Of Mandarins & Minions.
Regulatory reform stuck in limbo since 2014 - WTD?

Come across a little known (and not ever referred to, that I can remember - Huh ) M&M era department webpage, which paints a very disturbing picture of aviation safety regulatory reform stagnation, that dates back to 2014... Undecided :

Regulation in the Department

Listen to this page
A A A

Regulatory Reform

The Australian Government has established a regulatory reform policy that aims to improve growth and enhance competitiveness across the Australian economy.

Having delivered $4.5 billion in red tape savings within two years, the Government is starting a new chapter in its approach to regulatory reform. On 12 November 2015, the Hon Peter Hendy MP, Assistant Minister for Productivity, announced that from 1 July 2016 the Government will broaden its Regulatory Reform Agenda to focus on reforms that directly enhance innovation, competitiveness and productivity.

The Infrastructure and Regional Development Portfolio is vigorously pursuing regulatory reforms, with a particular focus on achieving efficiencies through administrative improvements and harmonising international and domestic regulatory requirements.

This will maintain our high safety and security standards for Australia's transport systems, whilst removing compliance costs for which there are no commensurate safety or public interest benefits.

Regulator Performance Framework

As a key Commonwealth safety regulator, continuous improvement is already at the core of the portfolio's regulatory vision. The Government's Regulator Performance Framework (RPF) establishes a common set of performance measures that will allow regulators to comprehensively assess their regulatory performance and their engagement with stakeholders.

Regulators within the Department have developed key performance indicators, measures and metrics to enable them to assess their regulatory performance on an annual basis.
The portfolio will continue to build on best practice regulation standards to improve transparency, accountability, clear communications and risk-based approaches to regulation.

Regulatory Audit 2014

In 2014, the Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio conducted an Audit of its regulations as part of the Government's Red Tape Reduction Programme. The Regulatory Audit Results by Transport Sector Paper provides a summary of the results of the Audit in the context of value to the Australian economy.
  • Regulatory Audit Results by Transport Sector Paper PDF: 188 KB [Image: readspeaker_listen_icon.gif]
International standards and risk assessments

As part of the Government's broader Deregulation Policy all Portfolios are seeking opportunities for greater acceptance of international standards and risk assessments. This will mean that Australian regulators should adopt relevant and accepted trusted international standards, unless there is a good reason to impose additional Australian-specific requirements. To that end, the Department has developed a flow chart to assess the appropriateness of international standards and risk assessments that might apply to the Australian context when developing and adopting new policy.
Starting with the 2014 reg audit it is obvious that the former M&M and his minions tried to spin the light fantastic when it comes to the troubling facts & figures of the aviation sector:


  
Aviation
A strong, competitive and safe aviation sector is vital to Australia’s continued prosperity. The aviation sector is regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Department, including within it the Office of Transport Security, and the Aviation and Airports division. Airservices Australia also has an important role in the aviation sector, including managing air traffic operations and providing aeronautical data.

The 2014 Audit of regulations found that, of 335 regulatory frameworks across the portfolio, approximately 101 apply to the aviation sector and of these 71 are managed by CASA. The total cost of regulation across the aviation sector, including costs to business and individuals, is estimated to be approximately $403.69 million.

There are over 3,031,248 flights in Australia each year, bringing the average cost of regulatory requirements by aviation regulators to around $132.62 per flight, including airport and airline safety and security requirements. Costs per flight would be lower for smaller aircraft with fewer passengers than for commercial airliners. The range of costs reflects the portfolio’s approach of ensuring regulations are fit for purpose and regulatory burden is commensurate to safety and public interest.

The estimated gross value added (GVA) of the aviation transport sector is approximately $6.53 billion, excluding broader productivity benefits. The cost of regulation as a proportion of GVA is estimated to be approximately 6.2 per cent. Given the excellent safety record of Australia’s aviation sector and the high priority placed on safety and security, the cost of the regulatory frameworks is considered low in contrast to the economic value added by the industry.



The part in bold is seemingly a justifiable, bureaucratic, word weasel, motherhood statement, which brings into sharp focus the old chestnut of 'affordable safety' if (the big IF) in fact the statement were true.

Where this statement falls down is when you refer to the comparison to all other Federally regulated transport sectors, which presumably also fall into the 'excellent' safety record category -  Huh :



[Image: Transport-1.jpg]



Okay, so my understanding of that (in simple terms) is that the regulatory impost  (enforced mostly by CASA) on the aviation sector, is over 200% higher than the next closest transport sector (i.e. maritime).

This disturbing tale of red tape purgatory by our disenfranchised big "R" regulator CASA, only gets worse when you examine the complete 'up yours' consideration that our 'law unto themselves' regulator has given to another former Abbott government initiative:

 "...This will mean that Australian regulators should adopt relevant and accepted trusted international standards, unless there is a good reason to impose additional Australian-specific requirements..."    
 

[Image: International-standards-flowchart.jpg]


Is it any wonder that this stuff has been lost - apparently not to be revisited - on some obscure department webpage - UDB! Dodgy


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Not a good start to the day…

P2, you’re a lovely fellah; but why did you have to post the information above? Hell’s teeth man, I was enjoying a second coffee when I read through what is probably the most disturbing, depressing piece of information I’ve seen in a good long while and the gods know we get enough dark stuff to read through here.

The information presented is enough to make a stone idol weep; but, to me the complete lack of ministerial interest in such matters is the heart breaker. Millions upon millions have been thrown at the reform program, the current rule set is destroying the very fabric of the aviation industry : time, money and much effort all down the tubes; the CASA out of control and beyond reason, untouchable, unaccountable and a massive sink hole into which billions have been poured – for naught - except for the massive damage inflicted.

All of this is bad enough, but worse is the complete lack of political interest, in any way, shape or form. The senate estimates did, until recently at least, try to get the brakes on the runaway juggernaut. Although they, despite their best efforts, have been about as effective as a chocolate firewall. Despite the questions and rhetoric they have achieved exactly nothing of either practical or intrinsic value to aid the industry.

The industry should look about themselves and count the improvements made over the past decades; then count the cost of it all; then, on one hand, count the benefits delivered by government ministers, senate and CASA. It’s an easy enough equation –

Aye, no doubt it will continue unchallenged on the way it has for the last 30 odd years; on the merry road to perdition.

