PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Regulatory Dark Matter (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/625901-regulatory-dark-matter.html)

LeadSled 29th Sep 2019 09:27

Regulatory Dark Matter
 
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...ansparency.pdf
Folks,
From the IPA, well worth a read.
Tootle pip.

PS: For those of you who object to the use of the generic "Folks" as a generic address, as far as I am concerned, it is gender neutral, implies no white/male privilege, and generally meets the demands of the woke folk.

cooperplace 29th Sep 2019 10:56

Has anyone objected to "folks"?

That report possibly doesn't take local govt into account. They can be the pits.

Horatio Leafblower 29th Sep 2019 12:09

I would normally never give you much for an IPA article but....

growahead 29th Sep 2019 12:13

From the IPA, conservatives who gave us Opal Tower et al, Privatised monopoly airports etc etc. Thanks but no thanks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inst...Public_Affairs


gerry111 29th Sep 2019 13:34


Originally Posted by growahead (Post 10582155)
From the IPA, conservatives who gave us Opal Tower et al, Privatised monopoly airports etc etc. Thanks but no thanks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inst...Public_Affairs



Not forgetting the IPA's funding by, and support of, the tobacco industry.

rcoight 29th Sep 2019 14:23


Originally Posted by LeadSled (Post 10582060)
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...ansparency.pdf
Folks,
From the IPA, well worth a read.
Tootle pip.

PS: For those of you who object to the use of the generic "Folks" as a generic address, as far as I am concerned, it is gender neutral, implies no white/male privilege, and generally meets the demands of the woke folk.

Excellent. Love the IPA.
Don’t waste your time trying to please the woke folk. It’s impossible, and who cares what they think anyway?

De_flieger 29th Sep 2019 15:03

From the IPA, a bunch of tobacco-funded free-market fundamentalists convinced that any form of regulation impedes their God-given rights to make a profit. The same people who brought you this, THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING because they truly believe that licensing professionals such as doctors, dentists, pilots and engineers based on their qualifications is a barrier to market forces and their ideal of people working in whatever field they choose, regardless of skill, training or anything else. They literally claim that the requirement for service providers to be licensed unnecessarily increases costs of dental visits by 7%, and health checks for children by 6-16%. If you're happy for such complete deregulation such that any stranger with a Ryobi and a jar of chloroform can call themselves a dentist, or perform health checks on your children, go for your life. Abolishing any licensing requirements for professional pilots? I can't see how that could possibly backfire :hmm:

LeadSled 29th Sep 2019 16:07


Originally Posted by cooperplace (Post 10582119)
Has anyone objected to "folks"

cooperplace,
Sure have, apparently my writing style and attitude some believe is not suitable for pprune.
Or my suggestions that Australia is NOT the world's leader in aviation safety and good regulation, or the absolutely best and easiest and most friendly and convenient place to fly, graciously permitted and facilitated by the world's most efficient and friendly "Authority".
What's the bet some work for CASA.
Tootle pip!!

ps: Looks like the IPA isn't too popular with the Canberra bubble and their fellow travellers.

LeadSled 29th Sep 2019 16:57


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 10582264)
, THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING because they truly believe that licensing professionals such as doctors, dentists, pilots and engineers based on their qualifications is a barrier to market forces and their ideal of people working in whatever field they choose, regardless of skill, training or anything else. . Abolishing any licensing requirements for professional pilots? I can't see how that could possibly backfire :hmm:

De flieger,
Do you seriously believe what this article says means the above ---- you completely misunderstand (or misrepresent??) what kind of "occupational licensing" is being referred to --- government control of who can be in business, not recognition of the qualifications to be a doctor, a lawyer or a pilot, such qualifications being presented in different ways.
It does NOT imply that many occupations (pilots, doctors)should not require minimum standards, that anybody should be able to set up shop wherever they please.
A "licensed" dentist?? Never heard of one??
You really should read the article (and some of the footnotes) with an open mind, as long as it is not a mind that is open at both ends.
Tootle pip!!

Okihara 29th Sep 2019 22:41

On point. Could there ever be a better place to post this than here and now?


The definition used for regulatory dark matter is; “Regulatory actions taken by departments and agencies that are subject to little scrutiny or democratic accountability.”
No, no, you shall not fly the GA8.


Another method of measuring red tape is to count the number of restrictive clauses contained in regulation. This method has been used to great effect in British Columbia in Canada, and also briefly in Queensland under the Newman government
e.g. "[A private or aerial work aircraft] must not be operated unless:", the most favoured syntactic construction peppering all of aviation regulations in OZ.

