Don’t fall for it, Dick!
The Bill is here:
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...gml%2Edocument)
If it does get passed in its present terms, it will do one thing and one thing only. It will add this to the end of section 9A, with my holding:
(3) Subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
Subsection (1) would continue to say, with my holding:
In exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
It doesn’t matter what wonderful things you add to 9A, if they are all subject to subsection (1). It is subsection (1) that is trotted out by CASA to justify whatever damage CASA wants to inflict. You could add a subsection (4) that says CASA must simplify the regulatory structure, but if it, too, were “subject to subsection (1)” there will remain the ‘out’: “This complexity is in the interests of the safety of air navigation (just because CASA says so), and that’s the most important consideration.”
Note also that in any event the new subsection applies only to developing and promulgating standards but not to, for example, the making of an instrument imposing conditions on pilots’ licences effectively banning them from conducting community service flights.
And what is the difference between an “economic” impact and a “cost” impact?
What about the
social impact of, for example, strangling community service flights? Or the
social impact of strangling Australia’s capacity to train sufficient pilots to meet local demand?
It is in my view the usual political stunt leading up to an election.
Please don’t fall for it, Dick.