Toot- we wuz robbed- toot.
Reply
Perjury, Penury; or, Plenty o’ nuttin.

Dear Minister.

Welcome to the blood covered aviation ministers throne; we have moved as much of the clutter (dead ends, wasted effort, false hopes and CASA pony-pooh) as possible and hidden the poison chalice in an attempt to at least make the throne room fit for habitation. As a gesture of goodwill to  a new chum, we would like to provide you with a glimpse of some of the beasts ravening at your back door. Now then, there are those who will whisper ‘all is well’ and you may relax as the appointed experts have matters aeronautical under control. You will, if not careful, be persuaded that the highly paid ‘experts’ actually know what they are about and have, in fact, done a wonderful job thus far. Alas, good Sir; this simply ain’t true; it is in fact about as far removed from ‘the truth’ as its possible to get, without landing up in goal, for perjury and creating industrial penury.

One of the ongoing, major catastrophes, created solely by the ‘experts’ is the attempted introduction of a new rule related to pilot fatigue; to wit, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1.

"CASA releases final report of review of new fatigue rules
March 22, 2018 by australianaviation.com.au"

This Chimera has been hanging about for almost a decade. The cost of supporting, feeding, redrafting has been through a monumental sum of money, provided, one way or the other, from the public purse. As the rule set stands today, it not only costs the public significant sums, but places a huge impost on the operating companies. All this mark you, for no significant improvement in either safety or efficiency. The rule is however rather good at trapping those who, in utter confusion, unintentionally breach the rule. When this occurs, ‘the experts’ gleefully rub their hands together - fines for cost recovery, prosecution in the name of safety; and, they can brag about improved safety through compliance at Estimates. So much for the ‘safety’ case – unless of course its related to ‘safe’ conviction.

These same experts are the ones who discarded a 2009 special report, prepared by two preeminent experts, within their employ. Of course that report focussed on the Pel-Air ditching and had to be buried. Almost a decade ago, the ‘right’ answers were being provided. Only now, at great expense, has CEO Carmody deferred the introduction of 48.1 after an independent expert review; now awaiting ‘industry’ comment. Time and money – money and time – time, after time, after time. Ad tedium ad nauseum.

Perhaps dear Sir, you could have one of your minions peruse the link – HERE – which may provide an insight and an update on the state of play. Then consider the last decades fiscal cost to arrive (return to?) at a point where ‘industry’ operational experts may reconsider the impact this proposed legislation will have on safety, operational efficiency, administration and the bottom line cost of doing business.

P2 – “Good QoN you ask Thorny... However; shouldn't we at least give Carmody a choccy frog? Because by default (with the release of the report) he is admitting (for once) that the CAO48.1 project was a waste of time, money and resources?”

P2 just about sums it up in a nutshell. It serves as a caution to the new chum not to place too much reliance on ‘his’ hand fed experts – when the real wisdom and knowledge is freely available from ‘experts’ within the industry – who actually live in the real, cold world.

L&K – from the houseboat crew

Toot – toot – (Next)…...


Reply
Red tape embuggerance continues unabated at Aviation House - Angry

Continuing on the theme - of red tape and the 30+ year, $500+ million, aviation safety bureaucracy's embuggerance of the regulatory reform program - I note that Sunfish has started an interesting thread on the UP:

Quote:Barriers To Prosperity: Red Tape And The Regulatory State In Australia


Quote:Australia has experienced 26 years of unbroken economic growth. However, this aggregate figure masks stagnant wages growth and a deterioration in the living standards of many in the Australian middle class. The central cause of this deterioration is low and declining levels of business investment, which is approaching historic lows.

Overregulation and red tape are two key causes of weak investment. The regulatory burden on private enterprise has grown unabated for decades at the state and federal level, and under both Labour and Coalition Governments. Red tape reduces economic output by $176 billion each year. This means that if previous attempts to eliminate red tape were successful, the Australian economy would today be 11 per cent larger and the average household would be $19,300 better off each year.

From the report:

Quote:....Red tape arises when more regulation is in place than what is needed to achieve a given stated objective. More formally, red tape can be defined as 'rules, regulations and procedures that require compliance but do not meet the organization’s functional objective for the rule.'......

............Red tape imposes a range of costs on individuals, families, communities, and businesses. These costs can be broadly categorised along the following lines:

1.Administrative costs: costs incurred to demonstrate compliance with a given regulatory requirement. This includes the direct costs of compliance such as reporting requirements, paperwork, and keeping and producing records.

2.Substantive costs: costs incurred to meet the regulatory requirements, such as hiring or training new staff, or purchasing new equipment.

3.Opportunity costs: activities forgone or delayed as a result of red tape, such as delayed implementation of a new project.

4.Financial costs: payments of fees by private actors to government, such as through cost recovery
.
Amen brother.

https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/...tate-australia

And some recent posts on the theme of overburdened, non-harmonised regulations etc.:

Quote:LeadSled:

Quote:
Quote:The AIP USED to be very succinct, practical, logical and well organised.

Horatio,

How true. In my "historic collection", I have a complete AIP from the mid-1960s, simple, straightforward, and all the IAPs with coloured terrain contours were really something.

From the same era, the Air Navigation Act 1920, and associated Air Navigation Regulations (now CAR/CASR) was an A5 book (standard size of publishing legislation) about 1.5cm thick, plain language, generally unambiguous.

The ANOs (now CAO/MOS/AC) were A4 and for most of us, one 5cm binder not stuffed full. There was a bit more if you were a maintenance org.

BUT --- It was all PLAIN ENGLISH.

AND --- You could talk to an "Examiner of Airman", or an Airworthiness Surveyor, and ask questions, and get binding answers, without triggering an "aggressive audit".

Tootle pip!!

PS: I also have a copy of the ANRs from mid-30s, it would, in this day and age, make you cry, it is less than 30 pages of standard A5 format.



thorn bird:

Anyone counted the total number of pages of Australian Reg's?

Understand the US regs are 1000 pages of A5, NZ about the same.


