"Major" changes at CASA?
Thread Starter
"Major" changes at CASA?
From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website:
Peace in our time!
I cannot find anything about this on the DoTRS or the Minister’s website – not even a press release. Some detail would be nice.
It’s about time political staffers got back to regulating Australian air safety, in the open. No need to dress politics up as safety any more – the most important consideration in any decision will be its effect on the government’s political interests. How wonderfully ….. wonderfully ….ummm …. third world.
I honestly can’t figure Mr Anderson. He’s either a complete fool or an utter genius. I struggle to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Meanwhile, CASA has scored another trifecta – staff numbers up in financial year 01/02 (a whopping 9%), taxpayer funding up accordingly, and a significant increase in the accident/incident rate.
Govt clips the wings of air safety body
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
Limits
Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.
Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.
He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.
"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.
The Federal Government has announced major changes to the regulation of Australia's air services.
The Government will strengthen its control of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, says he wants to end the perception that CASA acts as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the regulation of air services.
The board of CASA will be abolished, a chief executive's position established and aviation regulation and compliance will be reformed.
Mr Anderson says CASA will continue to independently monitor air safety.
"I think it's appropriate that I take on board more of the strategic direction-setting role in relation to CASA," he said.
Under the changes, the Aviation Safety Authority will be given just five days to justify the grounding of aircraft and a demerit system will be introduced for minor air safety infringements.
Accountability
The Federal Opposition says it hopes the shake-up will make the regulator more accountable.
Labor's transport spokesman, Martin Ferguson, says the Opposition will monitor the changes to ensure they improve CASA's effectiveness.
"The minister has used [the] board to hide from his responsibilities, the abolition of the board puts the finger both on CASA, the department and the minister to become more accountable to the industry and to the travelling public," he said.
Limits
Meanwhile, Australia's aircraft owners have called for further limits to the powers of the aviation safety regulator.
Bill Hamilton, from the Aircraft Owners' and Pilots' Association. says despite the changes, there still will not be enough scrutiny of the authority.
He says CASA will continue to have a conflict of interest because it both licences and polices air safety.
"It has to go far more than abolishing a board and appointing a chief executive," he said.
I cannot find anything about this on the DoTRS or the Minister’s website – not even a press release. Some detail would be nice.
It’s about time political staffers got back to regulating Australian air safety, in the open. No need to dress politics up as safety any more – the most important consideration in any decision will be its effect on the government’s political interests. How wonderfully ….. wonderfully ….ummm …. third world.
I honestly can’t figure Mr Anderson. He’s either a complete fool or an utter genius. I struggle to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Meanwhile, CASA has scored another trifecta – staff numbers up in financial year 01/02 (a whopping 9%), taxpayer funding up accordingly, and a significant increase in the accident/incident rate.
7 Sunrise News this morning:
CASA Board "sacked".
Minister assumes Board responsibilities.
Chief Executive to be appointed. Present Director may apply.
Suspension of AOC's to be ratified by a Court within five days.
Surprise, surprise. Staff numbers are up. How many lawyers in CASA now Creamie? And a Reg Services division - that seems to have migrated to sunny Brisbane - created to speed up issues of AOC's etc.
Talking of Brisbane, I see the Archerfield office seems to have migrated to a shed at the back of Hendra? Out of sight, out of mind perhaps?
CASA Board "sacked".
Minister assumes Board responsibilities.
Chief Executive to be appointed. Present Director may apply.
Suspension of AOC's to be ratified by a Court within five days.
Surprise, surprise. Staff numbers are up. How many lawyers in CASA now Creamie? And a Reg Services division - that seems to have migrated to sunny Brisbane - created to speed up issues of AOC's etc.
Talking of Brisbane, I see the Archerfield office seems to have migrated to a shed at the back of Hendra? Out of sight, out of mind perhaps?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear.
Looks like yet another rearrangement of the deck chairs.
When will they realise that the problem lies in CASA taking on too many roles with absolutely no accountability with standards being whatever the local office thinks they should be.
