and method in which aerodrome matters are managed and manipulated, with only the thickness of a cigarette paper between a major, damaging scandal exploding all over the government.
Well Bravo Mr. Billson, you set a fine example for our own shiftless, lazy, dithering inutile Minister to follow; and, you publicly shame him by that example. Would you consider accepting a charge to take one more branch of the small business tree under your umbrella? Then we could just step around the Truss roadblock and appeal to a Minister who seems to take his job seriously; for we certainly do need a friend, in deed, in the Australian parliament.
Truss and Australia have got it very, very wrong and before you call Bull-pooh; just have a look across the Tasman and see the difference.
Selah...
Small business Minister Bruce Billson QWN :
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, will you inform the House of the action you are taking to cut the red-tape burden for the 13,000 small businesses in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast and how you are also assisting hardworking small businesses right across Australia?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:08): It is great to get a question from the member for Fisher. Isn't it great to have him back in this parliament? What a great representative. The member for Fisher would know that we are well on our way to implementing an election commitment—a crucial election commitment to cut $1 billion worth of— red tape and compliance costs out of the economy, as a central part of our Economic Action Strategy.
There can be no contest about the need for this red-tape reduction task. You might remember, Madam Speaker, when the Labor government was initially elected, they promised one in, one out. That was the commitment. But after spectacularly failing to achieve that ambition, they thought they would change the goal posts. And then it was about a regulation count. When we reminded the previous government that they had implemented 21,000 new and amended regulations, they then said, 'We don't like that way of measuring the red-tape burden either.'
But who could argue with The World Economic Forum's assessment? Who could forget that, after six years of Labor, the Australian economy is 128th in the world in terms of the burden of government regulation. There are only 127 other economies that have less gummed-up impact of government regulation than our own. This is why this red-tape reduction task is a whole-of-government obligation, where every minister is making a contribution and where every portfolio is making a contribution. Regulatory burdens land no more heavily than on small businesses. The small businesses of Fisher, as we travel around and talk with them, describe this overwhelming compliance obligation that takes them away from growing their business and nurturing opportunities in their electorate.
This is why Labor contributed so much in its red-tape overreach to 519,000 jobs lost in small business under Labor. We have started well: We have more than $700 million worth of compliance savings already announced and already booked, but we have to keep that momentum going. We have seen 300,000 small businesses relieved of unnecessary PAYG and also BAS reporting obligations. We have seen the need to improve and fix the overreach in the Personal Property Security Register. We have seen changes in the area of franchising—all of these aimed at reducing the red tape burden.
We have in the Senate another opportunity to end the burden on business being the double-handler of paid parental leave payments. There is another $48 million worth of red-tape savings to be had there for businesses big and small for the not-for-profit obligations. We are evangelical about our work in relieving small businesses of that red-tape burden and re-energising enterprise, realising that these businesses need to be world-class every day to thrive and prosper. That is the discipline we should apply to our task, and not do what Labor did—whenever there was a problem, after spending all the money that was left from Howard government, just go and add some more regulation to it and hope it goes away. We are the only friends small business has in this chamber. (My bold)
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, will you inform the House of the action you are taking to cut the red-tape burden for the 13,000 small businesses in my electorate on the Sunshine Coast and how you are also assisting hardworking small businesses right across Australia?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (15:08): It is great to get a question from the member for Fisher. Isn't it great to have him back in this parliament? What a great representative. The member for Fisher would know that we are well on our way to implementing an election commitment—a crucial election commitment to cut $1 billion worth of— red tape and compliance costs out of the economy, as a central part of our Economic Action Strategy.
There can be no contest about the need for this red-tape reduction task. You might remember, Madam Speaker, when the Labor government was initially elected, they promised one in, one out. That was the commitment. But after spectacularly failing to achieve that ambition, they thought they would change the goal posts. And then it was about a regulation count. When we reminded the previous government that they had implemented 21,000 new and amended regulations, they then said, 'We don't like that way of measuring the red-tape burden either.'
But who could argue with The World Economic Forum's assessment? Who could forget that, after six years of Labor, the Australian economy is 128th in the world in terms of the burden of government regulation. There are only 127 other economies that have less gummed-up impact of government regulation than our own. This is why this red-tape reduction task is a whole-of-government obligation, where every minister is making a contribution and where every portfolio is making a contribution. Regulatory burdens land no more heavily than on small businesses. The small businesses of Fisher, as we travel around and talk with them, describe this overwhelming compliance obligation that takes them away from growing their business and nurturing opportunities in their electorate.
This is why Labor contributed so much in its red-tape overreach to 519,000 jobs lost in small business under Labor. We have started well: We have more than $700 million worth of compliance savings already announced and already booked, but we have to keep that momentum going. We have seen 300,000 small businesses relieved of unnecessary PAYG and also BAS reporting obligations. We have seen the need to improve and fix the overreach in the Personal Property Security Register. We have seen changes in the area of franchising—all of these aimed at reducing the red tape burden.
We have in the Senate another opportunity to end the burden on business being the double-handler of paid parental leave payments. There is another $48 million worth of red-tape savings to be had there for businesses big and small for the not-for-profit obligations. We are evangelical about our work in relieving small businesses of that red-tape burden and re-energising enterprise, realising that these businesses need to be world-class every day to thrive and prosper. That is the discipline we should apply to our task, and not do what Labor did—whenever there was a problem, after spending all the money that was left from Howard government, just go and add some more regulation to it and hope it goes away. We are the only friends small business has in this chamber. (My bold)
Apart from the 'heavies' a high percentage of aviation businesses could be seen as 'small' – in the strict sense. No doubt the benefits of the 'red-tape' reform will be passed along and will assist but 'small aviation' needs an additional layer of protection.
The industry is capital intensive, the commercial risks are high, the returns relatively low. Industry accepts that as a given and continues – anyway. But, there is no similar rhetoric from Truss relating to removing the additional onerous burdens and stresses CASA force upon industry. No other small business is as ruthlessly persecuted to maintain absolute blind, unchallenging obedience to an arcane, becoming ridiculous rule set – without recourse. No other industry is 'self funding' to degree demanded of aviation. Imagine trying to sell that to 'small business' while telling them that if and when it pleases the 'regulator', they fund, chooses to close them down, they will.
I am uncertain of the number of jobs lost and the taxable revenue now unavailable to government due to forced closure of aviation business during the McComic era, when a scourge akin to Ebola swept through; but it was plenty. The accident rates have nor reduced due to this philosophy, the skies are no safer, the red tape mounts, the regulation more manically determined on micro management – for why?? and where is the minuscule ? and what is it doing?
'Our' minuscule, unlike Mr Billson, continues to sit, snoozing or staring into space and will not, unlike like Billson raise a finger to help a dying industry. At least Billson acknowledges the value of 'small business'. It was refreshing to hear a little heat, just a few words from a minister; even if it's all hot air, at least Billson is 'seen' to be having a go – with some passion.
