Merged: Senate Inquiry

[Sarcs]

Point of difference within M&Ms personal kingdom??

CASA and ATSB have done that because they know they have the blessing of the Secretary and Minister, and they know Laborial Senate Committee members won't put their vote on the floor of the Senate where their Committee mouth is.

Yes Creamy largely due to you we - the great unwashed and biggest risk to public safety in this country - the IOS are now very much educated in the fact that these - so called - safety agencies are merely taking the mickey bliss every time they front up to Estimates.

Awww. C'mon Creamie you have to admit it is entertaining watching the scumbags who are destroying our industry squirm.
Small satisfaction I know, but what else do we have?

True: The entertainment is some consolation.

I'd far prefer competent and honest government at all levels, though.

Hear..hear to that Creamy...

What I note Creamy is that every time Estimates do rock-on-round is that you never fail to put your two bob's worth in and even go to the trouble of finding your own favourite Hansard quote etc. Is this a perverse source of entertainment?? Or do you - like many others on here - hold out a faint candle of hope that one day...just one day we may get a true sign from above that our bastardised version of a plural democracy is not absolutely rooted (with a capital R) - sadly I think we live in false hope - although one only need look across the ditch to see that it is possible to do good things in government with not much more than a beautiful country. Of course NZed does not have to deal with an extra layer or two of bureaucracy - layers of bureaucracy that all have different, diverging & interweaving self-interests to protect...

However what really mystifies me is that in all the spin, bulldust, lies, deception & obfuscation on display in RRAT Estimates there is always at least one clear example - contrary to the rest of the inept, corrupt mob - that appears to be quietly and efficiently getting on with business underneath the Senators radar or personal interest. Although there is no doubt there is indeed friction somewhere within - appearances can be deceptive - the good discipline & united front displayed by AMSA in Estimates - but you have to say it is a truly remarkable POD...

For perhaps the morbid amusement of those watching the slowly but surely strangulation of a once small but flourishing GA industry here is my POD example for the weekend:

AMSA Hansard grab 20/10/14 is from a section where questioning went to Regs and the agency attempts to reduce compliance costs and simplify/reduce regulatory burden (i.e. RTRP):

Senator STERLE: What portion of the $60 million in portfolio savings to industry is AMSA responsible for?

Mr Kinley : I think it was around $10 million or $12 million.

Senator STERLE: How much of the target has been achieved so far?

Mr Kinley : I would have to say that at the moment we probably have not achieved much at all, apart from with Marine Orders part 54, which is about marine pilotage, where we think we have saved about $0.04 million for marine pilots, pilotage providers and training providers {fancy that a PS being full & frank not shirking/ducking/weaving/obfuscating the responsibilities just telling it as it is...I am an instant fan}
...From our National Standard for Commercial Vessels part C1, about accommodation arrangements and personal safety, we calculate there have been savings of around $5.85 million to industry. From Marine Orders part 42 we believe we have achieved savings of about $0.01 million. From National Standard for Commercial Vessels Part C7A, on safety equipment, we believe there is about $1.99 million.

Senator STERLE: Given that many of the savings are via regulatory adjustments, how does AMSA ensure that these savings do not impact on safety?

Mr Kinley : Because in all of our development of standards, it is all about managing risk. It is about looking at what these standards are meant to address and how they are administered, as well. In many cases it is about how these standards are administered—what paperwork people need to do and what sort of plan approval they need to do. It is also looking at, to be frank, a lot of standards which have not been reviewed in a long time and looking at what the contemporary risks are and how we can better achieve an equivalent level of safety with less cost to industry.

Senator STERLE: Can you tell us then how AMSA would assure itself that you would minimise any environmental damage through these savings, like damage to the reef?

Mr Kinley : Certainly the only one of those standards which is relevant to the reef standard is Marine Orders part 54 for marine pilotage. We have been continually working to improve safety in the reef, so we have certainly not lessened any of the standards about how pilotage is done. We have been enhancing training requirements and competency requirements there. Those savings are about reporting, from the pilot providers for example, to us and requiring fewer forms to be filled in. It is about administrative savings.

Senator STERLE: I want to talk about consultation and regulatory change. Can you tell us what stakeholder consultation AMSA undertakes when it proposes changes.