Which court is going to ratify any suspension? Please do not tell me that the AAT provides an appropriate court of review if an AOC is suspended. Firstly, in that court it is up to the holder to show that the suspension was not justified, in other words you have to prove a negative.
Secondly there are no rules of evidence in the AAT so CASA can trot out the big smear without ever having to justify it ("If it pleases the tribunal, there are other matters which have caused CASA concern about this operator, however, we don't wish to take up the Tribunal's time at this point").
Who is going to advise the Minister and what aviation experience have they had? At least with the Board it was plainly obvious.
The ship's still sinking!
Looks like yet another rearrangement of the deck chairs.
When will they realise that the problem lies in CASA taking on too many roles with absolutely no accountability with standards being whatever the local office thinks they should be.
Which court is going to ratify any suspension? Please do not tell me that the AAT provides an appropriate court of review if an AOC is suspended. Firstly, in that court it is up to the holder to show that the suspension was not justified, in other words you have to prove a negative.
Secondly there are no rules of evidence in the AAT so CASA can trot out the big smear without ever having to justify it ("If it pleases the tribunal, there are other matters which have caused CASA concern about this operator, however, we don't wish to take up the Tribunal's time at this point").
Who is going to advise the Minister and what aviation experience have they had? At least with the Board it was plainly obvious.
The ship's still sinking!
NEWS FLASH - Torres doesn't agree with Creampuff
You can almost smell the deals being done here.
10 to 1 on that a Government toady gets CEO/President of CASA.
The only difference is (and I think Crempuff points this out Torres) is that for "real" change, you need an organisation with real accountability. Accountability, such as: the leader falls on his sword when both costs and accident rates rise. Not there simply as an easier to control "running dog" for the Government of the day.
If they don't have the accountability, and are in this political limbo land, CASA should be re-formed back into a real Government Department not a Stat Authority.
10 to 1 on that a Government toady gets CEO/President of CASA.
The only difference is (and I think Crempuff points this out Torres) is that for "real" change, you need an organisation with real accountability. Accountability, such as: the leader falls on his sword when both costs and accident rates rise. Not there simply as an easier to control "running dog" for the Government of the day.
If they don't have the accountability, and are in this political limbo land, CASA should be re-formed back into a real Government Department not a Stat Authority.
Lead Baloon. G'Day. Surprisingly (for once), I agree with Creampuff if he's saying what I think he's saying. Rumour is the Director may not be there much longer - but those rumours have been around before.
Isn't it a bit unique to have an "Authority" responsible solely to a Minister?
One would suspect this change is "temporary" or "interim", possibly until the next election or budget, when the time would be appropriate for CASA to revert to a Department - or a division of Dept of Transport? If they kept the old stationary over the past decade, the change would be cost effective......!
Plovett, spot on! Although I eventually got some justice in the AAT, it was a long, arduous process. At one hearing CASA simply didn't bother to attend! The Court wasn't mentioned but I read the news article as it being a real court, rather than the kangaroo variety.
Isn't it a bit unique to have an "Authority" responsible solely to a Minister?
One would suspect this change is "temporary" or "interim", possibly until the next election or budget, when the time would be appropriate for CASA to revert to a Department - or a division of Dept of Transport? If they kept the old stationary over the past decade, the change would be cost effective......!
Plovett, spot on! Although I eventually got some justice in the AAT, it was a long, arduous process. At one hearing CASA simply didn't bother to attend! The Court wasn't mentioned but I read the news article as it being a real court, rather than the kangaroo variety.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite the creation of a whole new department in Brisbane to handle AOC's -
It still bl00dy-well takes months just to add a type to an AOC!!
As long as the paperwork is still shuffled through area offices - AOC's (new issue & changes) will take forever.
The same goes for the new 'On-Line' AOC application. It actually adds another step to the process.
In effect, the new service center has been a waste of time & money.
Getting rid of the board, and asking Mr. T to 're-apply' for his position is window dressing. The problems largely do not come from CB but at the coal-face (area offices).