I just wonder if the ostrich like Truss hopes the Senate will, once again, dig his chestnuts out of the fire. There are a few in the flames:-
The medical issues, not just the CVD troops, but an entire range of incompetence, embuggerance and ineptitude managed by an unaccountable megalomaniac. A CASA in miniature.
The regulatory issues: parts 61 and 145 for example. Gods alone know what the true, total cost to industry is as it struggles to (a) comprehend the rubbish and (b) try to find a way of compliance which will ensure the commercial viability and legal safety of their businesses.
There are outstanding, serious matters related to the manner in which industry is managed and regulated, which have not been acknowledged for almost a twelve month now, let alone addressed.
There are grave concerns regarding the quality and value of our accident investigating; not only ignored, but wilfully disregarded.
There are huge problems in the manner and method in which aerodrome matters are managed and manipulated, with only the thickness of a cigarette paper between a major, damaging scandal exploding all over the government.
Well Bravo Mr. Billson, you set a fine example for our own shiftless, lazy, dithering inutile Minister to follow; and, you publicly shame him by that example. Would you consider accepting a charge to take one more branch of the small business tree under your umbrella? Then we could just step around the Truss roadblock and appeal to a Minister who seems to take his job seriously; for we certainly do need a friend, in deed, in the Australian parliament.
Truss and Australia have got it very, very wrong and before you call Bull-pooh; just have a look across the Tasman and see the difference.
Selah...
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Oct 2014 at 20:59.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thorny - Last I looked 79 (80 ish) about one tenth 1/10 the Australian super version of over 800 pages (excluding the 800 odd pages of MOS, to explain, the inexplicable). Thank you John and the boys for a national embarrassment.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albo's Great White Elephant - A trip down memory lane for Ziggy
Ziggy chick, I agree, the relationship between Sharp and government is disgusting, and 'interesting'.
As for the almost impossible task of closing out a handful of NCN's in a handful of days, well it defies belief and is simply not possible. CASA will not/do not act that fast, I can assure you of this. It would never occur in a day or two of receiving an operators response. It simply does not happen, ever. The Inspector/Team Leader has to, at a minimum, review the operator response, share this with his audit team, discuss, then agree to close it out and pass that closure recommendation on to his Field Office Manager or equivalent, for approval. It all has to be 'trimmed', an admin officer drafts up a letter of response to the operator and then that letter is signed at a high level in CASA prior to being sent to the operator! All this in perhaps 2 to 3 days????? Yeah right. I think the Royal Commission should start now!
Also Ziggy, here is the link to Albo's famous Great White Elephant 2009, the collectors addition. To save you from boredom and being nauseated just skip to Page 87-88, the section 'Air Operators Liabilty Insurance'. The Governments weasel like wording and dribble is truly infuriating and pathetic. Not surprisingly people such as yourself cop the pineapple while the government, the airline, and the insurer are protected.
WARNING! This policy contains no real actions, no substance, no commitments and no value. It does however contain pages of pretty pictures, lots of colours and fancy photography - a hit with preschoolers and public servants;
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...aper_final.pdf
Footnote: This 'paper', once printed, makes for a very hardy, robust and soft toilet paper. Especially after one has read the Great White Paper back to front and is feeling ill, or one has a damaged rectum from repetitive CASA pineapples!
As for the almost impossible task of closing out a handful of NCN's in a handful of days, well it defies belief and is simply not possible. CASA will not/do not act that fast, I can assure you of this. It would never occur in a day or two of receiving an operators response. It simply does not happen, ever. The Inspector/Team Leader has to, at a minimum, review the operator response, share this with his audit team, discuss, then agree to close it out and pass that closure recommendation on to his Field Office Manager or equivalent, for approval. It all has to be 'trimmed', an admin officer drafts up a letter of response to the operator and then that letter is signed at a high level in CASA prior to being sent to the operator! All this in perhaps 2 to 3 days????? Yeah right. I think the Royal Commission should start now!
Also Ziggy, here is the link to Albo's famous Great White Elephant 2009, the collectors addition. To save you from boredom and being nauseated just skip to Page 87-88, the section 'Air Operators Liabilty Insurance'. The Governments weasel like wording and dribble is truly infuriating and pathetic. Not surprisingly people such as yourself cop the pineapple while the government, the airline, and the insurer are protected.
WARNING! This policy contains no real actions, no substance, no commitments and no value. It does however contain pages of pretty pictures, lots of colours and fancy photography - a hit with preschoolers and public servants;
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/av...aper_final.pdf
Footnote: This 'paper', once printed, makes for a very hardy, robust and soft toilet paper. Especially after one has read the Great White Paper back to front and is feeling ill, or one has a damaged rectum from repetitive CASA pineapples!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sot –"Also Ziggy, here is the link to Albo's famous Great White Elephant 2009, the collectors addition."
Someone needs a smack bottom.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASSR submission.
I have managed to persuade the PAIN associates to release part of an unedited 'Draft' version of their submission made to the ASRR. The final edited version was completed from the draft version released – HERE - with various supportive attachments and two 'confidential' supplementary submissions. There is no parliamentary privilege covering the final version, however, detailed submissions by associates were considered sensitive.
I believe the ASRR has been emasculated, this notion supported by the lack of meaningful response to Forsyth and there being no publication of industry response to the ASRR report. I hoped that offering the draft submission to those interested, may rekindle industry determination to demand that the recommendations made by the Senate and the Forsyth review be implemented and fully supported by the Abbott government, as a matter of urgency.
I had to do some plain and fancy talking to get this document released, the slave time due will be willingly provided along with the midnight oil, ink, quills and parchment.
P7 a.k.a. TOM expects me to remind those downloading the document to only click once on the -
-.
Thanks guys.
P9 a.k.a K9.
I believe the ASRR has been emasculated, this notion supported by the lack of meaningful response to Forsyth and there being no publication of industry response to the ASRR report. I hoped that offering the draft submission to those interested, may rekindle industry determination to demand that the recommendations made by the Senate and the Forsyth review be implemented and fully supported by the Abbott government, as a matter of urgency.
I had to do some plain and fancy talking to get this document released, the slave time due will be willingly provided along with the midnight oil, ink, quills and parchment.
P7 a.k.a. TOM expects me to remind those downloading the document to only click once on the -
-.Thanks guys.
P9 a.k.a K9.
Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Oct 2014 at 21:42. Reason: Toot toot forbidden when on company business.
"From little things...big things (can) grow".
Thank you Ferryman (K9) the PAIN (part) submission and your previous post...A friend indeed..gives me a perfect launching pad for a long weekend recognition of some of the small business players who contributed to the ASRR in the way of submissions.
While the miniscule malaise hangs, like a 'pea souper', over the whole Forsyth report a lot of the small business (MP) submitters must now be wondering if it was worth the risk to make a contribution..
After all they have now effectively outed themselves to an historically vindictive big "R" regulator...
