[P]oliticians of all persusasions are very sensitive about the risks inherent in political interference in safety matters when there are executive agencies specifically in place to advise on those matters. The chances of getting a Ministerial Directive to an agency that completely overrides that agency's advice are gusting well south of zero!
Yes – that’s the fundamental problem of structure and process. The regulatory agency is managing government, not vice versa.
In a normal world, the Department of Transport or Aviation would be giving policy advice
and arranging for rules to be made to give effect to the policy chosen by the Minister/Cabinet. The regulatory authority would then just administer those rules.
Even if Australia has deteriorated to the point at which the regulator contains the ‘brains trust’, it should still only be giving ‘advice’ on the risks and benefits, and the government (the Minister and portfolio department) should make the ultimate
political decision as to the trade off. Because nobody in government wants to make a decision upsetting anyone, it’s left to the regulator to reconcile the irreconcilable – which it can’t, which is why the regulatory reform program will drift along forever. The industry swallows it hook, line and sinker, and blames the regulatory authority.
The point made by Senator Fawcett about the trade off between safety standards and viability/practicality is not rocket surgery. (Dick Smith butted his head against the wall trying to make the same point, but few wanted to listen to him.) It applies to the entirety of the classification of operations issue and the rules generally. But if successive governments are only prepared to wave rhetorical fists at CASA, they should not be surprised when they are ignored. (It reminds of when the Treasurer huffs and puffs at the Banks about interests rates, and is comprehensively ignored.)
It may be that CASA employs the only people left in government with insight into the impenetrably complicated and extraordinarily esoteric technical issues relevant to aviation safety (the mystique of aviation, oooooooeerrrrr ….),
but all those issues resolve to some fairly simply-stated risks and rewards and costs and options that even Ministers and Departmental Secretaries understand. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet X standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies for aircraft and aerodrome infrastructure, the reduction in available services will be Z and the estimated lives lost would be P. If you want aerial ambulance services to meet Z standard and there is no new investment in or subsidies of etc …. The cost of the new investment in or subsidies would be $v and $n respectively …. Now, do what you’re paid to do, and make and take responsibility for making a decision. (The decision: “Make everyone happy, quickly and for less cost.”)
I’ve been asked what my solution is. I’ve said it frequently: Elect independents. Australia needs lots, lots more like Nick Xenophon, so that the Federal government once again takes responsibility for governing.