LeadSled:

Thorn Bird,

Somewhere I have a complete but a bit out of date (Jep) copy of FAR1-199, I will have a look for it. It fits in one big (3 inch, not the usual 2 inch) binder.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages. Some claim as high as almost 9000.

About six or so lines of regulation for Limited Cat in the CARs became Part 132, hundreds of pages?? I haven't counted them, but the huge expansion addresses NO new or existing risk that was not already covered. An eruption of volcanic proportions of irrelevant excess regulation.



Lead Balloon:

Thorn bird: Pages of regulations (1988 + 1998) plus civil aviation orders plus manuals of standards plus determinations, permissions, approvals and exemptions?

My estimate, based on a page count of the more substantial bits of the dog’s breakfast: Around 30,000 pages and growing.

I doubt whether anyone could reasonably be confident of knowing and understanding the entirety of the current Australian civil aviation regulatory regime. I would presume any claimant of that knowledge and understanding to be a psychopath or insane.

"...total of ALL material of a legislative or associated nature for Part 61 alone is now put at 6000+ pages..."

While on Part 61, there is a very strong possibility that the Part 61 page count will be added to yet again... Blush

From the FF twitter guy:


We are calling for comments on our proposal to improve the #Part61 flight instructor rating.  To have your say, go to our Consultation Hub: #avsafety https://consultation.casa.gov.au/regulatory-program/part61-flight-instructor-ratings 

[Image: DY8WIMAVQAMriJN.jpg]

&..

Overview

CASA is proposing to improve the Part 61 flight instructor rating.

The improvements have been developed and refined via ongoing consultation between CASA and the aviation community since the introduction of the flight crew licensing regulations in September 2014.

The proposed improvements aim to support flight training operators and trainers to develop and deliver their flight instructor training courses, amend the privileges and limitations of certain training endorsements and enhance the guidance material.

The proposed improvements would:
  • enhance and extend flight instructor training guidance material
  • introduce a new single unit of competency, FIR4 (flight instructor rating – general), amalgamating the three generic practical units of competency  FIR1, FIR2 and FIR3, thus reducing the complexity of course development.
  • introduce separate units of competency for each training endorsement 
  • expand the grade 1 training endorsement to include additional training and assessment privileges
  • add basic instrument flight training (BIFT) as a privilege of the grade 3 (aeroplane) training endorsement
  • remove the grade 3 (helicopter) training endorsement limitation on conducting simulated engine failures with the activity to be managed by the flight training operator
  • make BIFT optional for the grade 3 (helicopter) training endorsement.
Implementing the proposed improvements will involve amending the flight crew licensing regulations. An interim approach may be considered.

Why We Are Consulting

To continue the collaborative approach with the aviation community, we are seeking feedback on the consequences and benefits of implementing the proposed initiatives.

This consultation is particularly relevant to:
  • flight training operators and flight instructors who conduct training for the grant of a flight instructor rating and training endorsements
  • pilots who undergo training for a flight instructor rating and training endorsements
  • flight examiners who conduct flight tests for a flight instructor rating and training endorsements
  • pilots and operators who conduct flight training.
If you are using an iPad to complete the survey you will be asked to 'download the relevant PDF'.  Depending on the software you have on your iPad you may need to download the free viewer to review the single document PDF files.  Where a file is a 'multi-file or portfolio PDF you will need to source the Adobe free view  - available from iTunes.  More information on the 'how to' is available below in 'related' section below.

Provide your feedback
Online Survey


Hmm...maybe we'll be looking at a 2nd A4 box to contain the Part 61 behemoth... Rolleyes

[Image: PE-Section-3-Pg16.jpg]

Which would be funny if it wasn't so bloody depressing... Undecided


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Welcome to the Bureaucratocracy of Australia -  Dodgy

wren 460 & jonkster quotes off the UP... Wink

Quote:wren 460:

Democracy not working for GA



Originally Posted by Dick Smith [/url]

Quote:So here we have a Deputy Prime Minister basically stating a lie and getting away with it.

Have a look at Mr Anderson’s
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anderson_(Australian_politician)]Wikipedia entry.


It raves on about what a fantastic Deputy Prime Minister he was and how he was praised when he eventually retired. There is not one mention in the entry of him actually doing anything for the aviation side of the Transport portfolio.

As we know, he propagated these “lies” that you don’t need to have affordable aviation regulations. He got away with that and by the look of it, the next Minister has been advised (by bureaucrats earning $600,000 or $700,000 per year) to do the same thing.

It is almost as if our democracy is not working any more.

By degrees and by definition it is not working as it should because Ministers have been giving up their responsibilities by creating independent Commonwealth corporations to govern in their stead. The great ‘independent umpire’ idea so fancied by politicians and it seems the sports loving populace.

It is also a much beloved and coveted prize for a bureaucracy moving out of the more salary restricted mainstream Public Service into the wider Pubilic Sector and where ‘commercial corporate’ rates of pay are the norm.

When CASA was set loose from direct Ministerial control, some thirty years ago, none of us foresaw the looming disaster, death by a thousand cuts for GA.

As for John Anderson, dishing up the notion that affordability has no place regarding safety was always mindless and completely illogical. That the notion was made into law shows how, for all our supposed educated sophistication, our democracy is far from perfect and the old saying “eternal vigilance,” to keep our freedoms, remains just as true as anytime in the past.

Inroads into our freedom of speech have occurred and the whole apparatus of government has become extremely top heavy thanks in no small part to the handout mentality. In consequence there’s as many voting for a living as working for same making it very difficult for governments to move.

GA has got a battle on it’s hands.




jonkster:

1. A regulation rewrite by a government body that has taken decades longer than anticipated and is still ongoing (and NZ who did similar achieved and implemented decades faster). At what cost? To achieve not a simpler system but a more arcane one.

2. An aviation industry that is struggling to survive. Closures of maintenance, charter and training organisations across the country. Loss of facilities, skills, corporate knowledge. Loss of public benefit that having a viable GA industry provides.

3. A shortage of pilots in the airlines. Australian flying schools disappearing and talk of having to get overseas pilots to fill vacancies because we are not able to train our own. We used to train not just our own pilots but large numbers of overseas pilots.

4. Regional aviation industries, jobs and services disappearing. Higher costs to regional residents for transport and closures of local business and loss of employers.

