CASA Legislation Must Be Fixed First
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If an in-house lawyer costs $100 an hour, a law firm will charge $600 for the same level of professional.
A good Victorian Legal Aid lawyer can represent someone in the Magistrates Court at a cost of a couple of hundred bucks. A private lawyer might charge $5,000 for the same work.
Law firms are sales-focused and driven by budgets. Once they find a good trough to plant their noses in, you can't pry they out with a crow bar. They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.
A good Victorian Legal Aid lawyer can represent someone in the Magistrates Court at a cost of a couple of hundred bucks. A private lawyer might charge $5,000 for the same work.
Law firms are sales-focused and driven by budgets. Once they find a good trough to plant their noses in, you can't pry they out with a crow bar. They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.
They will "gouge". "gold plate" and "fully service" until the well is dry.
Happy to pay 6x the hourly cost if they do it 10x faster. The advantage of outsourcing is that it has a defined deliverable and end date. The problem we have with the current CASA approach to regulatory reform is that it is grinding on forever.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest people give the Minister, Warren Truss, a go! I think we might just be pleasantly surprised where this Minister might take us. One thing is certain, it can't be down because the industry is already at the bottom and you'd need a drilling platform to go any lower!
He’s already been given a ‘go’. He’s now on his second.
On what basis do you have any confidence that he’ll do anything different this time around, given that there exist already:
- recommendations of a report endorsed by Mr Truss’s Coalition colleagues, and
- overwhelming evidence and justification for Mr Truss to take action,
but Mr Truss has already made a deliberate decision not to take action?
(If you consider announcing an inquiry to amount to ‘action’, I’d commend the Yes Minister series to you.
)
On what basis do you have any confidence that he’ll do anything different this time around, given that there exist already:
- recommendations of a report endorsed by Mr Truss’s Coalition colleagues, and
- overwhelming evidence and justification for Mr Truss to take action,
but Mr Truss has already made a deliberate decision not to take action?
(If you consider announcing an inquiry to amount to ‘action’, I’d commend the Yes Minister series to you.
)
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro,
be a lot cheaper mate, to pay the Kiwi's a few million bucks, totally repeal our cluster..k reg's and install theirs. Sack the top ten % of the CAsA hierarchy, for deliberately squandering public money. We the pilloried and will possibly jail a Pollie for a few thousand on hookers, this lot got through a quarter of a billion.
be a lot cheaper mate, to pay the Kiwi's a few million bucks, totally repeal our cluster..k reg's and install theirs. Sack the top ten % of the CAsA hierarchy, for deliberately squandering public money. We the pilloried and will possibly jail a Pollie for a few thousand on hookers, this lot got through a quarter of a billion.
Unless we can have a brave Minister to amend the Act so it reflects what happens in reality, I am afraid general aviation is going to be “runed”.
Two of the roles of the office of the Australian Small business Commissioner is to "represent small business issues to government" and "work with industry and government to promote a consistent and coordinated approach to small business matters."
Many states have state commissioners, the federal commissioners office was established last year and deals with federal matters. The definition of "small business" includes the majority of aviation charter companies.
Welcome to Small Business Commissioner | Small Business Commissioner
Mickjoebill
Thread Starter
By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?
Am I reading this correctly?
Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?
Am I reading this correctly?
Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick;
Dick, as palpable as it may seem, the answer is quite simple - Because they don't have to. They have been enabled by successive Governments and given cart blanche, an open chequebook if you wish. They can re-write rules to suit themselves, they hold no personal accountability, have an open ended pot of taxpayer money to do with as they please, and operate from fortresses that are heavily guarded by politicians and political minders. Not even the Seal team that took out Bin laden could penetrate the protective sheath that ensures Fort Fumbles residents remain warm and cozy and maintain fat paunches fuelled by an endless array of troughs.
Dick, I think you will find the many of the IOS would support a change to the Act, however our trust and belief that the necessary changes would be made is sceptical and doubtful at best.
CASA and the Government do not want the Act changed as this would open them up to greater scrutiny, a level of accountability and add in layers of transparency. Can you imagine the uproar at Fort Fumble? Just imagine them all having to be honest and transparent!!!! Oh my.
