As everyone knows, Michael McCormack refused to change the
Civil Aviation Act so it reflected the fact that there are times when cost is the most important consideration, not safety improvement.
The amendment to the
Act is now going through Parliament and it states:
“(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 individual, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) Take into account the differing risk associated with different industry sectors.”
Here is the question. Does anyone know if 9A (1)
“…CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration” has precedence over 9A(3), stating that CASA has to consider the cost impact?
Surely the statement of 9A(1) is an absolute statement. That is, safety is the most important consideration. Most important? Over what? Well, cost of course. So by the look of it we are getting absolutely nowhere with this amendment.
What are the facts?
An important line of the Barnaby Joyce/Anthony Albanese agreement is the following wording:
“The need for more people to benefit from civil aviation.”
Note that is not covered at all. I have spoken to people at CASA - they think that is nothing to do with their bailiwick so that is why they resist stating that.
Of course, without that statement, it simply means the system can be made safer and safer, and more and more expensive, with fewer people participating – which is exactly what is happening with GA.