Senate Inquiry into CASA.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely ASA which made $106 million last year out of the industry, could assist with funding CASA, rather than paying $60 million into the Federal governments General Revenue which then goes God knows where.
Correct, Torres - That Act abolished the CASA Board, so that the CEO (nee Director) could …. well …. ummm … I'm not sure what the CEO was supposed to do.
That Act also put all those immediate suspension, automatic stay and EVU provisions into the 'main' Act. They were (of course) going to lead to aviation Nirvana.
Perhaps the Committee is trying to find out whether anything is better or worse, as a consequence of those 2003 changes.
My tip: reinstatement of the Board is on the cards, so that the government will have more spies seeing what's going on - or not - in the organisation.
Max1: Perhaps the government could increase CASA's 'service' fees, to ensure there's absolutely no chance of the safety regulator being confused for a service provider.
That Act also put all those immediate suspension, automatic stay and EVU provisions into the 'main' Act. They were (of course) going to lead to aviation Nirvana.
Perhaps the Committee is trying to find out whether anything is better or worse, as a consequence of those 2003 changes.
My tip: reinstatement of the Board is on the cards, so that the government will have more spies seeing what's going on - or not - in the organisation.
Max1: Perhaps the government could increase CASA's 'service' fees, to ensure there's absolutely no chance of the safety regulator being confused for a service provider.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The public servants are in a power grab.
The real purpose of this inquiry is strengthen the control of the Secretary. The Miller report will get Kym, this one will get Bruce.
While the reign of Bruce the virtual CEO has not been glorious, they need to go back before 2003 and have a good look at the mess that Mick and the astronaut created.
The real purpose of this inquiry is strengthen the control of the Secretary. The Miller report will get Kym, this one will get Bruce.
While the reign of Bruce the virtual CEO has not been glorious, they need to go back before 2003 and have a good look at the mess that Mick and the astronaut created.
"[I]Its time for CASA to conduct its business at the same calibre as ATSB"
Oh really Captain!! If you had made that statement 15 + years ago I might have agreed, but certainly not these days.
Oh really Captain!! If you had made that statement 15 + years ago I might have agreed, but certainly not these days.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Starlight, you may be right, but I respectfully disagree.
The charter has been in place for 15 years (?) through several Ministers, boards and CEOs and yet still "needs to be implemented"? I'd suggest there is something wrong with the charter if it hasn't been implemented by now.
Maybe...but in their defence, once a case is up for prosecution, the time for niceties is over. The case has been, or should have been through many previous steps. At this stage, you don't pussyfoot around. You don't want labradors doing the work of junkyard dogs. Nice lawyers are unemployable.
Having said that, I don't have the facts, but if there is indeed a case of criminal, negligent or illegal actions by Legal Services or the NQAO, then I am in absolute agreement for a full investigation leading to prosecution where warranted under the terms of Australian law, followed by the subsequent prosecution of those who covered up or knowingly ignored the actions of, or protected the alleged offenders.
The ATSB has the luxury of working with hindsight. The CASA has to use forethought and it's as rare as hens' teeth anywhere, but particularly in Canberra.
How was this alleged activity allowed to happen? Why did it take so long to come to light? I would suggest a lack of checks and balances. Appropriate checks and balances may not have prevented the alleged occurrence, but they would have caught it and put a stop to it at a far earlier stage. Why were autonomous regional offices implemented without satisfactory checks and balances to minimise the potential for office misuse or abuse? Or, were the checks and balances initially put in place and then discarded?
In my mind, the CASA has one and only one, essential function: to regulate and enforce the Australian aviation industry and airspace users to national laws, standards and expectations. Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.
Suggestions of a board? The CASA already has several layers of supervision. Why aren't they effective?
Stick a CEO in charge. Provide him/her with the appropriate resources to do the job. Keep an eye on his/her progress. And sack his/her butt if he/she fails to do the job! And get rid of the "consensus" and "industry consultation" rubbish in everything the CASA has to do!