Okihara 29th Sep 2019 23:21


Originally Posted by De_flieger (Post 10582264)
From the IPA, a bunch of tobacco-funded free-market fundamentalists convinced that any form of regulation impedes their God-given rights to make a profit. The same people who brought you this, THE CASE FOR ABOLISHING OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING because they truly believe that licensing professionals such as doctors, dentists, pilots and engineers based on their qualifications is a barrier to market forces and their ideal of people working in whatever field they choose, regardless of skill, training or anything else. They literally claim that the requirement for service providers to be licensed unnecessarily increases costs of dental visits by 7%, and health checks for children by 6-16%. If you're happy for such complete deregulation such that any stranger with a Ryobi and a jar of chloroform can call themselves a dentist, or perform health checks on your children, go for your life. Abolishing any licensing requirements for professional pilots? I can't see how that could possibly backfire :hmm:

Look mate, you clearly have a limited understanding of what licencing and its abolishing could mean. Let me give you an example of why this is just out of control. My wife's a doctor, went through medical training at various universities for her initial medical degree all the way up to her specialisation. Back in Europe, she paid roughly $150/year to the equivalent of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. For that fee, she gets a quarterly issued journal showcasing nationwide advances in her field, an email address for life and stays in the loop at a public level. It's a state run body and I'm not saying they're superfluous redtape. The fee is proportionate to their services but there's no licence involved. Why should a body get to decide who is to be called doctor, engineer, lawyer or pilot in the first place and not the university from which one graduated?

Here in Australia, she is paying on average $20-$22k/year for a licence that allows her to keep the privilege of practising medicine. That's the bare truth, well north of $20k. Here's another truth: in the last three years, the year on year increase has exceeded 1.) GDP growth in nominal terms and 2.) average wage growth. And that's obviously on top of income taxes. Just how stupid do you think this is? Do you really think that the Royal Australasian College of Physicians makes Australian healthcare safer than e.g. its German, Norwegian or Swedish equivalents? Now don't think for a minute that she's foolish. These costs are borne in turn by her patients and ultimately by medicare and private insurance companies.

This article is very much on point. What piece of regulations is allowing a governing body to charge its stakeholders as much?

JustinHeywood 30th Sep 2019 02:47

You have to smile at those whose first response to information is not to critique the article but to criticise the source, especially when they go back decades to show the source as unreliable.
I suggest these people stick to their little club of ‘trusted’ sources (ie. Australia Institute, ABC, Fairfax, Guardian etc). No bias or agendas there, no sir. You’ll be so much more comfortable.


An interesting follow-up to the article would be to measure whether the increased regulation has led to better outcomes. Are our skies safer? Has ASIC and ACCC regulations collared more corporate cowboys and scammers? Has increased planning and building regulation resulted in better buildings?
I think not, but I’d like to see someone try to quantify an answer.



neville_nobody 30th Sep 2019 05:32

This argument has been going on a long time. The basic argument is that by removing regulation and licensing you are putting the onus of quality on the supplier of the product rather than some bureaucrat. It also creates price pressure on the supplier and stops price inflation.


Seabreeze 30th Sep 2019 07:11


Originally Posted by neville_nobody (Post 10582734)
This argument has been going on a long time. The basic argument is that by removing regulation and licensing you are putting the onus of quality on the supplier of the product rather than some bureaucrat. It also creates price pressure on the supplier and stops price inflation.

https://youtu.be/8q71hrwUcu0

Yep. A lack of effective regulation has worked well for the Aussie bank's who have made a Motza over the years from customers using unethical and even illegal practices, and for the clic church who have quietly condoned pedophelia for centuries...

KittyKatKaper 30th Sep 2019 23:47


Originally Posted by LeadSled (Post 10582060)
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/upload...ansparency.pdf
Folks,
From the IPA, well worth a read.

A simplistic report in my opinon.
It's just a comparison of the page-counts of all documents, irrespective of how usefull or relevant they are.

The volume for regulatory dark matter is eight times that of underlying enabling legislation point is repeated (in words and graphs) many times.
Conflate the topic with the Red tape boogeyman and hey presto!, another research paper is unleashed on the world.



WTF!, I just noticed that the IPA has a "Dignity of Work" research program !

De_flieger 1st Oct 2019 02:18


Originally Posted by LeadSled (Post 10582358)
De flieger,
Do you seriously believe what this article says means the above ---- you completely misunderstand (or misrepresent??) what kind of "occupational licensing" is being referred to --- government control of who can be in business, not recognition of the qualifications to be a doctor, a lawyer or a pilot, such qualifications being presented in different ways.
It does NOT imply that many occupations (pilots, doctors)should not require minimum standards, that anybody should be able to set up shop wherever they please.
A "licensed" dentist?? Never heard of one??
You really should read the article (and some of the footnotes) with an open mind, as long as it is not a mind that is open at both ends.