I can't see Mr Anderson or his staffers taking a keen interest in the 'little' issues that collectively hinder the industry.
It still bl00dy-well takes months just to add a type to an AOC!!
As long as the paperwork is still shuffled through area offices - AOC's (new issue & changes) will take forever.
The same goes for the new 'On-Line' AOC application. It actually adds another step to the process.
In effect, the new service center has been a waste of time & money.
Getting rid of the board, and asking Mr. T to 're-apply' for his position is window dressing. The problems largely do not come from CB but at the coal-face (area offices).
I can't see Mr Anderson or his staffers taking a keen interest in the 'little' issues that collectively hinder the industry.
NTS. It won't be the first. There have been other CASA payouts, shrouded by the cloak of secrecy agreements.
For example, I believe the operators of a Russian helicopter may have been suitably recompensed...........
For example, I believe the operators of a Russian helicopter may have been suitably recompensed...........
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Melbourne VIC AUS
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I can't figure out is why they didn't change the name!
We could have CAA = Continually Altered Authority; or
DOT = Done Over Threetimes; or even
DCA = Directorate Controlled by Anderson.
Take your choice, the appropriate stationery is in storage somewhere.
Gru
We could have CAA = Continually Altered Authority; or
DOT = Done Over Threetimes; or even
DCA = Directorate Controlled by Anderson.
Take your choice, the appropriate stationery is in storage somewhere.
Gru
When will they realise that the problem lies in CASA taking on too many roles
Isn't it a bit unique to have an "Authority" responsible solely to a Minister?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From www.ninemsn.com.au
CASA culture must change: pilots
The federal government must change the culture as well as the structure of the air transport regulator, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) said.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson yesterday said he planned to sack the entire board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as part of sweeping moves to restore direct ministerial control over air safety.
With the CASA board abolished, the regulator's director Mick Toller will fill the new position of chief executive officer, reporting directly to Mr Anderson.
The minister would also be given power to set policy and performance standards, but leave day-to-day safety decisions with CASA staff.
But AOPA president Bill Pike said the government needed to change CASA's entire approach.
"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.
"It's had about six different names in recent memory and so it's a matter of changing the culture, not changing the name or even the structure."
Mr Pike said added bureaucracy did not equal increased safety and CASA needed to look at major problems, rather than grounding pilots for minor infringements.
"I would like to see the authority moving somewhere else, moving towards the grassroots, rather than just looking for symptoms and driving people out of the industry," he said.
"It must be remembered that the usage of aviation gasoline in this country is down 40 per cent in the last 10 years, so although safety is very important, just grounding the industry to achieve that safety doesn't get us anywhere."
Mr Toller earlier said the changes, aimed at ending a turbulent period in air safety, would help deliver greater accountability while ensuring safety in the skies.
But Australian Democrats transport spokeswoman Lyn Allison said the government's actions could make the skies more dangerous.
EndQuote!
Anyone got Miss Allisons email or po box?
Dog
The federal government must change the culture as well as the structure of the air transport regulator, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) said.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson yesterday said he planned to sack the entire board of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as part of sweeping moves to restore direct ministerial control over air safety.
With the CASA board abolished, the regulator's director Mick Toller will fill the new position of chief executive officer, reporting directly to Mr Anderson.
The minister would also be given power to set policy and performance standards, but leave day-to-day safety decisions with CASA staff.
But AOPA president Bill Pike said the government needed to change CASA's entire approach.
"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.
"It's had about six different names in recent memory and so it's a matter of changing the culture, not changing the name or even the structure."
Mr Pike said added bureaucracy did not equal increased safety and CASA needed to look at major problems, rather than grounding pilots for minor infringements.
"I would like to see the authority moving somewhere else, moving towards the grassroots, rather than just looking for symptoms and driving people out of the industry," he said.
"It must be remembered that the usage of aviation gasoline in this country is down 40 per cent in the last 10 years, so although safety is very important, just grounding the industry to achieve that safety doesn't get us anywhere."