CASA's charter isn't too bad, just needs to be implemented.
you may just find that they prefer to be a malicious, aggressive, vindictive and dishonest litigant.
Having said that, I don't have the facts, but if there is indeed a case of criminal, negligent or illegal actions by Legal Services or the NQAO, then I am in absolute agreement for a full investigation leading to prosecution where warranted under the terms of Australian law, followed by the subsequent prosecution of those who covered up or knowingly ignored the actions of, or protected the alleged offenders.
It's time for CASA to conduct its business at the same calibre as ATSB, something the Miller report failed to grasp.
What went on at the now sanitized (to some degree) Nth Qld Area Office was in fact criminal, and will be eventually exposed as such.
In my mind, the CASA has one and only one, essential function: to regulate and enforce the Australian aviation industry and airspace users to national laws, standards and expectations. Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.
Suggestions of a board? The CASA already has several layers of supervision. Why aren't they effective?
Stick a CEO in charge. Provide him/her with the appropriate resources to do the job. Keep an eye on his/her progress. And sack his/her butt if he/she fails to do the job! And get rid of the "consensus" and "industry consultation" rubbish in everything the CASA has to do!
Last edited by Lodown; 5th Jun 2008 at 18:16.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The ATSB has the luxury of working with hindsight. The CASA has to use forethought and it's as rare as hens' teeth anywhere, but particularly in Canberra."
Not sure what this statement is getting at but safety investigation is all about hindsight and looking back at what went wrong and trying to apply those lessons in the future. If CASA was doing it's job properly it would be taking those lessons and applying them and ensuring that the industry applies them. What they did with Lockhart River was say that it wasn't their fault and it couldn't have been prevented and the ATSB are always picking on us.
The enquiry was always on the cards as Jan Lucas was very prominent in the Senate Estimates when the ATSB or CASA were in the chair.
Not sure what this statement is getting at but safety investigation is all about hindsight and looking back at what went wrong and trying to apply those lessons in the future. If CASA was doing it's job properly it would be taking those lessons and applying them and ensuring that the industry applies them. What they did with Lockhart River was say that it wasn't their fault and it couldn't have been prevented and the ATSB are always picking on us.
The enquiry was always on the cards as Jan Lucas was very prominent in the Senate Estimates when the ATSB or CASA were in the chair.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starlight
You are obviously on a different planet. If you have read the AAT reports and the Federal Court reports then you would know that CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisons. There is no agrressiveness - that usually is reserved for the person bringing the case against CASA and their oft-times hostile legal counsel.
As for your claims about criminality etc - if you have the facts and evidence then take it to the police to investigate instead of continually bleating about it. However, when someone doesn't have facts or evidence they resort to throwing mud, hoping some will stick. So put up or shut up.
As for what this inquiry will find- hopefully it will expose Byron and his yes men and reveal the extent to which Byrion has abdicated his regulatory responsibilities in favour of placating his industry buddies. Regulatory capture is well and truly alive under Byron. Go and read the Monrach coronial report and you'll find that we are back to where it all began and institutional timidity is rife. Byron has sacked all those who stood up to industry in the public interest and replaced them with yes men and industry cronies who have no idea of regulatory management or policy.
Byron is wonderful at making grand motherhood statements that are devoid of any practical meaning. Take as an example his statement before th Senate on 31 January 2008 :
Every day of the week CASA is engaged in activities that are making tangible improvements to the way airlines and other aviation organisations operate.
By this count we should have some 480 wonderful tangible improvements. Can you name me a few??? Five years and $100 million - what do we have to show for the wonderful regulatory reform program. Bogged down in interminable consultative meetings that acheive nothing. Byron does not has the guts or the ability to make any real decisions because that would mean offending someone and a regulator can't do that - even though it is meant to be regulating not trying to be best buddies with those it is meant to be regulating.