5. The body responsible for overseeing the industry keeps growing larger and is imposing more and more onerous restrictions on the industry and there is much doubt within the industry about the actual safety value of those restrictions.

6. Huge antipathy and distrust between the regulatory body and the industry it serves.

7. An industry in crisis that wants a regulatory body that includes in its charter some responsibility for assisting maintain the viability of the industry it serves instead of its current narrow focus on imposing regulation without any need to consider the practical impact of those regulations on the viability of the industry.

8. An industry whose health and viability depends on maintaining a high level of safety but that feels it is having onerous and often poorly thought out regulations imposed on it that are not so much about practical safety outcomes as the appearance and ease of enforcement by the regulator.

9. Governments over decades that have washed their hands and allowed the regulator to continue to act without regard for the viability of the industry because they are too scared to make decisions that may impact safety (or the perception of safety).

10 Handing over of commonwealth aviation assets that have served a vital role in the aviation industry (and its benefit to the community) to private hands who then develop and those assets to maximise their profits in ways that reduce or remove aviation from the facility.

Surely this would make for a great 4 corners program. Particularly close to an election.

Speaking of 4 corners, have just read the transcript from last night's 4C program 'Mongrel bunch of bastards'...


[Image: 9635028-16x9-thumbnail.jpg?v=2]


Press play then disable your screen reader. Use space bar to pause or play, and up and down arrows to control volume. Use left arrow to rewind and right arrow to fast forward.

'Mongrel bunch of bastards'
Posted Mon 9 Apr 2018, 8:31pm
Updated Mon 9 Apr 2018, 6:57pm
Expires: Sunday 10 April 2033 8:31pm

"Mongrel bunch of bastards": Taking on the extraordinary powers of the Tax Office.
"You might say that murderers have more rights than tax payers." Tax barrister
The Australia Taxation Office is a formidable enforcer with extraordinary powers. It can raid your home or business without a warrant, it can compel you to answer questions and treat you as guilty until proven innocent.

"(It) can effectively act like a judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into one. That's the problem." Tax barrister

While there's strong public support for a crackdown on major multinational corporations to force them to pay their fair share, there is growing concern that the Tax Office is targeting people a long way from the big end of town.

"They chase low-hanging fruit, people who are being honest and upright, and they whack them with a huge bill and then chase them." Small business lobbyist

In a major joint Four Corners/Fairfax investigation, reporter Adele Ferguson puts the actions of the Tax Office under the microscope, examining how it uses its extensive powers.

"How can you describe someone who's trying to destroy your livelihood and destroy your way of life? I'd call that evil." Business operator

Months in the making, this investigation shows what happens when a taxpayer finds themselves in the cross hairs of the ATO.

"There's an agenda that's going on in there, and the Australian public know nothing about it." Business operator

It examines whether the ATO is playing by the rules and acting fairly and ethically.

"Dealing with the ATO, I've never come across such a mongrel bunch of bastards in my entire life." Business operator


...to which I was struck by the disturbing similarities between the ATO and CASA's seemingly duplicitous persecution of the 'little guy' small businesses and operators... Dodgy

Here is some quotes for comparison - Hint: Just swap ATO for CASA:

Quote:...ADELE FERGUSON: Any developments with the Tax Office?

ANNETTE PIKE, OUTSCRIBED: No nothing final we're still in the thick of it, we're still waiting for an outcome so everyone is still in limbo.

So we need to have an answer we need to be able to go forward because we can't sustain this.

ADELE FERGUSON: How would you describe the tax office?

ANNETTE PIKE: In one short word I would call what they're doing evil.

There's an agenda that's going on in there, and the Australian public know nothing about it.

We knew nothing about it.

We were naive. How can you describe someone who's trying to destroy your livelihood and destroy your way of life? I'd call that evil...

...ADELE FERGUSON: She made around $700 a week. Now that was in jeopardy

KATHRYN LITTLE: No one could give me a reason why the ABN had been cancelled. No one could tell me what part of the legislation or what part of the guidelines or what part of the regulations I did not comply with. I actively asked them, what do I need to do to comply with the regulations behind the decision that you're making?...

...ADELE FERGUSON: Ken Phillips believes the Tax Office deliberately targets small business.

KEN PHILLIPS: They set targets, they chase low-hanging fruit, people who are being honest and upright, and they whack them with a huge bill and then chase them.

The big end of town and high wealth individuals can afford to get a whole lot of lawyers out and line the lawyers up at $800 an hour and defend themselves properly against the tax office, small business person doesn't have that.

ADELE FERGUSON: What are some of the complaints you get from small business about the ATO?

KATE CARNELL, SMALL BUSINESS OMBUDSMAN: Look, a lot of the issues surrounding the ATO is that they're complex, they're difficult to deal with, they don't know who to talk to, but some of the real concerns are when there's a problem with an assessment at the ATO, what the ATO says you owe them isn't what you believe you owe them.

Trying to get those things sorted out is still very, very difficult...

...ANNETTE PIKE: If I had read this as a film script, I would say I was in an Eastern Bloc country in the 1950s behind the Iron Curtain because It's the government controlling the way people live in a way that's malicious.

There's no other word for it. It's malicious and it's vengeful. We're supporting the Australian economy. How do you make sense of that?
ADELE FERGUSON: The Australian Taxation Office is one of the most powerful institutions in Australia.

If the ATO suspects you owe it money, you are guilty until proven innocent.

It can raid your home or business without a warrant, and compel you to answer questions.

GRAEME HALPERIN, TAX BARRISTER: You've got tremendous power invested in an organisation which, because of its powers, can effectively act like a judge, jury and executioner all rolled up into one. That's the problem...



..ADELE FERGUSON: The watchdog could do with more bite. Its recommendations aren't binding.

KATE CARNELL: Not much point in having an independent entity if it doesn't have the powers or the capacity or the size to actually deal with the issues that we're talking about.

If you're going to have an independent entity, it's got to have teeth, and it's got to have size.

DEBORAH JENKINS: We have so much scrutiny in the ATO.

We've got various committees, so Senate Estimates, other revenue committees, we've got the Inspector-General, and there's a whole other range of people who are doing various reviews, so yeah, absolutely, we have got enough scrutiny of the work that we're currently doing...


