Sheep from goats, fact from fiction: all worthy causes. Don't have a dog in this fight but it's an interesting side bar. Can someone assist us lesser mortals to form an opinion, one way or 'tuther.
For starters, (with apologies to the more discerning legal minds); was there strong opposition in '98 to changes which effectively took away some of the CASA powers by changing the definitions to read "that if paragraph (a) (b) and (c) of the reg were met then CASA must be satisfied?"; and is this element still in the mix?
Wasn't part of the deal for self administration that a 'suitably' qualified director (for want of a better description) be approved by CASA and the qualifications required were not only very clearly defined, but could not be garnered off a Corn flake box and not 'diluted'? If this was then the case, but is no longer applicable, how, why by and whom was this redistribution of safety oversight approved? Seems counter intuitive for a self administering body.
Seems to me that the deal hammered out relied heavily on there being at least one highly qualified individual to oversight safety, if this is the case why did CASA allow the change from a safety outcome based status quo, to some open ended, soft administrative pony pooh?
Finally, is there any truth in the rumour that AWAL management was part of the CASA revision of the proposed new rule set which seems to be so onerous to the ongoing well being of the AWAL? Seems to me that if the track record since '98 has been good, then there is a case for less restrictions rather than more. The old man always said "a dog eating from two crocks soon becomes bloated and useless to either master".
Creamie and Leadsled, forgive my agricultural wording, but I keep hearing stories and can't seem to get to the bottom of the blue; difficult to frame accurate questions without knowing the answers or the background.