Lodown is absoulutley correct in his astute appraisal of the situation. CASA has become focussed on being a business that is run by the finance area and has forgotten that it is a regulator. He is also spot on in his observation: Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.
Finally. it is inevitable that there will be a Board - it was a central plank of the ALP aviation policy before the last election. A Board is not a bad thing - because it can temper the excesses of of a single individual who believes his way is the only way and no dissent will be allowed.
You are obviously on a different planet. If you have read the AAT reports and the Federal Court reports then you would know that CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisons. There is no agrressiveness - that usually is reserved for the person bringing the case against CASA and their oft-times hostile legal counsel.
As for your claims about criminality etc - if you have the facts and evidence then take it to the police to investigate instead of continually bleating about it. However, when someone doesn't have facts or evidence they resort to throwing mud, hoping some will stick. So put up or shut up.
As for what this inquiry will find- hopefully it will expose Byron and his yes men and reveal the extent to which Byrion has abdicated his regulatory responsibilities in favour of placating his industry buddies. Regulatory capture is well and truly alive under Byron. Go and read the Monrach coronial report and you'll find that we are back to where it all began and institutional timidity is rife. Byron has sacked all those who stood up to industry in the public interest and replaced them with yes men and industry cronies who have no idea of regulatory management or policy.
Byron is wonderful at making grand motherhood statements that are devoid of any practical meaning. Take as an example his statement before th Senate on 31 January 2008 :
Every day of the week CASA is engaged in activities that are making tangible improvements to the way airlines and other aviation organisations operate.
By this count we should have some 480 wonderful tangible improvements. Can you name me a few??? Five years and $100 million - what do we have to show for the wonderful regulatory reform program. Bogged down in interminable consultative meetings that acheive nothing. Byron does not has the guts or the ability to make any real decisions because that would mean offending someone and a regulator can't do that - even though it is meant to be regulating not trying to be best buddies with those it is meant to be regulating.
Lodown is absoulutley correct in his astute appraisal of the situation. CASA has become focussed on being a business that is run by the finance area and has forgotten that it is a regulator. He is also spot on in his observation: Political meddling for the purpose of keeping issues/personalities out of the press, deflecting public attention, personal favours or retaining office have no place in the CASA, but have been seemingly all too apparent in the last decade or so.
Finally. it is inevitable that there will be a Board - it was a central plank of the ALP aviation policy before the last election. A Board is not a bad thing - because it can temper the excesses of of a single individual who believes his way is the only way and no dissent will be allowed.
clapton
Although I agree with your conclusion as to the celestial location of Mainframe, you are not correct when you say CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisions. CASA's decisions are, occasionally, set aside or varied on review, and CASA's actions and management of the matters are, occasionally, criticised by the AAT or Court.
That's hardly surprising: nobody's perfect. That's the very reason for the existence of avenues for external review.
However, on any objective analysis, CASA's decisions and actions survive external scrutiny in almost all matters.
Although I agree with your conclusion as to the celestial location of Mainframe, you are not correct when you say CASA is inevitably successful in defending its decisions. CASA's decisions are, occasionally, set aside or varied on review, and CASA's actions and management of the matters are, occasionally, criticised by the AAT or Court.
That's hardly surprising: nobody's perfect. That's the very reason for the existence of avenues for external review.
However, on any objective analysis, CASA's decisions and actions survive external scrutiny in almost all matters.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.
And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.
You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.
And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Further to my earlier post (below), the date in my original posting about Byron's statement before the Senate should have been 31 January 2007 - hence by today we should have seen about 480 tangible benefits.
Also Lowdown I agree with Senator Lucas that CASA doesn't need to be torn apart - but the sad fact is that it already has been torn apart and gutted of anyone with any sort of pofessional integrity and replaced by Byron's yes men who have little knowledge of the regulatory system or understanding in whose interests they should be acting. Industry partnership is now the catchcry and this has led to the industry being viewed as CASA's customer- and as stated in the Seaview inquiry - once you get to this point the inevitable result is that the customer is always right - which is the clear Byron philosophy and vision. Hence sack anyone who industry complains about or who dares to have a contrary view. This should be the focus of the inquiry. The current management needs to be replaced by professional regulators who will act in the public interest (which is what CASA's role should be) - not industry apologists.