However throughout human evolution in times of conflict there is only two decisions that naturally present themselves; that is to 'fight' or 'flight' and in this case, for future self-preservation reasons, now is the time to 'fight' or face future oblivion.
Reflecting on the Billson small business speech and the apparent non-conformance our miniscule has to the Coalition red tape reduction policy; I thought I would give a plug to a little known QLD backbench Senator speech (given earlier in the week):
Perhaps those IOS members presiding in QLD should give the good Senator some input for his annual red tape report...
Moving on and for those owner/operators (a Small/Medium Enterprise {SME}) the stats quoted by Billson are contained in the following: The Australian Industry Group - NATIONAL CEO SURVEY - Burden of Government Regulation
A quote & table from page 13 of the AIG survey document:
Probably something we all know but basically put the regulatory burden imposed by CAsA's RRP has had (& continues to have) a far greater impact on Small/Medium owner/operators than on the larger airline operators. Perhaps this impact could be one of the causal chain of factors that has seen the demise of 16 regional airlines in recent years...
So to the ASRR MP submissions and starting with #sub220 - Michael Tucker. Mr Tucker's sub was largely in support of the AOPA submission but had some salient points worthy of consideration...:
Good start Mr Tucker anyone else care to contribute???
MTF...
While the miniscule malaise hangs, like a 'pea souper', over the whole Forsyth report a lot of the small business (MP) submitters must now be wondering if it was worth the risk to make a contribution..
After all they have now effectively outed themselves to an historically vindictive big "R" regulator... However throughout human evolution in times of conflict there is only two decisions that naturally present themselves; that is to 'fight' or 'flight' and in this case, for future self-preservation reasons, now is the time to 'fight' or face future oblivion.Reflecting on the Billson small business speech and the apparent non-conformance our miniscule has to the Coalition red tape reduction policy; I thought I would give a plug to a little known QLD backbench Senator speech (given earlier in the week):
Senator McGRATH (Queensland) (19:16): ...Tonight, however, I want to talk about red tape and the growing need to further reduce red tape in order to support small businesses and the economy. As I have travelled throughout Queensland, I have spoken often about the burden of red tape and have had many occasions to listen to people's concerns about red tape. Just a few weeks ago in Gympie, at a Gympie First forum with Tony Perrett, our Liberal-National Party candidate, I heard firsthand further examples of the damage that red tape and green tape are doing to local businesses and farmers in the Gympie district. Gympie is in my home region of the beautiful Sunshine Coast, and local businesses, community groups and community leaders there are calling for further action on red tape. They acknowledge that the state government has done some sterling work in reducing red and green tape. They also acknowledge that the federal government has also done some fantastic work—which I will come to later—in this area.
But red tape and overregulation are destroying confidence. In a region that needs jobs and economic growth, I—like my fellow Liberal and National Party senators—have a very strong interest in ensuring that these unnecessary barriers are removed. Sadly, it is a big task. The Australian economy is drowning under the weight of red and green tape. The volume, complexity and duplication of red-tape requirements are stifling innovation, investment and productivity. This overwhelming regulatory burden is exacerbating cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and increasing uncertainty about job security and job creation. Australians can no longer afford to waste thousands of hours on pointless paperwork, compliance and regulation. This applies to almost every sector—from small business to big business, from aged care to education, from the not-for-profit sector to agriculture.
Just last year, the Queensland Chamber of Commerce estimated (1) that red-tape compliance costs are equal to 10 per cent of a local independent supermarket's daily takings, (2) that red tape adds an additional $20 to $30 per head to the cost of a wedding at a function centre, (3) that red tape adds approximately five per cent to the average cost of a meal at a restaurant, and (4) that red tape and government fees and charges represent approximately a quarter, 25 per cent, of the ticket price for a regional tourist attraction. A report by Jobs Australia found there were over 3,000 pages of Job Services Australia rules. Indeed, these rules required paper records to be kept of all applications made through Job Services Australia. This left one provider requiring over 330 filing cabinets.
With universal support for a reduction in red tape, the previous Labor government left an appalling legacy of inaction. Kevin Rudd and Labor promised before the 2007 election that, for every regulation they brought in, they would abolish one regulation. You might think, 'That sounds promising'—and Labor did abolish over 220 regulations. You might think, 'That's pretty good; they probably get a gold star for that.' But, in little more than 5½ years, Labor introduced 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and over 21,000 additional regulations. A current secretary of state in the UK, Eric Pickles—whom everyone here should know I have a bit of man love for—does not have a one-in one-out policy. At the moment his record is that, for every regulation he brings in, he is getting rid of eight regulations. I think that sets the benchmark this government should be aiming for in getting rid of red tape.
On Labor's watch, Australia's ranking in the World Competitiveness Yearbook declined from seventh in 2008 to 15th in 2012, and ABS data showed that the country's productivity fell by three percent between July 2007 to June 2012.
In contrast to Labor's record of all talk and no action, the coalition government is ready to deliver a paradigm shift in Australia's approach to regulation. Already, this government removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation during its first-ever repeal day in March this year. This historic event alone has delivered savings of over $700 million in compliance costs.
Pull out your diaries, get very excited about this, tell your kids and your grandkids and tell your staff: another very exciting repeal day is coming up, scheduled for 29 October. Josh Frydenberg, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, is leading the charge on this. I think he deserves a lot of praise and a proper gold star for the work that he is doing to reduce regulation and red tape. This is just one part of the coalition government's red tape reduction program.
The government is committed to cutting over $1 billion in red and green tape each year. To do this, the government will focus on five key areas. Firstly, we are going to tackle the volume of regulation, which is clearly already too high. Secondly, we are going to work to eliminate the extensive duplication and regulatory overlap that exists between the different levels of government. Thirdly, we are going to improve the quality of consultation between government and those to be affected by any new regulations. Fourthly, we will ensure that there are rigorous and mandatory post-implementation reviews to determine how effective new regulations have been. Fifthly, we are going to ensure that regulators are at all times transparent, accountable and efficient in administering regulations.
Regulators are at the front line of this debate and it is our strong view that we have to bring them along as part of any sweeping new cultural change. Australia is home to over two million businesses, many of them family-run operations that create jobs and opportunities in our communities. I, like my coalition colleagues, want to see a strong and prosperous Australia. These important measures to reduce red tape will deliver unprecedented changes to the regulatory landscape in Australia. They will help those over two million businesses and help create jobs.
I have previously made a commitment to personally monitor our progress of red tape reduction to keep the government, which I am a proud member of, and my party, the Liberal Party, on track. I repeat that commitment today. I will be doing an annual red tape report. I will further update the Senate on this progress at a later date. This area of reform is critical for Australia's future. Done correctly, the government will support growth, build confidence and create an environment full of opportunity. This is certainly an outcome that I hope all of those who dislike red and green tape—those on the other side might like it—would agree with.
