There is a lot more to this story.
It began with a half arsed attempt at harmonization when the AIP reference to being able to use a runway narrower than usually required, if the runway was a particular length and operator used half the crosswind component as the max allowable on said runways.
When this reference was removed, instantly a whole bunch of people suddenly found themselves in breach of the law. A whole bunch of foot stamping and pill spitting later CASA found themselves issuing instruments left right and center for operations that were previously par for the course.
However is did not only effect the smaller operators, other places such as YBSU were also affected.
The department in their infinite wisdom then told said operators that they would have to have a "Narrow Runway Operational Supplement" in order to continue operations. Numerous organizations went out and in some cases have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to comply with CASA's new edict, which for some people has taken and extraordinary amount of time.
The results?
Costs to the operators due to administrative burden and the initial disruption to the customers..... oh and the CASA costs for a dispo for something that is normal.
Cost to the operators in getting OEM approval for flight manual supplements.
Has there been any safety issue involving a runway excursion on a so called "Narrow Runway", (no evidence found).
About a dozen airport operators that are scratching their heads wondering how they going to fund widening there runways up to 50% to comply with a foreign standard.
Who do you think will be the recipient of the ultimate bill for this folly in harmonization????
Another question is to ask why we need this harmonization in the first place and do they really understand the impetus for the whole change? Lets go to ICAO and have a squizz shall we. 30 metre runways in oz for A320/737 ops are more than adequate given the fact, that we have the most benign meteorological environment, an average of 8 below par days annually and you tell me a Jet airline destination in this country that regularly has anything close to the the definition of a contaminated runway. I mean proper standing water, ice , slush etc. Yep that's right a big fat ZERO, maybe Darwin in a heavy wet but the rest of it...... nah.
ICAO requiring 45 metres is all to do with limiting the deviation from centreline either takeoff or landing, on runways that may be contaminated. All you need to do is add in slush and snow and it's a fun time, believe me. So that extra 7.5 metres per side would allow for an much larger (50%) deviation from centreline should these unknown to Australia conditions actually prevail here.
Guess what they dont exist here so why do we have to comply with a non existent boogy man that has its foundations in a risk register and a safety case sitting on the desk of someone in Montreal in winter which is so far removed from YBSU which gets 300 days of sun per annum.........
The cost to industry (airports and operators) is outrageous given that the conditions behind the ICAO standard simply do not exist in this country and the regulator is blindly following a standard that is not pertinent.
It truly shows that there are some people within the regulator that have no concept of affordable safety and sensible application of international standards, simply because they themselves do not understand the reasons behind the safety case for the application of the standard in the first place.