Mr Kinley : With all of our marine orders, again, and with all of our standards, we have consultations which, for the marine orders in particular, are quite generally targeted to the specific industry that is involved. For example, with Marine Orders part 54, about coastal pilotage, a lot of the consultation was with the pilotage providers in particular, who were being regulated; the pilots who were involved; and ship owners and shipping associations. We also, of course, consult with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and other partner organisations.

Senator STERLE: Sorry to cut you off, Mr Kinley. Because you are so far away, you cannot feel the chair's breath on your neck like I can! I am going to throw three questions at you, and if you could answer them very quickly I would appreciate it. Will AMSA respond to stakeholder comments publicly and publish justifications for changes you make—including, where appropriate, cost-benefit analysis—in future?

Mr Kinley : Yes, we do where we are able to as people give us submissions.

Senator STERLE: Is it the case that AMSA must consult with social partners when making changes to international conventions like the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and of course the ILO labour convention?

Mr Kinley : It is only the ILO that talks about social partners.
Senator STERLE: Okay—not the IMO.

Mr Kinley : But we certainly do consult with industry and with employees. We certainly consult with the maritime unions when we do amend marine orders.

Senator STERLE: Okay—so that happens every time. AMSA takes it upon itself not to worry, that you are forced into it—you will do it with the IMO as well as the ILO. My last question—who are the social partners?

Mr Kinley : Under the terms of the International Labour Organisation, the social partner in Australia for the ship owners is the Australian Shipowners Association. Generally, I think, the Maritime Union of Australia is considered the employee social partner, and I understand that the arrangement is to consult with the other two maritime unions.

Senator WILLIAMS: In the AMSA streamlining review that has been carried out, have you identified any areas that need attention?

Mr Kinley : The streamlining review is about the domestic commercial vessel standards, and there have been quite a few concepts which have been published on our website. We have been very transparent about what they are. There have been a number of areas which have been identified.
Senator WILLIAMS: Will these feed into the government's red tape reduction agenda?

Mr Kinley : We started the process before that agenda started because, again, a lot of these requirements have been in place since time immemorial, and we thought it was well timed to examine what the contemporary safety needs are for a lot of these standards.

Senator WILLIAMS: The government has to simply look at your website and they can see those red tape reductions.

Mr Kinley : We certainly do report upon the streamlining process on our website.

The highlighted part will help with my POD comparison to CAsA later on but for now here is part of the AMSA Estimates segment in pictures... {Minus the silly Green's Senator dressed like a canary....unfortunately with the other silly political point scoring Green's Senator - ChemtrailMilne...}

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - AMSA - YouTube

Now we fast fwd to the CAsA segment which focusses again on part 1 of the captured video footage...

Estimates RRAT 20/10/14 - CASA Part 1 - YouTube

...and this part where Senator Conroy questions various inept, obstructive members of the current (441) FF executive team in regards to the projected RTR savings in Part 21... :

Senator CONROY: Is it still the case that CASA has been asked to identify the $12 million dollars in savings to industry within your portfolio?

Mr Farquharson : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: Can I refer to the one saving identified by CASA—and you may have heard it mentioned already today—part 21: which additional countries—and I think we may have got some information earlier today, Mr Mrdak?

Mr Mrdak : We did.

Senator CONROY: But for the purpose of mutual recognition in relation to aircraft airworthiness, I think we got that list earlier. Do you have it handy, Mr Farquharson?

Mr Farquharson : Mr Boyd will be able to assist us.

Mr Boyd : I do not have the list in front of me, but I think your question referred to some savings that were identified—

Senator CONROY: I am asking which countries under a particular one—21?
Mr Boyd : That are listed as preferred countries, we have—

Senator CONROY: That are now recognised by Australia for the purposes of mutual recognition, which has been done as a saving?

Mr Boyd : Years. That particular exercise was not part of the savings for that particular point you are making. That part 21 provision that claimed the savings was actually against defects that were being assessed against various defects within aircraft. In fact, the saving was not against the provisions for the recognised countries; it was actually another part of 21.

Senator CONROY: Okay. Could you explain to the committee how those savings have been calculated? Are you finding fewer defects or are you looking for fewer defects?

Mr Boyd : No, it was a mechanism allowing operators and maintenance control organisations to be able to manage the defects in a manner that was both safe but also more effective.

Senator CONROY: And what was that process change?

Mr Boyd : Perhaps I could call on our executive manager standards to give you more technical details.