But red tape and overregulation are destroying confidence. In a region that needs jobs and economic growth, I—like my fellow Liberal and National Party senators—have a very strong interest in ensuring that these unnecessary barriers are removed. Sadly, it is a big task. The Australian economy is drowning under the weight of red and green tape. The volume, complexity and duplication of red-tape requirements are stifling innovation, investment and productivity. This overwhelming regulatory burden is exacerbating cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and increasing uncertainty about job security and job creation. Australians can no longer afford to waste thousands of hours on pointless paperwork, compliance and regulation. This applies to almost every sector—from small business to big business, from aged care to education, from the not-for-profit sector to agriculture.
Just last year, the Queensland Chamber of Commerce estimated (1) that red-tape compliance costs are equal to 10 per cent of a local independent supermarket's daily takings, (2) that red tape adds an additional $20 to $30 per head to the cost of a wedding at a function centre, (3) that red tape adds approximately five per cent to the average cost of a meal at a restaurant, and (4) that red tape and government fees and charges represent approximately a quarter, 25 per cent, of the ticket price for a regional tourist attraction. A report by Jobs Australia found there were over 3,000 pages of Job Services Australia rules. Indeed, these rules required paper records to be kept of all applications made through Job Services Australia. This left one provider requiring over 330 filing cabinets.
With universal support for a reduction in red tape, the previous Labor government left an appalling legacy of inaction. Kevin Rudd and Labor promised before the 2007 election that, for every regulation they brought in, they would abolish one regulation. You might think, 'That sounds promising'—and Labor did abolish over 220 regulations. You might think, 'That's pretty good; they probably get a gold star for that.' But, in little more than 5½ years, Labor introduced 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and over 21,000 additional regulations. A current secretary of state in the UK, Eric Pickles—whom everyone here should know I have a bit of man love for—does not have a one-in one-out policy. At the moment his record is that, for every regulation he brings in, he is getting rid of eight regulations. I think that sets the benchmark this government should be aiming for in getting rid of red tape.
On Labor's watch, Australia's ranking in the World Competitiveness Yearbook declined from seventh in 2008 to 15th in 2012, and ABS data showed that the country's productivity fell by three percent between July 2007 to June 2012.
In contrast to Labor's record of all talk and no action, the coalition government is ready to deliver a paradigm shift in Australia's approach to regulation. Already, this government removed over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation during its first-ever repeal day in March this year. This historic event alone has delivered savings of over $700 million in compliance costs.
Pull out your diaries, get very excited about this, tell your kids and your grandkids and tell your staff: another very exciting repeal day is coming up, scheduled for 29 October. Josh Frydenberg, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, is leading the charge on this. I think he deserves a lot of praise and a proper gold star for the work that he is doing to reduce regulation and red tape. This is just one part of the coalition government's red tape reduction program.
The government is committed to cutting over $1 billion in red and green tape each year. To do this, the government will focus on five key areas. Firstly, we are going to tackle the volume of regulation, which is clearly already too high. Secondly, we are going to work to eliminate the extensive duplication and regulatory overlap that exists between the different levels of government. Thirdly, we are going to improve the quality of consultation between government and those to be affected by any new regulations. Fourthly, we will ensure that there are rigorous and mandatory post-implementation reviews to determine how effective new regulations have been. Fifthly, we are going to ensure that regulators are at all times transparent, accountable and efficient in administering regulations.
Regulators are at the front line of this debate and it is our strong view that we have to bring them along as part of any sweeping new cultural change. Australia is home to over two million businesses, many of them family-run operations that create jobs and opportunities in our communities. I, like my coalition colleagues, want to see a strong and prosperous Australia. These important measures to reduce red tape will deliver unprecedented changes to the regulatory landscape in Australia. They will help those over two million businesses and help create jobs.
I have previously made a commitment to personally monitor our progress of red tape reduction to keep the government, which I am a proud member of, and my party, the Liberal Party, on track. I repeat that commitment today. I will be doing an annual red tape report. I will further update the Senate on this progress at a later date. This area of reform is critical for Australia's future. Done correctly, the government will support growth, build confidence and create an environment full of opportunity. This is certainly an outcome that I hope all of those who dislike red and green tape—those on the other side might like it—would agree with.
Moving on and for those owner/operators (a Small/Medium Enterprise {SME}) the stats quoted by Billson are contained in the following: The Australian Industry Group - NATIONAL CEO SURVEY - Burden of Government Regulation
A quote & table from page 13 of the AIG survey document:
The Commission included in its report the results of a Council of Small Businesses of Australia (COSBOA) survey of 87 SMEs, which showed that 82% of the respondents felt that SMEs face disproportionately high compliance costs, while 44% indicated that they do not have the skills or capacity to understand their compliance obligations (Chart 13). These results agree with the findings in Ai Group’s surveys that suggest that some regulatory arrangements (e.g. payroll tax, GST as noted above) are more likely to place a medium to high cost burden on SMEs than on larger businesses. In addition, the Commission noted that;
“Australian studies have found that small businesses [alone] spend, on average, up to five hours per week on compliance with government regulatory requirements and deal with an average of six regulators per year”.
“Australian studies have found that small businesses [alone] spend, on average, up to five hours per week on compliance with government regulatory requirements and deal with an average of six regulators per year”.
Chart 13: Small businesses supporting different treatment, percentage by reason
So to the ASRR MP submissions and starting with #sub220 - Michael Tucker. Mr Tucker's sub was largely in support of the AOPA submission but had some salient points worthy of consideration...
:
Submission to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review by Michael Tucker
I wish to add my support to the submission by AOPA and expand on 2 points
1. I think we all agree that one of the major problems of the current regulations is the content of Reg 206 defining commercial operations and that the fix is the new regulations.
I quote from CASA website on CASR Part 135 Australian air transport operations - Small Aeroplanes
" In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators". To address this, Part 135 will set in place a common level of safety for operators who are authorised to provide 'Air transport operations' - an amalgamation of current charter and RPT operations and standards - in order to carry Passengers in small aeroplanes. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled as described by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Part I of Annex 6.''
and we agree that the same level of safety should apply irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled or is a closed charter or open to the public - BUT for a given aircraft size.
we note that no amount of over regulation will make a flight in a 4 seat single engine aircraft or a 10 seat twin as safe as one in a 30 seater or a 737
We believe that CASR 135 with the associated maintenance regulations are over the top, too onerous, too complex for small aircraft and would be unworkable for the smaller operators and remote operations
We believe that we should adopt/copy the New Zealand system and regulations of
CAA Part 135 - Small Aircraft & helicopters - < 9 seat & < 5700kgs MTOW - safe
CAA Part 125 - Medium Aircraft - 10 - 30 seats or SEIFR ops Safer
CAA Part 121 - Large Aircraft - > 30 seats Safest
CAA Part 119 - Air Operator - Certification
with no distinction between scheduled or non-scheduled or whether it is a closed charter or open to the public.