Mr Toller earlier said the changes, aimed at ending a turbulent period in air safety, would help deliver greater accountability while ensuring safety in the skies.
But Australian Democrats transport spokeswoman Lyn Allison said the government's actions could make the skies more dangerous.
EndQuote!
Anyone got Miss Allisons email or po box?
Dog
But AOPA president Bill Pike said the government needed to change CASA's entire approach.
"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.
"It's had about six different names in recent memory ...
"You've got to remember that CASA has been known as the department of changing letterheads," he told the Ten network.
"It's had about six different names in recent memory ...
CASA has, of course, had the same name since they were created in 1995 - "CASA" .
Thread Starter
Lead – Bon jour - Got the photos thanks. Where on earth are you now?
NTS check – I assume you are talking about: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1151.html I wouldn’t start counting my chickens quite yet. The Tribunal found that the operator had been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC, and that the correct and preferable decision was to suspend the AOC and Chief Pilot approval until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, the operator was not without an AOC for any shorter or longer period than it should have been. I’d therefore calculate its ‘damages’ to be in the order of about $0, give or take $0. Give it a go though – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any ‘damages’ paid to the operator by the regulator.
Same with you, Torres – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any compensation ever paid by the regulator to any Russian helicopter operator. And yes: fortunately the regulator is employing more lawyers.
Icarus 2001 – One of the main reasons the FAA-regulated US system works is that the FAA is managed by professional bureaucrats, not technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats. The regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth can be run by a women who doesn’t hold a pilot’s licence, yet the sky doesn’t fall in. Perhaps Mr Anderson needs to think more deeply about that.
NTS check – I assume you are talking about: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/c...2002/1151.html I wouldn’t start counting my chickens quite yet. The Tribunal found that the operator had been conducting RPT without an RPT AOC, and that the correct and preferable decision was to suspend the AOC and Chief Pilot approval until the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Therefore, the operator was not without an AOC for any shorter or longer period than it should have been. I’d therefore calculate its ‘damages’ to be in the order of about $0, give or take $0. Give it a go though – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any ‘damages’ paid to the operator by the regulator.
Same with you, Torres – I’ll match, pacific peso for pacific peso, any compensation ever paid by the regulator to any Russian helicopter operator. And yes: fortunately the regulator is employing more lawyers.
Icarus 2001 – One of the main reasons the FAA-regulated US system works is that the FAA is managed by professional bureaucrats, not technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats. The regulator of the greatest aviation nation on earth can be run by a women who doesn’t hold a pilot’s licence, yet the sky doesn’t fall in. Perhaps Mr Anderson needs to think more deeply about that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
CASA
Reports on the morning news I have heard indicate that CASA actions over the AN B767 groundings precipitated the reshuffle at CASA - dear me, is it remotely possible that the light is slowly dawning on some folk in Australia that forces other than/more powerful than ANZ were involved in the Ansett collapse?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA cleanout ?
The Director of Aviation Safety, (AKA Mick Toller). and I guess, the new CEO, "IS" "THE PROBLEM NOT THE SOLUTION".
Why don't we instill the Chief Counsel, CASA legal branch as CEO, makes about as much sense.
"civil disobedience is the answer".
Why don't we instill the Chief Counsel, CASA legal branch as CEO, makes about as much sense.
"civil disobedience is the answer".
Thread Starter
Torres - you could learn a thing or two from NTS check!
Axiom - at least the General Counsel understands what the regulator's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it. Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority.
Axiom - at least the General Counsel understands what the regulator's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it. Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority.
Creampuff. "...at least the General Counsel understands what the regulator's supposed to do, and how it's supposed to do it."
Time for a reality check. I recommend Bex and a long rest...
"Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority." Generally because the competent and experienced regulators with significant aviation operational experience have long since left CASA due to frustration with incompetent management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian government took direct control of the national air safety regulator and introduced reforms to enforcement procedures against operators in a move to make the authority more accountable and ease industry concerns. Transport and Regional Services Minister John Anderson announced the sweeping reforms Monday, saying they will improve the aviation sector's confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
One of the key components of the package is the abolition of the CASA board from July 1, 2003, with the minister assuming responsibility for setting policy and performance standards for the body. The government will appoint the CEO--a role previously undertaken by the board. Current Director of Aviation Safety Mick Toller will take up the CEO position and report directly to the minister.
The reform program flows from a review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA that began in Feb. Measures also are being introduced to do away with CASA's much-criticized ability to act as "judge, jury and executioner" in cases involving safety breaches. This situation came under the spotlight with action taken by the authority following the Whyalla Airlines crash in 2000 and last year's grounding of Ansett's 767-200s.
Under the new system, operators can contest any decision to suspend or cancel operating licenses in the Federal Court within five days. If there is no immediate risk to air safety, the airline involved will be granted an automatic stay of the decision until the case has been heard by the court. The government also is establishing an air standards advisory body to ensure that the views of the industry are considered fully in enactment of new safety regulations.
"These reforms will only improve and strengthen CASA's ability to regulate our skies effectively, and boost the traveling public's faith in the aviation industry," Anderson said.
Time for a reality check. I recommend Bex and a long rest...
"Those are skills that are sadly lacking elsewhere in the authority." Generally because the competent and experienced regulators with significant aviation operational experience have long since left CASA due to frustration with incompetent management.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian government took direct control of the national air safety regulator and introduced reforms to enforcement procedures against operators in a move to make the authority more accountable and ease industry concerns. Transport and Regional Services Minister John Anderson announced the sweeping reforms Monday, saying they will improve the aviation sector's confidence in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
One of the key components of the package is the abolition of the CASA board from July 1, 2003, with the minister assuming responsibility for setting policy and performance standards for the body. The government will appoint the CEO--a role previously undertaken by the board. Current Director of Aviation Safety Mick Toller will take up the CEO position and report directly to the minister.
The reform program flows from a review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA that began in Feb. Measures also are being introduced to do away with CASA's much-criticized ability to act as "judge, jury and executioner" in cases involving safety breaches. This situation came under the spotlight with action taken by the authority following the Whyalla Airlines crash in 2000 and last year's grounding of Ansett's 767-200s.
Under the new system, operators can contest any decision to suspend or cancel operating licenses in the Federal Court within five days. If there is no immediate risk to air safety, the airline involved will be granted an automatic stay of the decision until the case has been heard by the court. The government also is establishing an air standards advisory body to ensure that the views of the industry are considered fully in enactment of new safety regulations.
"These reforms will only improve and strengthen CASA's ability to regulate our skies effectively, and boost the traveling public's faith in the aviation industry," Anderson said.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff,
Seems that you might have missed my final comment to you on the "Question for CASA" thread (ID=64194), so I will gently recast my fly:
I was actually looking forward in the current thread to your views on the changes announced as to whether the abolition of the Board in any way increases Mick Toller's accountability. I also failed to understand how arranging a court to conduct a merits review in lieu of the AAT in any way alters the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" arrangements - can you assist?
PS I love the attention to detail demonstrated in "Schutt" by CASA's mexican Area Manager - I would have loved to see Ian Harvey trying to get around that "own goal"!!
Seems that you might have missed my final comment to you on the "Question for CASA" thread (ID=64194), so I will gently recast my fly:
Oh, and by the way Creampuff, as great a fan of you and your ilk as I am, CASA buying another lawyer will not fix anything unless they buy a competent regulator to provide the policy for the lawyer to legislate.
PS I love the attention to detail demonstrated in "Schutt" by CASA's mexican Area Manager - I would have loved to see Ian Harvey trying to get around that "own goal"!!
Score 10 points to 4dogs!!! (He's a bit more subtle than me!)
Is Harvey still on a retainer?
With an ever increasing plethora of internal lawyers in OLC, one wonders why a relay team of external lawyers also needs to be retained.
(He's a bit more subtle than me!)Is Harvey still on a retainer?