...GRAEME HALPERIN: At the end of the day what we're talking about is raising revenue all governments of all persuasions are desperate for revenue.

Business is an obvious target, small business is the best target, because they haven't got people there, out there, to protect them the way big business has.

They don't have the barrage of lawyers. They can't afford them.

RON SHAMIR: The Tax Office generally produces an estimate of how much revenue it's going to collect in the financial year, we refer to it as the Plan, we call it the Plan at leadership meetings when we discuss it and when staff discuss it amongst themselves.

ADELE FERGUSON: Ron Shamir worked in the ATO's serious evasion branch in Melbourne where he says the pressure to meet revenue forecasts put the focus on small business.

RON SHAMIR: If halfway through the financial year it appeared that we were short of that target that was supposed to be just an estimate, then a lot of pressure would be put on for cases to be done more quickly procedures would be changed, even staffing changes would occur in order for senior management to deal with, to address, the shortfall compared to the Plan.

You would be looking at taxpayers who are less able to resist the might of the tax office.

Taxpayers that are more vulnerable and that often-meant individuals and small businesses rather than larger businesses.

ADELE FERGUSON: Ron Shamir turned whistle-blower in 2015 accusing the ATO of breaching taxpayer rights.

He was eventually sacked over non-performance.
RON SHAMIR: Unfortunately, the culture that I saw at the ATO is what you would expect in a powerful, large agency that has very little effective scrutiny.

There's not much of somebody looking in from the outside into what's happening...



...RICHARD BOYLE: So it shows here through negotiation I collected $300, 000 through payment arrangements I collected $130,000 through garnishees I collected $3,000.

ADELE FERGUSON: So what does this data tell you?

RICHARD BOYLE: well that data shows me that blindly issuing standard garnishees and potentially damaging certain sections on the community is not a very effective way to collect the debt.

ADELE FERGUSON: He describes a culture where staff were encouraged to notch up garnishee notices, allowing them to seize money from taxpayer's bank accounts.
In May an email was sent to staff towards the end of the working day encouraging them to issue more garnishee notices before their shift ended.

The last hour of power is upon us...That means you still have time to issue another five garnishees... right?

RICAHRD BOYLE: I was horrified.

ADELE FERGUSON: As the end of the financial year approached, Richard Boyle says his team was told to use standard garnishee notices almost all the time.

A standard garnishee notice gives the ATO ongoing access to funds in the taxpayer's bank account.

RICHARD BOYLE: We were essentially ordered and directed to start doing standard garnishees on every case, and I was absolutely shocked. I started taking copious minutes because I was really concerned that taxpayers were going to be adversely affected by what I could only say is an unethical decision of the Australian Taxation Office...

...ADELE FERGUSON: The following week, there was an email on how to escalate debt recovery from taxpayers who owed money:

"These clients are not entitled to any additional time and shouldn't be granted any unless they have unbelievably exceptional circumstances."
ADELE FERGUSON: And what do you think was the motivation?

RICHARD BOYLE: The motivation appeared to be that we were just collecting revenue before the end of the financial year and it didn't matter if we hurt members of the community.

ADELE FERGUSON: A cash grab?

RICHARD BOYLE: That's probably a good summation that's what my colleagues were saying on the floor.

ADELE FERGUSON: Sorry what were they saying?

RICHARD BOYLE: That that this was a cash grab. My colleagues were saying, this is a cash grab, clearly a cash grab...

Those 'standard garnishee notices' and the 'cash grab' statement sound a lot like the many suspicions and hard evidence of 'cost recovery' through 'fee gouging' by CASA ... Huh

The following is a de-identified email correspondence to CASA from an operator trying to renew an expired exemption instrument:


"...Thanks (CASA Officer),

I’m sure you get push back on this stuff a lot, I recall a similar amount the last time I applied, and I recall the exact reaction the last time I applied.

There is absolutely no way that it could take 2 hours to prepare this 1 sentence letter or that the ‘cost’ is $160 per hour… this is a money grab far beyond the ‘cost’ to prepare.

This hourly rate implies the total cost to employ someone in CASA is $1.6m per annum, I hope you’re getting your fair share! How is this possible? As a tax payer I actually want to know the answer to this…

I hate to imagine what the regulatory cost is for commercial operators with more complex unique circumstances. They should be putting more money into maintenance and pilot training than this crap.

The impact is the opposite to what CASA sets out to achieve, I will not be renewing..."





MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
One way debate…

“Perhaps we should not upset the pollies too much” says the quiet voice of reason at the back of the room.

“Upset ‘em, bugger that, I’d like to run half of ‘em out of town, tarred and feathered” says a louder voice of fury, from much nearer the front. “Hear hear” chants the crowd in unison.

“But it don’t pay to get ‘em off side”

“Bollocks, we’ve played nice, provided information, talked and, done meetings, pulled our weight and been a polite as hell – sod that – it didn’t work, not for thirty bloody years – time to tell ‘em what think of their pathetic performances”. “Hear hear” chants the crowd in unison.

So much for the democratic system at work, Oz style.






Now, in some democratic countries, when a Senate inquiry is called things happen – when that Senate report and recommendations are issued – things happen and things change and things get done; if not why not?  With trouble following – should the answers be unacceptable.

Not so in the Antipodes, nope. We call an inquiry, spend the national budget of a small nation on it, provide miles and miles of solid evidence that change is required, spend weeks considering that evidence, issue a whole pile of serious ‘recommendations’ for change, then down tools. “Then what” the children ask – Sweet sod all is the answer. The Senators are politely told to shove their ‘recommendations’ where the sun don’t shine, and they meekly oblige. Imagine running an aircraft operation like that – it don’t bear thinking about.

Mind you, the Senators ain’t quite as piss weak as the ministers. Take a long hard look at the last couple; or, even Chester for the short of memory. Theres a fellah who revelled in the title, the kudos and the power (not to mention the dollars) and the chance to become a nation’s leader (not to mention the dollars). Here’s an unqualified (no formal training as a minister) Muppet who takes the prestige, the power, the hand-outs, the huge salary, the pension, the travel allowance, the rent allowance and any other perk which may be wrung from the system  but will do nothing to assist a failing industry within his portfolio. Don’t upset him? – I’d like to kick his sorry, shiny arse down the main street – and probably back again.