2. We would also like to reiterate the concerns raised about CASA's enforcement approach and methods. Their handling of Barrier aviation AOC suspension and others was unconscionable, the timings of their actions seem to occur when they will do most harm and without notice.
For justice to be seen to be done we believe Sect 30DC of the ACT should be amended to enable CASA to give a direction that will stop that part of an operation that is a "Serious and imminent risks to air safety" and a "show cause notice" should have to be issued before the AOC is suspended
The possibility that a company can be closed down unjustly without a chance to rectify the problem is just "un Australian" and does nothing to encourage investment in Aviation.
I support AOPA's call for an effective ombudsman reportable to the Minister and the CASA Board.
Yours sincerely
Michael Tucker
MD Tasfast Airfreight, 33 years aviation experience inc RPT ops, own & operate 6 x PA31-350
[email protected], 0359444375, 0412365397
I wish to add my support to the submission by AOPA and expand on 2 points
1. I think we all agree that one of the major problems of the current regulations is the content of Reg 206 defining commercial operations and that the fix is the new regulations.
I quote from CASA website on CASR Part 135 Australian air transport operations - Small Aeroplanes
" In 1999, CASA was directed to "minimise the distinction between charter and Regular Public Transport (RPT) operators". To address this, Part 135 will set in place a common level of safety for operators who are authorised to provide 'Air transport operations' - an amalgamation of current charter and RPT operations and standards - in order to carry Passengers in small aeroplanes. The safety level applies irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled as described by the International Civil Aviation Organization in Part I of Annex 6.''
and we agree that the same level of safety should apply irrespective of whether an operation is scheduled or non-scheduled or is a closed charter or open to the public - BUT for a given aircraft size.
we note that no amount of over regulation will make a flight in a 4 seat single engine aircraft or a 10 seat twin as safe as one in a 30 seater or a 737
We believe that CASR 135 with the associated maintenance regulations are over the top, too onerous, too complex for small aircraft and would be unworkable for the smaller operators and remote operations
We believe that we should adopt/copy the New Zealand system and regulations of
CAA Part 135 - Small Aircraft & helicopters - < 9 seat & < 5700kgs MTOW - safe
CAA Part 125 - Medium Aircraft - 10 - 30 seats or SEIFR ops Safer
CAA Part 121 - Large Aircraft - > 30 seats Safest
CAA Part 119 - Air Operator - Certification
with no distinction between scheduled or non-scheduled or whether it is a closed charter or open to the public.
2. We would also like to reiterate the concerns raised about CASA's enforcement approach and methods. Their handling of Barrier aviation AOC suspension and others was unconscionable, the timings of their actions seem to occur when they will do most harm and without notice.
For justice to be seen to be done we believe Sect 30DC of the ACT should be amended to enable CASA to give a direction that will stop that part of an operation that is a "Serious and imminent risks to air safety" and a "show cause notice" should have to be issued before the AOC is suspended
The possibility that a company can be closed down unjustly without a chance to rectify the problem is just "un Australian" and does nothing to encourage investment in Aviation.
I support AOPA's call for an effective ombudsman reportable to the Minister and the CASA Board.
Yours sincerely
Michael Tucker
MD Tasfast Airfreight, 33 years aviation experience inc RPT ops, own & operate 6 x PA31-350
[email protected], 0359444375, 0412365397
MTF...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Just last year, the Queensland Chamber of Commerce estimated (1) that red-tape compliance costs are equal to 10 per cent of a local independent supermarket's daily takings, (2) that red tape adds an additional $20 to $30 per head to the cost of a wedding at a function centre, (3) that red tape adds approximately five per cent to the average cost of a meal at a restaurant, and (4) that red tape and government fees and charges represent approximately a quarter, 25 per cent, of the ticket price for a regional tourist attraction. A report by Jobs Australia found there were over 3,000 pages of Job Services Australia rules. Indeed, these rules required paper records to be kept of all applications made through Job Services Australia. This left one provider requiring over 330 filing cabinets."
Sarcs, the lot above are lucky,
How bout $100K to include a light jet on your AOC,
How bout $20K just to provide a job for someone on a light piston twin,
How bout $60K to obtain an international endorsement on your AOC which includes a long weekend for an FOI and his AWI mate business class to Darwin.
Three nights at the Casino and of course the "Joy Flight"...err sorry "Proving Flight" to an international destination of their choice in a "Luxury" corporate jet.
If Miniscule WUSS cant see what is blatant Corruption on a very high level then he's a bigger fool than I though he was.
In the end, after expending all that Cash, those poor buggers got an International AOC that they cant use.
Unless they do a "Joy Flight"...errr sorry "Proving Flight" to each destination they want to operate to.
Heard of Local councils begging AOC holders to operate RPT to their airports. The answer being No unless you can find someone to toss half a million into our account to cover the cost of "Compliance"
What the Wuss doesn't realize is he could get on the gravy train and get his GA Flights for free if he hooked up CAsA to require "Proving Flights" to wherever he wants to go, that is if CAsA can find anyone still in business to persecute.
CAsA has taken the finest traditions of British Bureaucracy and refined them into an art form, even the Indians pale into insignificance compared with CAsA.
Sarcs, the lot above are lucky,
How bout $100K to include a light jet on your AOC,
How bout $20K just to provide a job for someone on a light piston twin,
How bout $60K to obtain an international endorsement on your AOC which includes a long weekend for an FOI and his AWI mate business class to Darwin.
Three nights at the Casino and of course the "Joy Flight"...err sorry "Proving Flight" to an international destination of their choice in a "Luxury" corporate jet.
If Miniscule WUSS cant see what is blatant Corruption on a very high level then he's a bigger fool than I though he was.
In the end, after expending all that Cash, those poor buggers got an International AOC that they cant use.
Unless they do a "Joy Flight"...errr sorry "Proving Flight" to each destination they want to operate to.
Heard of Local councils begging AOC holders to operate RPT to their airports. The answer being No unless you can find someone to toss half a million into our account to cover the cost of "Compliance"
What the Wuss doesn't realize is he could get on the gravy train and get his GA Flights for free if he hooked up CAsA to require "Proving Flights" to wherever he wants to go, that is if CAsA can find anyone still in business to persecute.
CAsA has taken the finest traditions of British Bureaucracy and refined them into an art form, even the Indians pale into insignificance compared with CAsA.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CORRUPTION CORRUPTION CORRUPTION!
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 4th Oct 2014 at 08:53. Reason: Do Indian public servants curry favour with the street folk?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more Tom and Jerry?
National aviation authorities (NAA) face a dilemma. Aviation is getting much safer, implying big NAAs are not so necessary, but the industry is also getting larger and more technically and operationally complex, which seems to imply a need for more oversight.
The one certainty is that NAAs will not get more resources in the future, arid may get less, despite industry growth. There is an argument that aviation safety has got to where it is through traditional compliance based regulation, but the evidence suggests otherwise: technology has improved safety more than any other single factor, and many existing regulations were made for a different era, so are losing their relevance. It has always been a problem for regulators to stay up to date with advancing technology. The technology experts work for the manufacturers, and the experts in how best to use it work for the airlines.