With an ever increasing plethora of internal lawyers in OLC, one wonders why a relay team of external lawyers also needs to be retained.
Thread Starter
Howdy 4dogs – long time no chat.
I apologise for my discourtesy in not responding to your observation in the other thread, that:
I agree completely.
I think that in the various threads that have popped up criticising the legendary complexity of the Australian rules, I have consistently said that no one can turn a muddle-headed policy, or no policy at all, into crystal clear rules.
The fly that I was casting in making the comment related to the skills that the regulator is recruiting. Most of the 9% increase over the last year has comprised a whole bunch of people who ain’t pilots or engineers. Slowly but steadily the government is moving in the professional bureaucrats to get the authority working again.
Technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats often score ‘own goals’. I watched GI Joe in front of the Senate Committee recently. A senator asked him about an AOC he’d signed that purported to take effect weeks before he’d signed it. The point was completely lost on him! Uber spin doctor Rob Elder had to step in to put a fig leaf over that little bit of corruption. Makes you wonder what other documents GI Joe has gormlessly signed, doesn’t it?
How will these changes increase Mick Toller’s accountability? They won’t. Mr “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the board” will simply change his story to “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the Minister”. And we’ll now have to wait a couple of years for these “reforms” to bed down. Mr Toller will continue to play private school prefect to the Anderson headmaster, with Anderson remaining clueless as to what’s really going. The people who actually run the authority – the professional bureaucrats Gemmell/Elder/Ilyk – will continue to do so, on the instructions of Ministerial staffers.
Like you
Anyone can ask the AAT or the Federal Court for a stay under the existing rules. The Federal Court does not and will not conduct merits review. (Airworthiness Directives are going to be an interesting are – can’t they have the effect of grounding aircraft?) The administrative fine system has been in the rules for years. Now we’re going to wait a few more years for a points system?
The only guaranteed outcome as a consequence of these changes (if they really occur – we haven’t seen any legislation yet) is that there will be more work.
For lawyers.
It will be off to court every time, automatically, instead of at the application of the licence or certificate holder.
Thanks John.
I apologise for my discourtesy in not responding to your observation in the other thread, that:
CASA buying another lawyer will not fix anything unless they buy a competent regulator to provide the policy for the lawyer to legislate.
I think that in the various threads that have popped up criticising the legendary complexity of the Australian rules, I have consistently said that no one can turn a muddle-headed policy, or no policy at all, into crystal clear rules.
The fly that I was casting in making the comment related to the skills that the regulator is recruiting. Most of the 9% increase over the last year has comprised a whole bunch of people who ain’t pilots or engineers. Slowly but steadily the government is moving in the professional bureaucrats to get the authority working again.
Technical experts pretending to be professional bureaucrats often score ‘own goals’. I watched GI Joe in front of the Senate Committee recently. A senator asked him about an AOC he’d signed that purported to take effect weeks before he’d signed it. The point was completely lost on him! Uber spin doctor Rob Elder had to step in to put a fig leaf over that little bit of corruption. Makes you wonder what other documents GI Joe has gormlessly signed, doesn’t it?
How will these changes increase Mick Toller’s accountability? They won’t. Mr “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the board” will simply change his story to “I was overseas at the time/that is being considered by the Minister”. And we’ll now have to wait a couple of years for these “reforms” to bed down. Mr Toller will continue to play private school prefect to the Anderson headmaster, with Anderson remaining clueless as to what’s really going. The people who actually run the authority – the professional bureaucrats Gemmell/Elder/Ilyk – will continue to do so, on the instructions of Ministerial staffers.
Like you
I also failed to understand how arranging a court to conduct a merits review in lieu of the AAT in any way alters the "Judge, Jury and Executioner" arrangements.
The only guaranteed outcome as a consequence of these changes (if they really occur – we haven’t seen any legislation yet) is that there will be more work.
For lawyers.
It will be off to court every time, automatically, instead of at the application of the licence or certificate holder.
Thanks John.