Creampuff
You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.
And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.
Further to my earlier post (below), the date in my original posting about Byron's statement before the Senate should have been 31 January 2007 - hence by today we should have seen about 480 tangible benefits.
Also Lowdown I agree with Senator Lucas that CASA doesn't need to be torn apart - but the sad fact is that it already has been torn apart and gutted of anyone with any sort of pofessional integrity and replaced by Byron's yes men who have little knowledge of the regulatory system or understanding in whose interests they should be acting. Industry partnership is now the catchcry and this has led to the industry being viewed as CASA's customer- and as stated in the Seaview inquiry - once you get to this point the inevitable result is that the customer is always right - which is the clear Byron philosophy and vision. Hence sack anyone who industry complains about or who dares to have a contrary view. This should be the focus of the inquiry. The current management needs to be replaced by professional regulators who will act in the public interest (which is what CASA's role should be) - not industry apologists.
Creampuff
You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.
And none of the complaints against CASA by disgruntled losers for not acting as a model litigant have ever been upheld. CASA does bend over backwards to be fair and objective in all its dealings as far as I have been able to observe over the years and having actually read the reports of cases (unlike the persistent complainants on this site) who like to resort to unsupported and exaggerated criticisms to fuel their own self-importance. Rememenr all the nonsense about strict liablity and how the world would come to an end by self-professed experts like Hamilton et al.
clapton
Can you give an instance of a party bringing an action against CASA? Plenty the other way of course. One Queensland lawyer has successfully defended many clients charged on slender grounds.
You are correct usual. CASA is not always successful (no one ever is). But it usually is depsite, quite often unprofessional behaviour on the part of the other side. And while on the odd occasion CASA is criticised, it is never to the extent or along the lines suggested by Starlight et al. Of all the AAT and Federal Court cases you will find little serious criticism of CASA as a litigant. You will find significant critocism of the person bringing the action - but this is never mentiond.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantome
In case you weren't aware - every AAT case is brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant..............Applications in the Federal Court challenging CASA's decisions are brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant. I think if you troll through the law reports you will find all the cases you need.
In case you weren't aware - every AAT case is brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant..............Applications in the Federal Court challenging CASA's decisions are brought against CASA. CASA is the defendant not the applicant. I think if you troll through the law reports you will find all the cases you need.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton, the criticism of the CASA leadership shouldn't stop just at Byron. In fact, I think it would be warranted to go further up the line. He gets his marching orders from on high. A considerable part of the problem stems from Parliament House.
It appears that the CASA is just lurching from one Federal Royal Commission/Inquiry to the next. A board won't necessarily prevent the wayward application of administration within the CASA management. We saw that with Monarch.
The problem appears to stem from a Federal Government that puts an elected representative and his/her advisors in charge who might be outstanding strategists and politicians, but with absolutely minimal knowledge on the practical side of the application of regulation of aviation matters. At some stage, the political goals and aspirations of the Minister and the party in charge will inevitably clash with the goals of the CASA. For example, the unstated goal of the Minister is to stay in power. This is achieved through the cultivation of votes. It's not difficult for roles to get muddled and the CASA to be roped into vote cultivation through various means. So how do you change this short of having a referendum on moving to a republic? And even then, would anything change?
I mentioned before about external review processes. Somewhere, the current process is coming up short when the CASA situation advances to such a stage that the public feels it necessary for a Federal inquiry and a major house cleaning within the CASA. There has to be a way of getting a wayward organisation back on track before the damage is done. The CASA has been heading down this misguided path for at least ten years now. Ask anyone within the CASA aside from C level executives and the story is the same. So why has it taken so long for something to be done? The USA has some interesting policies in this regard: the General Accounting Office (GAO) on a federal level and state mechanisms such as the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. From its website:
The Sunset Advisory Commission has just recently delivered a scathing report on the Texas Department of Transportation. It might not work in Australia, but it's certainly worth a look and appears to take some of the politics out of the day to day management of a government agency and regulator.