Aviation history shows better than any ‘report’ the state of the nations well being. It is always the first to suffer when a recession occurs and always last to get going when the crisis is over. It staggers back to its feet as the economy improves, desperately trying to put some money in the tin as a hedge against the next cycle. The industry does this despite the ever increasing cost, the ever increasing raft of pointless incomprehensible regulation and the real threat of a criminal record for the most trivial of ‘offences’ in the face of some of the most despicable ‘over-sight’ aberrations known – outside of a third world dictatorship.

Successive governments have not failed this industry; politicians have failed to master the ministry and have, happily, become willing accomplice’s to the current anathema. Useless ministers have become sycophantic catamites to the CASA; and the Senators get their bottoms smacked every time they meekly try to make sense of it all.

Not upset the poor Pollies? Why ever not?  The beggars have bloody well upset me.

Toot toot.

Full steam Skipper? – Not yet; but soon. Half steam will do for now – I do miss our dearly departed Gobbledock; he always kept the boilers at just the right temperature, ready to rock ‘n roll. Aye well – Godspeed and tailwinds mate.
Reply
In 3,2,1..........

Dearest Ferryman,

Do not fret. The Gobbledock has returned. You may call me the prodigal son of aviation. Where have I been you ask? Well some rumours were that I was now reading news segments on The Project! Not true. Other rumours had me had me deep sea diving off Norfolk Island with Dolan taking tourists for visits to the reef and rusting Pel Air aircraft! Not true.  Well look no further than the Styx River Houseboat. I have overhauled the steam engines from top to bottom. A ground up restoration that includes additional horsepower and fuel efficiency and some environmentally friendly improvements. The old girl is in good condition, steam engines primed and fires stoked. All she needs now is her Captain to give the command and it’s all systems go......I eagerly await the Ferrymans signal....

Tick Tock Bureaucratic dross.



Reply
NEW THREAT TO AVIATION - FOUNTAIN PENS!!!!

Oh Christ, here we go. Let’s now watch Dutton’s mob and the Office of Transport Stupidity introduce even more draconian regulations and thrust additional tick n flick audits upon poor airlines and airports because of one fuckstick with a fountain pen in Asia! No doubt tens of millions of more dollars will now have to be spent ‘enhancing and upgrading’ airport security to help counteract this horrible new aviation threat??? FFS!

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-15...en/9660906
Reply
The Heff: "Ignore Senate inquiry recommendations at your peril!" Rolleyes

Via the Land:

Quote:Beef senate inquiry value questioned
[Image: w100_h100_fcrop.jpg]
Shan Goodwin @shangoodwinbeef

23 Jan 2018, 2:30 p.m.
Beef

[Image: r0_209_3622_2245_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Former senator Bill Heffernan says governments and industry ignore senate inquiry recommendations at their peril.

Key recommendation of beef senate inquiry ignored.

THE decision by Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) to walk away from efforts to reform producer representation via a new organisation has raised big questions about the value of senate inquiries.

Australia’s beef industry has been subject to 13 senate inquiries in the past 17 years and two Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) examinations.

These investigations have become increasingly high-profile and criticised for bringing economically-significant industries into unfair disrepute.

Now, with a key recommendation from the past two beef senate inquiries around grassfed cattle producer representation being ignored by both industry and government, they are being labelled irrelevant.

The 2014 grassfed cattle levy inquiry’s recommendation for a new producer-owned body established by legislation with the authority to receive and disperse transaction levy funds found no political appetite.

The recommendation late last year from the latest beef inquiry, into red meat processing, seeking to replace CCA with a “transparent and accountable producer-owned body” has now been shunned by CCA and state farming organisations.

Of course, senate inquiries are conducted with the understanding they have an advisory function only.

However, given the cost of conducting these inquiries to the taxpayer, where recommendations go nowhere it seems fair to ask what is the point?

Plenty, says former Liberal Party senator and Junee livestock and grain producer Bill Heffernan, former star of the senate standing committee for rural and regional affairs and transport, which handles agriculture.

Ignore senate inquiry recommendations at your peril, he warns both industry and government.

There are many differences between a bureaucratic brief and the paddock and senate inquiries had proven that time and again, according to Mr Heffernan, who retired in 2016.
They were perhaps the best tool available for taking an objective, commonsense approach to looking at a particular industry’s problems and what solutions were possible, he said.

Their successes had made a big difference, he said, citing protected biosecurity status of Australian primary industries and systems like traceability in beef that have provided enormous marketing advantages.

There were also many examples, he said, of where the warning had been sounded via a senate inquiry and ignored – to great cost.

One of those was with white spot disease in the prawn industry.

“The bottom line is a senate inquiry is not some political BS exercise,” he said.

“We don’t play politics, we do what is right for the industry. The expose of the strengths and weakness of an industry is accurate. A senate inquiry tells it as it is.”

Who is in government should be of no consequence and if the recommendations are knocked back, it was up to senators to “jam it up them,” according to Mr Heffernan.
“Make a fuss and follow up because history has shown us the dire consequences of not listening to the outcomes of these inquiries,” he said.

The most outspoken senators during the latest beef inquiry, including Senator Barry O’Sullivan, Bridget McKenzie and Glenn Sterle, have not made a comment in the wake of CCA’s decision to resign from the implementation committee setting up a new producer advocacy model.

New Agriculture Minister David Littleproud sent Fairfax Media a statement saying the Coalition Government had contributed $500,000 to towards a transition, however it was a matter for the cattle industry to determine what organisational structure was best to represent a united voice for farmers to government.

How much did the last beef senate inquiry cost?

BEEF industry sources estimate the cost to conduct the senate inquiry into the effect of market consolidation on the red meat processing sector, which handed down recommendations late last year, was more than half a million dollars.

Secretary of the senate standing committees on rural  and regional affairs and transport Dr Jane Thomson said it was difficult to provide a cost for individual inquiries.

“This is partly because the costs are not limited to expenditure by the senate committee office but also include the time devoted to the inquiry by senators and their staff, the costs of travel undertaken and the costs of other parliamentary services such as broadcasting,” she said.