Look, I'm just reading the words that the IPA write down in their articles, which they make fairly clear. For example, when they state in one of their reports: "Australian governments should move to substantially reduce, if not entirely abolish, occupational licensing in Australia.", that reads to me that they want the substantial reduction, or entire abolition, of occupational licensing.

As far as licensed dentists, if you want to get into semantics the legally protected title is "dentist", along with variations such as "dental therapist", but either way if you arent registered with AHPRA as a dentist, and you represent yourself as one or perform dentistry, you can (at least in NSW) be sent to jail for up to 3 years. There's been a few cases over the years of people convicted in court of falsely representing they were a dentist. Those laws apply to a range of other professional healthcare titles too such as midwife, dental practitioner, psychologist and so on. That's government regulation and licensing.

For Okihara's case of being charged north of $20k to hold that registration, I agree - that is obscene if registration is the only service being provided for that cost. The IPA isn't arguing for cheaper registration for medical professionals though, or looking at whether that is value for money - they have an ideological objection to licensing and regulation of professionals on the grounds that it interferes with the free market. If you're buying a coffee and it's a terrible coffee, you can decide not to use that coffee shop again and tell your friends how bad it was, but if you have surgery and die because of the lack of qualifications of the person conducting the operation, the free market doesn't really work to protect consumers in that case. I don't know how you can simultaneously recognise and accredit the minimum standards required for a technical profession, without having some form of registration or licensing with a professional body that oversees those standards - otherwise anyone can just call themselves a doctor, lawyer etc without consequence until it backfires on their clients or unsuspecting passengers embedded in small pieces into the side of a hill. How would you do it LeadSled?

Okihara 1st Oct 2019 05:47

Yes to oversight, by all means. Ensuring that a title or qualification meets a standard, be my guest. But only in a controlled and reasonable fashion. This Regulatory Dark Matter is akin institutionalised theft in this country.

LeadSled 1st Oct 2019 10:45

De flieger,
With respect, you still haven't got your mind around the conventional definition of "occupational licensing" , as intended in this article.
It means controlling who/how many may be in business, not professional standards.
Tootle pip!!

Sunfish 1st Oct 2019 18:36

Established businesses often like regulation because it creates barriers to entry for new players and also players the regulator doesn’t like. Examples appear to be SAAA and the fledgling ELAAA. Meanwhile the RAA is getting the red carpet treatment.

Without competition, the RAA is going to turn into Frankenstein’s monster very quickly in my. opinion because the real controller of the Association is CASA, not the Directors, let alone the members.

Aussie Bob 1st Oct 2019 23:15

A classic example is a certain council concerned with "Clean Energy". It costs well north of $1500.00 per year to be a "member", much more if you take into account the cost of accruing "the points" required for renewal. This mob police rooftop solar amongst other things. You can't claim "carbon credits" on an installation if you are not a member. You must install in accordance with the Australian Standards which are actually pretty easy to understand.

To anyone who cares to research, rooftop solar is pretty much a waste of time and money, the systems reliable life of about 5 years does not pay back the cost involved in fitting it. A single breakdown will eat 5 years of cost benefit. The single biggest complaint Consumer Affairs hear about in both Australia and the USA is faulty rooftop solar and lack of warranty support. The quality of most installations does not meet the standards and is often a rush job done by a hurried and underpaid contractor. So much for the council who "police" and "licence" the industry. They themselves are a leech mob that feeds off another with no real benefit to the host. Like most of these councils, boards and licensing authorities including what Okihara describes.

Back to aviation .... The cost of a flight review has ballooned since Part 61, VFR multi pilots need 3 instead of 1. Most working commercial pilots don't even need to do 1. A simple check with a CP would suffice. The cost of maintaining an IFR rating is exorbitant. The industry is over controlled over regulated and overburdened.

Australia and Australians love bureaucracy and thrive on it. You only need to read some comments on this thread to realise it is so. A great percentage of our workforce do nothing more meaningful than looking at what others are doing and licensing them, then charging them for the privilege. They cite "shoddy practices" and "maintaining standards" as their justification when in fact their own and their bosses shoddy moral consciousness is the real cause of decline. To add further insult to the skills of workers, some of these "governing institutions" are State based. It seems electrons behave differently, water flows in different directions and buildings need different forces to hold them upright when a trade crosses a border.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:30.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.