It appears that the CASA is just lurching from one Federal Royal Commission/Inquiry to the next. A board won't necessarily prevent the wayward application of administration within the CASA management. We saw that with Monarch.
The problem appears to stem from a Federal Government that puts an elected representative and his/her advisors in charge who might be outstanding strategists and politicians, but with absolutely minimal knowledge on the practical side of the application of regulation of aviation matters. At some stage, the political goals and aspirations of the Minister and the party in charge will inevitably clash with the goals of the CASA. For example, the unstated goal of the Minister is to stay in power. This is achieved through the cultivation of votes. It's not difficult for roles to get muddled and the CASA to be roped into vote cultivation through various means. So how do you change this short of having a referendum on moving to a republic? And even then, would anything change?
I mentioned before about external review processes. Somewhere, the current process is coming up short when the CASA situation advances to such a stage that the public feels it necessary for a Federal inquiry and a major house cleaning within the CASA. There has to be a way of getting a wayward organisation back on track before the damage is done. The CASA has been heading down this misguided path for at least ten years now. Ask anyone within the CASA aside from C level executives and the story is the same. So why has it taken so long for something to be done? The USA has some interesting policies in this regard: the General Accounting Office (GAO) on a federal level and state mechanisms such as the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. From its website:
In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency's operations and activities. The Commission seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless legislation is enacted to continue them.
Last edited by Lodown; 8th Jun 2008 at 00:14.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clapton. I will not debate aviation law with you; from your posts and mutual admiration society with Creampuff, you obviously hold legal qualifications, which I do not.
You appear to be defending CASA’s performance over recent years? If so, you may care to comment on the following:
Note: This forum is not the place to even very obliquely identify individuals!
Tail Wheel
You appear to be defending CASA’s performance over recent years? If so, you may care to comment on the following:
- From my perspective, within the high capacity airline industry CASA is considered a mild inconvenience, toothless and not to be taken too seriously. One of the few, if not only CASA airline prosecutions in recent years is the alleged Qantas 737 departure from Launceston on 23 October 2001 without activating the runway lights, the pilots being committed for trial four years later on 4 November 2005 on charges brought under the Civil Aviation Act. Do you think it competent and reasonable for CASA to take four years to commence legal action and is still unable to resolved this matter in the Courts?
- Whilst CASA appears unwilling or unable to act in respect to the airlines, there appears ample, if anecdotal evidence it has methodically and systematically attacked and decimated the general aviation industry, including CASA employees acting contrary to its legislation. This forum is not the place to name “names”, however there appear to have been a number of incidents where CASA employees have quietly received the “DCM” (Edited: see note below), whilst CASA has never rectified or recompensed the damage caused?
- According to the CASA Annual Report, Counsel Assisting the Coroner in the Lockhart inquest has a long and rewarding association with CASA. Whilst I accept he may be free to act in his private capacity, would not his acceptance of the appointment as Counsel Assisting be considered, ethically at least, a conflict of interest? Similarly, the consultant to that Inquest was a previous employee of both Transair and CASA, FNQ, surely a further conflict of interest?
- Regulatory reform began twenty years ago in 1988, through at least three Directors, with access to a large number of CASA lawyers, but regulatory reform is still far from complete. Considering a number of countries, including Canada and New Zealand carried out similar reforms in less than one quarter of that time period, do you believe CASA has the will, legal competence and capability to carry out that reform?
Note: This forum is not the place to even very obliquely identify individuals!
Tail Wheel
Last edited by tail wheel; 8th Jun 2008 at 00:15. Reason: Individuals identified.