“It would also include the time and resources that submitters and witnesses put into providing evidence to the committee which is something that would be extremely difficult to calculate.”

The cost of the senate committee office in 2016/17 was $10.6 million but, again, that would be impossible to break down to the individual inquiry level with any accuracy.

“As a general rule, the committees that we support table more than 100 substantive reports each year. In 2016-17, this figure rose to 158 reports,” Dr Thomson said.

Story originally appeared on Farm Online. 

I vote that we bring back the Heff - Wink


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Viva la Revolución - Part II

References - Let the viva la revolución begin & While the cat is away the mice will play

(04-19-2018, 06:45 PM)Peetwo Wrote: The Heff: "Ignore Senate inquiry recommendations at your peril!" Rolleyes

Via the Land:

Quote:Beef senate inquiry value questioned
[Image: w100_h100_fcrop.jpg]
Shan Goodwin @shangoodwinbeef

23 Jan 2018, 2:30 p.m.
Beef

[Image: r0_209_3622_2245_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]
Former senator Bill Heffernan says governments and industry ignore senate inquiry recommendations at their peril.

Key recommendation of beef senate inquiry ignored.

THE decision by Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) to walk away from efforts to reform producer representation via a new organisation has raised big questions about the value of senate inquiries.

Australia’s beef industry has been subject to 13 senate inquiries in the past 17 years and two Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) examinations.

These investigations have become increasingly high-profile and criticised for bringing economically-significant industries into unfair disrepute.

Now, with a key recommendation from the past two beef senate inquiries around grassfed cattle producer representation being ignored by both industry and government, they are being labelled irrelevant.

The 2014 grassfed cattle levy inquiry’s recommendation for a new producer-owned body established by legislation with the authority to receive and disperse transaction levy funds found no political appetite.

The recommendation late last year from the latest beef inquiry, into red meat processing, seeking to replace CCA with a “transparent and accountable producer-owned body” has now been shunned by CCA and state farming organisations.

Of course, senate inquiries are conducted with the understanding they have an advisory function only.

However, given the cost of conducting these inquiries to the taxpayer, where recommendations go nowhere it seems fair to ask what is the point?

Plenty, says former Liberal Party senator and Junee livestock and grain producer Bill Heffernan, former star of the senate standing committee for rural and regional affairs and transport, which handles agriculture.

Ignore senate inquiry recommendations at your peril, he warns both industry and government.

There are many differences between a bureaucratic brief and the paddock and senate inquiries had proven that time and again, according to Mr Heffernan, who retired in 2016.
They were perhaps the best tool available for taking an objective, commonsense approach to looking at a particular industry’s problems and what solutions were possible, he said.

Their successes had made a big difference, he said, citing protected biosecurity status of Australian primary industries and systems like traceability in beef that have provided enormous marketing advantages.

There were also many examples, he said, of where the warning had been sounded via a senate inquiry and ignored – to great cost.

One of those was with white spot disease in the prawn industry.

“The bottom line is a senate inquiry is not some political BS exercise,” he said.

“We don’t play politics, we do what is right for the industry. The expose of the strengths and weakness of an industry is accurate. A senate inquiry tells it as it is.”

Who is in government should be of no consequence and if the recommendations are knocked back, it was up to senators to “jam it up them,” according to Mr Heffernan.
“Make a fuss and follow up because history has shown us the dire consequences of not listening to the outcomes of these inquiries,” he said.

The most outspoken senators during the latest beef inquiry, including Senator Barry O’Sullivan, Bridget McKenzie and Glenn Sterle, have not made a comment in the wake of CCA’s decision to resign from the implementation committee setting up a new producer advocacy model.

New Agriculture Minister David Littleproud sent Fairfax Media a statement saying the Coalition Government had contributed $500,000 to towards a transition, however it was a matter for the cattle industry to determine what organisational structure was best to represent a united voice for farmers to government.

How much did the last beef senate inquiry cost?

BEEF industry sources estimate the cost to conduct the senate inquiry into the effect of market consolidation on the red meat processing sector, which handed down recommendations late last year, was more than half a million dollars.

Secretary of the senate standing committees on rural  and regional affairs and transport Dr Jane Thomson said it was difficult to provide a cost for individual inquiries.

“This is partly because the costs are not limited to expenditure by the senate committee office but also include the time devoted to the inquiry by senators and their staff, the costs of travel undertaken and the costs of other parliamentary services such as broadcasting,” she said.

“It would also include the time and resources that submitters and witnesses put into providing evidence to the committee which is something that would be extremely difficult to calculate.”

The cost of the senate committee office in 2016/17 was $10.6 million but, again, that would be impossible to break down to the individual inquiry level with any accuracy.

“As a general rule, the committees that we support table more than 100 substantive reports each year. In 2016-17, this figure rose to 158 reports,” Dr Thomson said.

Story originally appeared on Farm Online. 

I vote that we bring back the Heff - Wink





[Image: 231a1936b990a920988dd62eb0bb7c87?width=1024]

Election a choice between terrible twins - Bill Shorten and ...

Herald Sun
The contest so far seems to be between a Tweedledum and a Tweedledee.




Mainly due to being constantly exasperated with the current toxic self-serving - Tweedle-dum, Tweedle-dee - pollywaffle world in Can'tberra, I must admit to switching off the leftist leaning Barry Cassidy and the Insiders program in recent years... Dodgy  

However for once I have to admit that the craggy-faced Cassidy actually nails it... Wink





Unfortunately  it would appear that this 'rule but don't govern' status quo will continue... Undecided

If you wanted a clear example that the aviation industry once again has a 'do nothing' MIA ('miniscule in absentia') oversighting the aviation safety bureaucracy, then go no further than reviewing the McComic weasel worded delivery to the press club 2 days ago: National Press Club Address




Don't blink but here is the token bollocks gesture to industry from the MIA McComic... Dodgy     

"..Now, I look forward to working with all parts of Australia's aviation industry on implementing real reforms, real reforms to drive productivity and enable the growth of this important sector..."
  
Hmm...I wonder if Dick &/or AOPA Oz have sent out an invite for the Acting PM and MIA McComic to attend next week's Dick Smith presentation at Wagga? Big Grin


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Beef and Bull-dust.

