From the Proof Committee Hansard of the 23 May 2006 hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, at pages 47-48 (copy here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S9338.pdf)
Senator O’BRIEN—I want to return to an issue we have examined in the past, which is your travel, Mr Byron. Thank you for your apology for failure to answer during the previous estimates the question regarding the May to June trip. After this you may want to review the Hansard a little more closely so we do not arrive at misunderstandings again. According to the answer I eventually received, the cost of the trip was $47,646.11, made up of airfares for you and your wife of $28,951, European travel of $8,443, accommodation of $7,533, and meals and other expenses valued at $2,418.79. I had to extrapolate the total cost of the airfares for you and your wife from the answer to question on notice 1417. I assume I have got that figure right?
Mr Byron—That sounds about right, yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—It was two first-class fares?
Mr Byron—Yes.
Senator O’BRIEN—Did taxpayers get good value from this trip?
Mr Byron—I believe they did. Having been in the organisation at that time for over 18 months, in planning that trip I looked at the travel requirements that had been on the previous director and the board and I noted that a number of trips had been conducted in the period of a year, and I tried to consolidate everything into one trip. I have now been in the organisation for two and a half years, and that is the only overseas trip I have done. I did try to incorporate a number of issues, such as the annual requirement to talk to the insurers, the need to start to develop relationships with the directors of civil aviation in other regulatory regimes and particularly, in terms of the changes that I was likely to make in CASA, the need to look at how things were done in other regulatory regimes and how operators operated in those parts. So it was a very broad requirement, I suppose, that I have put on myself that I wanted to do.
Since meeting some of those directors-general, I have established quite regular correspondence
with them, the Americans in particular, on a range of issues such as the changes to the regulatory reform program, the targeted way in which we are conducting our surveillance, the considerations of self-administration that we are looking at talking to industry about and developing those links. I correspond on a regular basis in terms of the future of surveillance activities and regulatory reform. So, in my view, the organisation received certainly benefit from my experience.
Senator O’BRIEN—How long did you stay at the Champs Elysees Plaza in Paris? It just seems a large account for that accommodation.
Mr Byron—I would need to double-check that. I believe it was three nights, but I would need to check.
And those new rules are still out there on the horizon - keep trudging lads (same link, page 28):
Senator O’BRIEN—Has the principle of ‘acceptable means of compliance’ resulted in any change to CASA’s procedures?
Mr Byron—Not at this stage, no. The acceptable means of compliance concept, as I briefed the committee, will become effective once we are successful in introducing new aviation safety regulations, which will be based on safety outcomes. It is something that I am personally particularly keen on. As an industry operator for many years, I felt that we needed that sort of clarity in the regulations and to give the flexibility to the industry so that things can be done differently but with the understanding that there has to be a bottom-line safety issue.
The acceptable means of compliance is a procedure that is applied in other regulatory regimes in aviation safety overseas. I would expect to see us start to roll those out in a proposed form for the maintenance regulations by the end of this calendar year.
Meanwhile, back at HQ, meetings continue (see:
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/meeting/meet_...evUpdate.pdf):
REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT EVENTS/ACTIVITIES SINCE PREPARATION OF THE SCC MEETING 3 MAY 06 AGENDA PACKAGE
FYI- from last update report.
CASR Part development priorities set by CASA CEO
The CASA CEO announced that the continuation of the RRP was a high priority and would be based on the EASA rules project concept of dedicated project teams/working groups consisting of industry specialists and CASA staff working on the development until completed. The project teams would be centrally managed through Project specialists attached to the Regulatory Development Management Branch (RDMB). The CEO stressed priority would be applied in particular to CASR Parts relating to sport and recreation aviation operations, 103, 105, 115 and 149; the maintenance suite alignment to the EASA rule set, Parts 43, 145, 66, 147, 144, 183 and Subparts M to 91, 121, 135, 133, 132; and CASR Part 137 (Aerial application operations) for completion in 2006.
Standby to be underwhelmed at the end of 2006. Only 136 drafting days 'til Christmas!
If you think this is anything other than an expensive journey in circles, the above link also states that:
It is anticipated that Grant Mazowita will commence mid May with CASA, as Branch Head, Regulatory Development Management Branch.
Talk about groundhog day. Perhaps Leroy Keith will pop back in as well!