Folks,
Back to the original thread ---- in my view it is quite spurious to equate "promote and foster" by whatever description, and the primary purpose of changing the Act.
The primary purpose of changing the Act is to force CASA to use genuine risk based analysis for proposed regulation, that result to be cost/benefit justified ---- that is, the benefits (costs savings, including the cost of lives saved using the conventional Commonwealth estimates) is greater than costs imposed on the aviation sector.
As many of you know, CASA is supposed to do that anyway, to follow the various Productivity Commission/Office of Best Practice Regulation guidelines, which is applicable to ALL Australian Government departments and instrumentalities, but CASA simply refuses to comply, based on their current interpretation of S9A of the Act.
CASA also ignores the guidelines for the classification of offences, making use of "strict liability" over a range well beyond the guidelines for regulation making.
What is so dumb about the apparent position of the management of the RAOz is that the proposed changes to the Act would be incontestably very beneficial to the 10,000 or so members of RAOz, if not to the perceived benefit of the current management.
Minimum regulation benefits the whole aviation sector.
The answer to this is in the hands of the members, the board can be voted out.
Tootle pip!!