Giancarlo Buono, lATA's director of safety and operations, .Europe, wants to see a partnership, rather than a "Tom and Jerry" relationship between regulator and operator. John Clark, the UK Civil Aviation Authority's safety programme manager, is pushing for safety performance outcomes to be specified and overseen, rather than prescribing the means by which they must be achieved. This performance-based regulation would require partnership between the regulators and regulated, but with the former still retaining enforcement powers
Courtesy - Flight International – September, 2014.
The one certainty is that NAAs will not get more resources in the future, arid may get less, despite industry growth. There is an argument that aviation safety has got to where it is through traditional compliance based regulation, but the evidence suggests otherwise: technology has improved safety more than any other single factor, and many existing regulations were made for a different era, so are losing their relevance. It has always been a problem for regulators to stay up to date with advancing technology. The technology experts work for the manufacturers, and the experts in how best to use it work for the airlines.
Giancarlo Buono, lATA's director of safety and operations, .Europe, wants to see a partnership, rather than a "Tom and Jerry" relationship between regulator and operator. John Clark, the UK Civil Aviation Authority's safety programme manager, is pushing for safety performance outcomes to be specified and overseen, rather than prescribing the means by which they must be achieved. This performance-based regulation would require partnership between the regulators and regulated, but with the former still retaining enforcement powers
Courtesy - Flight International – September, 2014.
Toot, toot.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kharon,
What was the old fly spray add "When your on a good thing, stick to it"?
Why on earth would anyone in CAsA want to change the status quo?.
When your snout is up to your eyeballs in the trough, you tend not to see what's going on around you, the death of the industry will ultimately mean the end of your trough.
When corruption and incompetence is positively condoned by your government, who apparently has no control over you anyway, why on earth would you give a damn about the industry you regulate?
How could industry consider a partnership and deal with the devil that has caused so much grief by devious, immoral and dishonest oversight?.
What on earth sort of partnership could you forge with an organization you know is utterly corrupt and hell bent on destroying you?
Nothing will change until there is a complete overhaul of CAsA and that cant happen unless there is a complete overhaul of the Act.
Aviation in New Zealand is rapidly growing to be their primary industry.
There's the example of what good regulation can do, which contrary to all the evidence our head Numpie denied.
Unlike CVD pilots our Numpies are blind.
What was the old fly spray add "When your on a good thing, stick to it"?
Why on earth would anyone in CAsA want to change the status quo?.
When your snout is up to your eyeballs in the trough, you tend not to see what's going on around you, the death of the industry will ultimately mean the end of your trough.
When corruption and incompetence is positively condoned by your government, who apparently has no control over you anyway, why on earth would you give a damn about the industry you regulate?
How could industry consider a partnership and deal with the devil that has caused so much grief by devious, immoral and dishonest oversight?.
What on earth sort of partnership could you forge with an organization you know is utterly corrupt and hell bent on destroying you?
Nothing will change until there is a complete overhaul of CAsA and that cant happen unless there is a complete overhaul of the Act.
Aviation in New Zealand is rapidly growing to be their primary industry.
There's the example of what good regulation can do, which contrary to all the evidence our head Numpie denied.
Unlike CVD pilots our Numpies are blind.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bobbing for apples
Thorny, I don't have the time to go into each CASA rort, but four things stick out.
1. 'Regulation by Accumulation' - An old Inspector trick is to make sure any audits you do are a long way from your field office and make sure you fly only the carriers that give you flyer points for the reason that yes, you do keep those points personally, despite what other people may have been told.
2. An Inspector once told me - 'It's not what you can do for CASA it's what CASA can do for you'. In other words bleed the organisation and the taxpayer for all you can get.
3. Overseas conferences/working trips - Use your imagination boys, if it exists then CASA has done it. Tens of thousands are spent on just one person travelling abroad for a conference.
4. Education - CASA fund individual staffers every education whim including Diplomas and Masters degrees. (And on occasion a 70 year olds A380 endorsement!)
Oink oink
1. 'Regulation by Accumulation' - An old Inspector trick is to make sure any audits you do are a long way from your field office and make sure you fly only the carriers that give you flyer points for the reason that yes, you do keep those points personally, despite what other people may have been told.
2. An Inspector once told me - 'It's not what you can do for CASA it's what CASA can do for you'. In other words bleed the organisation and the taxpayer for all you can get.
3. Overseas conferences/working trips - Use your imagination boys, if it exists then CASA has done it. Tens of thousands are spent on just one person travelling abroad for a conference.
4. Education - CASA fund individual staffers every education whim including Diplomas and Masters degrees. (And on occasion a 70 year olds A380 endorsement!)
Oink oink
Last edited by Soteria; 5th Oct 2014 at 07:45.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5. Casa's version of westside story. Two gangs small r regulator led by former CEO Bruce Byron and the big R regulator led by acting DAS after DAS retires. ( prefers the DAS title to CEO). Love interests !
6. Sneakily robbing trips from others.
7. Becoming a big R regulator as the world moves in the opposite direction. Trips to Europe and US needed.
6. Sneakily robbing trips from others.
7. Becoming a big R regulator as the world moves in the opposite direction. Trips to Europe and US needed.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't you love to see the Auditor General and CDPP, backed by the AFP go through the joint. Followed by an open, independent inquiry; Lordy – how the feathers would fly then.
If I had a master plan, it won't start in the USA; but at home with local talent, leadership and plain, old fashioned Oz honesty and a love of a 'fair go'. Fat chance – right..
Did you hear the one about the two testicles and the scrotum?....
If I had a master plan, it won't start in the USA; but at home with local talent, leadership and plain, old fashioned Oz honesty and a love of a 'fair go'. Fat chance – right..
Did you hear the one about the two testicles and the scrotum?....
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know when a mosquito lands on a testicle one develops a sense that not every problem can be solved with violence. If that's any help.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are our skies for sale or safety?
...could be both. Can Harmony & Unity be the adopted approach to a "new culture" (buzz word of the year) between the Aviation Industry and the Gov. Sure it can.
Tell 'em they're dreamin'. So far seems to have worked. But as an important, integral part of our countrys' function, Aviation is a massive clog in the wheel of momentum, which sadly, in my humble opinion, has been kicked in the guts. Too many times it seems.
With Fair Comment as my intent and no motivation for harm to another's name or title.
Just a plea. Voices to be heard, justice, fairness and harmony to be the catalyst that creates the cultural change so desperately needed within an incredibly important industry for our country.
The voices can be heard, the minds have submitted, committees reviewed, Senate Recommendations ignored.
The "Independent" review the Canadians did. Which I was told, needs to be edited and I was referred to the ATSB.
Albos white paper
Etc
Aviation is LINKED to so very much.
