Folks,
Do you mean ANOTHER Royal Commission into CASA.
If you look at the record, CASA and its predecessors have been the most "inquired into" Commonwealth body since Federation.
I don't remember the numbers, but it was close to one per annum, whether it be some form of Parliamentary inquiry, or a Royal Commission, of which there have been quite a few. The "Morris" inquiry was the longest running of any Parliamentary inquiry since Federation.
The amazing thing is that they have all been like water of a duck's back, as far as reform (as we would understand it) is concerned, and has all too often provided at springboard for CASA or its predecessors to introduce yet further restrictive policies/regulations. I know of no case where a Coroner's criticism of CASA or its predecessors has resulted in any changes that the aviation community would regard as beneficial.
A good example is the, in my opinion, quite deliberate misrepresentation of the findings of the Seaview Royal Commission, which, all these years later, you about to see in Part 121/135, and you are already seeing in CASA imposed restrictions by way of Operations Manual. Part 135 is going to be a bigger disaster for GA than Part 61.
AOC "regulation" was elevated from regulations to provisions of the Act, as a result of a Royal Commission, it is/was this that has enabled CAA/CASA to extend the requirement for an AOC way beyond the original intent for an AOC, and to be completely inflexible about the ever expanding requirements for an AOC.
For CASA to be "forced" to implement every recommendation of an inquest would make aviation regulation an even bigger disaster area than it already is.
Again, an example is Mull in Victoria, if the recommendations were carried out, it would eliminate Experimental Amateur Built aircraft, one of the few bright spots in light GA.
Tootle pip!!