Democracy and the so-called Westminster system in this country is nothing more than a party trick, a complete farce. Just look at how the Minister has buried the submissions made to an open inquiry!!
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?
Dick, I think you will find the many of the IOS would support a change to the Act, however our trust and belief that the necessary changes would be made is sceptical and doubtful at best.
CASA and the Government do not want the Act changed as this would open them up to greater scrutiny, a level of accountability and add in layers of transparency. Can you imagine the uproar at Fort Fumble? Just imagine them all having to be honest and transparent!!!! Oh my.
Democracy and the so-called Westminster system in this country is nothing more than a party trick, a complete farce. Just look at how the Minister has buried the submissions made to an open inquiry!!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick......put your glasses on mate. We all think it is necessary.
Do a search and you will find I have been harping on about taking the FARs and doing a "Find-Replace" for years, or better still dissolve CASA completely and subcontract the whole operation, in its entirety to the kiwis and save a fortune, get a better result and the kiwis could do with the income.
Win - Win - Win.
I notice a number of folk here have started to say the same. We can't all be wrong.
Do a search and you will find I have been harping on about taking the FARs and doing a "Find-Replace" for years, or better still dissolve CASA completely and subcontract the whole operation, in its entirety to the kiwis and save a fortune, get a better result and the kiwis could do with the income.
Win - Win - Win.
I notice a number of folk here have started to say the same. We can't all be wrong.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?
Am I reading this correctly?
Am I reading this correctly?
most of us would like to see an end to the total safety smoke and mirrors act that has been the central theme of the core of casa.
they have relentlessly pursued a path of instilling fear and uncertainty in the minds of their overseers and have been snowing the parliament for decades.
we would like the entire show dismantled and replaced by something sensible.
the new zealand regs would be a good start.
the canadian regs would be my preference though because of the owner maintenance provisions.
people write on the ends of posts tick tock. I hope change occurs before the need to glock the buggers.
oh that you had been successful in changing the culture when you had the chance.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh that you had been successful in changing the culture when you had the chance.
Doubleyew and Jabba are correct - take out the wrecking ball and level it to the ground. But we warned, that would only take out CASA, not the bloated bureaucrats who have been the ones who keep electrically charging the Frankenstein.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?
Am I reading this correctly?
Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?
By looking at the majority of posts it looks as if most don't think a change in the Act is necessary?
Am I reading this correctly?
Imagine if you were at CASA - wouldn't you follow the legislation? It's very clear - safety before everything - including cost.
Why shouldn't these people comply with the law?
If you guys haven't read latest casa briefing have a read. Apparently all is well. Oh, don't spit coffee or wheetos at screen.
No disrespect intended here for Dick, but he stood very little chance of making the necessary changes, particularly when the Iron Circle found out that Dick was actually interested in making a change for the better. And yes, the foundations of the Iron Circle remained intact when Dick started at the CAA, and a new breed with additional members have since been trained and mentored to cohabit in the realm their forefathers left them.
The trouble with government bodies like CASA is that we change the guy at the top; make it very hard for him to change the two levels below him but expect that changing one guy at the top will fix everything.
Without knowing any of the personalities involved, its pretty clear that CASA's problems start with the board. It needs a new board with more board members, more aviation experience, more regulatory body experience and more diverse experience and LESS LAWYERS (if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything you see looks like a nail).
In my experience in turnaround situations nearly all the people reporting to the CEO have to go. There might be one good guy, but they will be entrenched in the old ways. Its the third level which usually has some good guys frustrated by the two levels above them, but there will be some guys need to go at this level too.
What are the chances that any government will restructure a board, change CEO's then allow him to (one way or another) dismiss maybe 8 senior managers?
Meanwhile the hamster wheel does another lap.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if the CEO will be caught up in the responsibilities of a Director in a Government Qango, surely if it were a Company he would and thus he would be in a much more exacting position re: Governance.
Will this pull him into line ?
Will this pull him into line ?
Pity, because Directors' responsibilities are extremely onerous, if seldom successfully enforced (due lawyers).