Such as:
Transport of the travelling public
Agriculture
Aeromedical
Small business
Postal/Cargo
Investigation
Almost everyone is affected with aviation. Safety and a portal between industry and Gov needs to be established.
A unity of dedicated, competent people striving for the best possible outcome of safety and business success. Standing by moral ethics.
Having the ICC within the same department as CASA, makes no sense. No offence intended.
Perhaps just a thought to thy one in thy fort???
Observation, reading facts, conversations and comprehending the enormity of the problem regarding Australian Aviation Safety, Regulation, Investigation and cost to the smaller businesses, takes my breath away.
If I can see so clearly the issues, I must ask the question. Why hasn't my own Government addressed this?
Especially as I have pleaded with them numerous times with the same rehearsed response. The coldness in the voices that were suppose to protect us has been frosty. The concern afterwards, puppetry, thunderbird style. Assistance. Zip. Just five years of many, many unanswered questions.
I didn't vote because I pondered and thought "why"? I lay here in pain after surgery from the crash. From what I've absorbed within and outside the walls of the house, is drowned out by incompetence. Paid the fine though. Your welcome.
The Statutory Rights for CASA in 96. Catch up time maybe? Compare your phone and the technology. Compare small business and overseas takeovers constructing Monopolies from 96. Big difference. Yep, thought so.
Another call, most recent, to DP dept. Oct 14.
Usual blurb. Canadian autumn, end of year...
I ask something along the lines of...
That is too long for a report, why?
Why is the Canadian report being edited by CASA and ATSB?
Is that Independent?
You are the department of the skies. Can't you hear the Industry?
I'm a Nurse. I can hear them.
Along the lines of:
Oh, how are you
Not good
Who is the insurer
Don't know. It's not about that.
When is your matter?
Who cares? I have not fought just for money, but for this to never happen again.
What stabs me in the stomach each day is the injustice and nil assistance from my own Government. When I see the photo of Truss and Sharp (ex-Tpt Mini) CEO REX/Pel-Air, holding hands cutting a cake in the shape of an aeroplane, near where NGA (yes, Pel-Air Jet) broke on impact. Churns my stomach every day. This should never happen to another. (As man in the back of the room clears throat, no really!)
Why aren't you listening to the Industry?
This is so unAustralian, it makes me sad.
Ok, well, like we said, the reports will be out. Roger that. Blah-static. Out.
If this continues, the era will be known as so close, yet the fort of Aviation held up by those that choose to ignore facts triumph.
That, my dear friends here, fellow nurses, pilots, doctors, paramedics, agricultural, small aviation business, passenger transport.
Royal Attention needed maybe?
Who knows?
Oh yeah, the Aviation Industry Does.
Q&abc: Interested? WT, TA, MM, AA, MD, JM & just to add some spice, EH.
An audience with industry.
Compromise, awareness and facing the cyclic and added current issues is a challenge needed. Scrap the statutory "rights". Listen to the industry and learn from the bloody mistakes made.
It's an embarrassment.
As today is/was Labor Day. Which represents the essence of why impetus momentum can create change, calmly. I thought a gentle reminder to this side necessary, or maybe the other side of the middle could challenge.
Aviation safety and regulation needs experts with integrity as such a specialised field, connects to so many other variables. As mentioned.
I believe, at least some very important questions need to be asked?
Zig
Tell 'em they're dreamin'. So far seems to have worked. But as an important, integral part of our countrys' function, Aviation is a massive clog in the wheel of momentum, which sadly, in my humble opinion, has been kicked in the guts. Too many times it seems.
With Fair Comment as my intent and no motivation for harm to another's name or title.
Just a plea. Voices to be heard, justice, fairness and harmony to be the catalyst that creates the cultural change so desperately needed within an incredibly important industry for our country.
The voices can be heard, the minds have submitted, committees reviewed, Senate Recommendations ignored.
The "Independent" review the Canadians did. Which I was told, needs to be edited and I was referred to the ATSB.
Albos white paper
Etc
Aviation is LINKED to so very much.
Such as:
Transport of the travelling public
Agriculture
Aeromedical
Small business
Postal/Cargo
Investigation
Almost everyone is affected with aviation. Safety and a portal between industry and Gov needs to be established.
A unity of dedicated, competent people striving for the best possible outcome of safety and business success. Standing by moral ethics.
Having the ICC within the same department as CASA, makes no sense. No offence intended.
Perhaps just a thought to thy one in thy fort???
Observation, reading facts, conversations and comprehending the enormity of the problem regarding Australian Aviation Safety, Regulation, Investigation and cost to the smaller businesses, takes my breath away.
If I can see so clearly the issues, I must ask the question. Why hasn't my own Government addressed this?
Especially as I have pleaded with them numerous times with the same rehearsed response. The coldness in the voices that were suppose to protect us has been frosty. The concern afterwards, puppetry, thunderbird style. Assistance. Zip. Just five years of many, many unanswered questions.
I didn't vote because I pondered and thought "why"? I lay here in pain after surgery from the crash. From what I've absorbed within and outside the walls of the house, is drowned out by incompetence. Paid the fine though. Your welcome.
The Statutory Rights for CASA in 96. Catch up time maybe? Compare your phone and the technology. Compare small business and overseas takeovers constructing Monopolies from 96. Big difference. Yep, thought so.
Another call, most recent, to DP dept. Oct 14.
Usual blurb. Canadian autumn, end of year...
I ask something along the lines of...
That is too long for a report, why?
Why is the Canadian report being edited by CASA and ATSB?
Is that Independent?
You are the department of the skies. Can't you hear the Industry?
I'm a Nurse. I can hear them.
Along the lines of:
Oh, how are you
Not good
Who is the insurer
Don't know. It's not about that.
When is your matter?
Who cares? I have not fought just for money, but for this to never happen again.
What stabs me in the stomach each day is the injustice and nil assistance from my own Government. When I see the photo of Truss and Sharp (ex-Tpt Mini) CEO REX/Pel-Air, holding hands cutting a cake in the shape of an aeroplane, near where NGA (yes, Pel-Air Jet) broke on impact. Churns my stomach every day. This should never happen to another. (As man in the back of the room clears throat, no really!)
Why aren't you listening to the Industry?
This is so unAustralian, it makes me sad.
Ok, well, like we said, the reports will be out. Roger that. Blah-static. Out.
If this continues, the era will be known as so close, yet the fort of Aviation held up by those that choose to ignore facts triumph.
That, my dear friends here, fellow nurses, pilots, doctors, paramedics, agricultural, small aviation business, passenger transport.
Royal Attention needed maybe?
Who knows?
Oh yeah, the Aviation Industry Does.
Q&abc: Interested? WT, TA, MM, AA, MD, JM & just to add some spice, EH.
An audience with industry.
Compromise, awareness and facing the cyclic and added current issues is a challenge needed. Scrap the statutory "rights". Listen to the industry and learn from the bloody mistakes made.
It's an embarrassment.