Senator CONROY: Yes, that would be great.

Mr Ward : In relation to the cost saving that you are inquiring about, the amendment was made to part 21 to provide the operators with greater opportunity and flexibility to manage the deferral of defects on their aircraft. The deferral of those defects in all cases needs to be assessed against the appropriate design and certification standards for the aircraft.
It introduced some additional flexibility that the operators did not have and would, in other circumstances, have required them to revert to CASA to get that approval.

Senator CONROY: So they do not have to tell you anymore that they have done it?

Mr Ward : No, what they have to do is defer the defect in accordance with a process and procedure and make the engineering assessment to the design standard that is applicable to the deferral of that defect.

Senator CONROY: Unfortunately, it is late at night so I am not just quite following exactly what that means in English.

Mr Ward : Okay. There are a number of mechanisms that allow an operator to defer a defect on an aircraft.

Senator CONROY: What does 'defer a defect' mean? A defect is still a defect; what you mean is defer the repairs to a defect?

Mr Ward : That is correct—defer the repair of the defect. In some cases, the manufacturer will provide pre-approved documentation that will allow you to defer the repair of the defect to a later point in time. In other cases, the deferral of the defect to a later point in time can be justified through engineering analysis of the defect to the design standard for the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: Okay. So this is a paperwork issue that allows you to defer repairs to defects?

Mr Ward : That is correct.

Senator CONROY: So currently, you require them to repair the defect? They do not have access to this pre-approved paperwork?

Mr Ward : They have access to some of the pre-approved paperwork, but what the change to the legislation did was to introduce or allow another mechanism that they previously did not have access to. So it gave them greater flexibility.

Senator CONROY: So what was the other mechanism?
Mr Ward : That was to allow them to do the assessment against the design standard. Previously they would have had to approach CASA for an exemption to operate the aircraft.

Senator CONROY: Right. Okay—I might come back to that in a second. I just want to come back to your answer, Mr Boyd. Did you provide us with the answer to question 74 from the last estimates?

My reading of that answer is the exact opposite to the answer you have just given us, which is that it was not part of the savings. My reading of this answer is that it is part of the savings.

Dr Aleck : We do not appear to have question 234 in our packs. Could you read it to me?

Senator CONROY: It says:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority … is progressing initiatives to change a number of regulatory and service delivery processes to minimise the regulatory compliance and/or administrative burden …

These initiatives include:
- amendments to Part 141 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations … to reduce the complexity of flight training organisation approvals;
- amendments to CASR Part 61 …
… … …
- amending CASR Part 21 …

You state that this is part of this and then you just told the committee a moment ago that it was not part of this.

Mr Boyd : The part that we did amend, that was part 21, as Mr Ward just explained, to do with the defect referral process. That is part of part 21.

Senator CONROY: Maybe it is late and I am still a bit slower than I should be. You are saying that this is not part of a savings-to-industry measure?
Mr Boyd : What I am saying is that CASA part 21 was part of the industry savings measures, but the provision within part 21 was the provision that Mr Ward has just explained.

Senator CONROY: So it is part of the savings measures?
Mr Boyd : Yes.

Senator CONROY: Which was the part that was not part of the savings measures?

Mr Boyd : The part to do with the recognition of other approvals from overseas.

Senator CONROY: That was done and has nothing to do with this?

Mr Boyd : No, it had nothing to do with the savings measures.

Now if Senator Conroy came out of that exchange with a clearer picture on where the RTR savings are and what they are, then he is a far superior being than I would have ever given him credit for...

OK (POD) now compare the above nearly 40 paragraph dialogue with multiple identities to AMSA's CEO Mr Kinley open & frank dialogue which included the example of MO Part 54...

This POD says to me that within the current morass of bureaucratic & political self-interest/preservation it is possible - with the right people and mindset - to have an acceptable level of trust & consultation between the regulator and industry that will help to encourage future investment & growth within that industry...

The solution is obvious there is just no political/bureaucratic will - or a miniscule with the balls who is not mesmerised by the MOAS - to change the current status quo...

MTF...

Ps While on AMSA congrats to Cobham for being rewarded the next AMSA SAR tier one fixed wing contract, looks like a good future gig - Challenger 604 "Nemo II" - for those interested... Cobham wins $640m AMSA search and rescue contract