As today is/was Labor Day. Which represents the essence of why impetus momentum can create change, calmly. I thought a gentle reminder to this side necessary, or maybe the other side of the middle could challenge.
Aviation safety and regulation needs experts with integrity as such a specialised field, connects to so many other variables. As mentioned.
I believe, at least some very important questions need to be asked?
Zig
Last edited by Ziggychick; 6th Oct 2014 at 17:13. Reason: Tired of it all.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Board - to tears..
There is a question or two scheduled for the upcoming BRB - AGM (which believe it or not is quite a serious affair).
5) What criteria and selection process has been used to select the new CASA board members?
6) Who was involved in that selection process?
These are important questions, to which accurate answers must be provided – if Truss is to maintain credibility. Because even a hint of 'cronyism' or board stacking will blow the few remaining shreds of the Abbott government credibility on red and green tape reduction and regulatory reform -a la Truss - anyway. For example
That statement can be read two ways;
IF; for example, the appointment of Ms. Taylor to the board had been a 'sponsored' event, a Murky Machiavellian Masterstroke, designed to load the board with those who had 'worked harmoniously' with CASA before coming to the board, it throws a big spanner into the industry works.
Now, no one is saying, as yet, that Taylor is a complete Casaphile. BUT a look through the GFA 'paper-work', performance and track record suggests a 'good' working relationship with the regulator. There is a fairly disgruntled, disunited organisation, heaving a sigh of relief and struggling to deal with the daemons left behind; such as licensing issues, reduced safety culture, and a disillusioned, diminishing membership. Enough smoke to legitimately ask, is there a fire?.
The board appointment is not as yet, seen to be another "Libby-gate" but, it does go someway toward making mugs of the IOS. If, that is, we sit back and naively, without questioning the appointment process, allow the Murky Machiavellian team to hand pick, within a closed process, a bored which will not rock the boat, rattle the tea cups or ask embarrassing questions. If this is so, then Boyd is indeed isolated and rendered nugatory. We know his history, credentials and attitudes toward the reform of CASA: but what is known of the others? Not much just yet, more by the BRB AGM.
Acquiring the answers should provide an 'interesting' debate; there are only six slots on the bored, the MM crew have at least two, solidly covered - Hawke and Danos, if either Taylor, Cox or Smith are 'hand picked' then the voting is at least tied. A best result of MM 3 – IOS 3, of course essentially neuters the democratic process. Have we been gulled - again; I rather think so. It's a very wicked world we live in. Mugs – the lot of us.
For example, would the coppers investigating a crime send their case against a known villain to that villain and say – "Have a look at this mate; then tell us the bits you don't agree with and we'll take them out, OK". No, of course they wouldn't. So why is it that our 'independent' tax payer funded report into the ATSB has been sent 'for technical' editing to the ATSB – before being eventually published??.
Aside - Have you noticed the mutt running the Canuck TSB never uses a 'date'; not ever. It's always "early Spring" or "late Autumn" or "mid Winter". It's fast becoming a Midsummer Nights Dream, which is of course, a fantasy comedy...
Toot toot
5) What criteria and selection process has been used to select the new CASA board members?
6) Who was involved in that selection process?
These are important questions, to which accurate answers must be provided – if Truss is to maintain credibility. Because even a hint of 'cronyism' or board stacking will blow the few remaining shreds of the Abbott government credibility on red and green tape reduction and regulatory reform -a la Truss - anyway. For example
GFA AGM – "The big news is the resignation of our President Anita Taylor."
Eyrie "To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor."
Eyrie "Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.
Now, no one is saying, as yet, that Taylor is a complete Casaphile. BUT a look through the GFA 'paper-work', performance and track record suggests a 'good' working relationship with the regulator. There is a fairly disgruntled, disunited organisation, heaving a sigh of relief and struggling to deal with the daemons left behind; such as licensing issues, reduced safety culture, and a disillusioned, diminishing membership. Enough smoke to legitimately ask, is there a fire?.
The board appointment is not as yet, seen to be another "Libby-gate" but, it does go someway toward making mugs of the IOS. If, that is, we sit back and naively, without questioning the appointment process, allow the Murky Machiavellian team to hand pick, within a closed process, a bored which will not rock the boat, rattle the tea cups or ask embarrassing questions. If this is so, then Boyd is indeed isolated and rendered nugatory. We know his history, credentials and attitudes toward the reform of CASA: but what is known of the others? Not much just yet, more by the BRB AGM.
Acquiring the answers should provide an 'interesting' debate; there are only six slots on the bored, the MM crew have at least two, solidly covered - Hawke and Danos, if either Taylor, Cox or Smith are 'hand picked' then the voting is at least tied. A best result of MM 3 – IOS 3, of course essentially neuters the democratic process. Have we been gulled - again; I rather think so. It's a very wicked world we live in. Mugs – the lot of us.
For example, would the coppers investigating a crime send their case against a known villain to that villain and say – "Have a look at this mate; then tell us the bits you don't agree with and we'll take them out, OK". No, of course they wouldn't. So why is it that our 'independent' tax payer funded report into the ATSB has been sent 'for technical' editing to the ATSB – before being eventually published??.
Aside - Have you noticed the mutt running the Canuck TSB never uses a 'date'; not ever. It's always "early Spring" or "late Autumn" or "mid Winter". It's fast becoming a Midsummer Nights Dream, which is of course, a fantasy comedy...
Toot toot
Last edited by Kharon; 6th Oct 2014 at 20:32. Reason: Farce, arse and no bloody class.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from the PAIN reference I did some research on the CASA board.
Citizen Advocacy
Ziggy chick, if you go to QandA site and click on contact we can ask for panel members and questions.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm
Citizen Advocacy
Ziggy chick, if you go to QandA site and click on contact we can ask for panel members and questions.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bought and paid for
Have to admit Kharon I had my suspicions.
If what you allude to is correct, then once again the tail wags the dog.
Makes a complete mockery of what a board is for, and perhaps could be a fair indication of just how corrupt the bureaucrats have become.
May as well appoint monkeys to the board, at least then it would only cost peanuts.
At what point does the Miniscule declare, due to the collapse of aviation activity in Australia, that because there is no longer an industry to oversee CAsA will be disbanded, CAsA staff made redundant except for a small office at Mascot for oversight of foreign carriers.
DUHH!!...was that the reason Terry was given an A380 endo???
If what you allude to is correct, then once again the tail wags the dog.
Makes a complete mockery of what a board is for, and perhaps could be a fair indication of just how corrupt the bureaucrats have become.
May as well appoint monkeys to the board, at least then it would only cost peanuts.
At what point does the Miniscule declare, due to the collapse of aviation activity in Australia, that because there is no longer an industry to oversee CAsA will be disbanded, CAsA staff made redundant except for a small office at Mascot for oversight of foreign carriers.
DUHH!!...was that the reason Terry was given an A380 endo???
Last edited by thorn bird; 6th Oct 2014 at 22:17. Reason: Light bulb moment