Do we have a beef? – Damn right we do.

Do we have bull-dust?– By the bloody cartload.

Why?

Heff “However, given the cost of conducting these inquiries to the taxpayer, where recommendations go nowhere it seems fair to ask, what is the point?”

It is ‘difficult’ we are told (by expert advice) to arrive at even the basic ‘cost’ of a day’s Estimates hearing, let alone ‘an inquiry’. So, readers will forgive a little poetic license in the forthcoming analysis of ‘exactly’ what is the cost, to the public purse, of every Hansard page provided. You see, Bull-dust costs significantly more than the ‘facts’. It’s true. The cost of ‘obfuscation’, to questions on notice and the time to ‘study’ the response; and the almost non event of ‘examining’ the response, followed by no response to the QoN is worthy of mention. The ‘answers’ are, indeed, eventually, provided and immediately accepted as Gospel by the committee asking. Goal 1 for the government opposition (if they had a functioning brain),

Heff - “[They] were perhaps the best tool available for taking an objective, common-sense approach to looking at a particular industry’s problems and what solutions were possible,” etc.

“They were” is a very significant couple of words – “were” being the give away. The O’Sofullame committee don’t seem to have any function except the blatant desire to shut it all down, deny the factual, empirical evidence, roll up the carpet; and, determinedly, ignore the plain facts. And - we pay good, hard earned for this bollocks, spoon fed to the public so they do not ever realize that CASA costs about three times it’s (intrinsic and practical) worth. That the present Senate committee are not only clueless, but gullible – and not in any sort of a hurry is but one chunk of ‘the problem’.

Heff - “There were also many examples”, he said, “of where the warning had been sounded via a senate inquiry and ignored – to great cost.”

For thirty years now and counting ASA, ATSB and CASA, through ‘ministers’ abrogating their responsibility have been taking the Mickey Bliss and, making our ‘law makers’ look ridiculous. Had Fawcett weighed in, perhaps – things may have been different. Rumour has it that far from becoming involved – he is said to have stated openly, that ‘aviation’ was not in his future; and, that he not only declined to be the only parliamentary ‘expert’ on the no vote winning matters aeronautical topic but calmly strolled away. –Aviation made him what he is – in the non spiritual world. Yet he will not risk his standing to defend this industry – for even a half year – to straighten it all out. He’s yet another who seems prepared to leave aviation to bureaucratic lunacy and let it rot rather than take a half year position to earn a ‘ministerial’ tag. If that’s true, is this what we can expect from today’s officers and leaders of men? –I wonder what may we expect if the proverbial ever hits the windmill? Have words like duty, honour and responsibility lost all meaning?

Heff - “Who is in government should be of no consequence and if the recommendations are knocked back, it was up to senators to “jam it up them,” according to Mr Heffernan. “Make a fuss and follow up because history has shown us the dire consequences of not listening to the outcomes of these inquiries.” Hear, Hear!.........

You may, if it’s you’re bent, go back thirty years to find a contradictory analysis – and good luck with that. There is but one answer – someone, somewhere, some time has to call a halt – and mean it – on the ministers who take the money for the responsibility but allow an out of control juggernaut to persist in raping and pillaging the general populace in the name of safety. One day, it will come back, like the Hamlet ghost’ to haunt and harry them.

Well done 'the Land', (always a good read)  well said Heff – not that it will make one iota of difference; nobody cares - but thank you anyway.

Selah.
Reply
SENATE INQUIRIES; ENJOYABLE TO WATCH, ROBUST ENTERTAINMENT.....COMPLETE PONY POOH.

I am a fan of Senate inquiries. They air the dirty linen, it provides an opportunity for us, the viewer, to have a giggle watching the bureaucratic dross squirm and wriggle while sweating under the spotlight. But let’s face it, let’s be brutally honest, it’s smoke and mirrors. When have you seen a DAS or alphabet soup agency Exec get rolled? When have you seen a Miniscule rolled? When have you seen real measurable change? All we have seen is this;
- 30 years of a regulatory reform program and half a billion dollars later and it isn’t finished, in fact it is still utter shit.
- General Aviation is now almost a distant memory of a once great industry and is fondly remembered because it pretty much no longer exists.
- Unworkable regulations, growing compliance requirements, unreasonable costs and downright stupidity by the government aviation oversight organisations has killed everything aviation.

No, sorry, all the enquirers in the world have achieved little. Even when there are recommendations the Government ‘accepts’ them, but doesn’t commit to any actual change. Yep, it’s all just a big game.

P.S The photo of the Heff, wow, the man looks nice and relaxed. It doesn’t suit him. The bulldog needs to be brawling! C’mon Heff, come back to the Senate mate, still lots of big fish to fry!
Reply
Playing against a stacked deck.

GD – “Yep, it’s all just a big game.”

Concur – now, as of last Estimates it is a not even a fair game. The committee is not even ‘fair-game’. Sitting ducks all under the O’Sofullame fluttering hands; (I’d love to play poker with him). The committee is so different now – for example. I had the pleasure of talking with Glenn Sterle one time – he said, straight up, that he didn’t understand a thing, so I explained it, he got it, said thank you and used the information to great effect. Top bloke, (politics aside) true blue and dinky-di. Now he ‘get’s it’ and ‘see’s’ the problems. He worked hard in harness with the Heff’ and, admittedly they didn’t quite mange to ring the changes; but they did ring the bell and never, not ever, did ASA, ATSB or even the mighty CASA manage to wipe the toilet bowl with them.

Last Estimates – ATSB blatantly took the Mickey out of the committee; and, they were allowed to exit, without a shot being fired over the SS Pel-Air as she steamed away from trouble. O’Sofullame is purported to be an ex copper; must be true – he was certainly caught ‘flat-footed’ last time out of the gates- the opposition gleefully romped away, not truly believing a whole Estimates committee had swallowed the bait. This would have been acceptable provided it was ‘fresh meat’, but it wasn’t. The vomitus part is that there was a carefully prepared, fully documented briefing transported to Canberra – at the committee’s request mind you – on the ATSB report and the Pel-Air debacle. I’ve rarely seen The Old man (TOM) as cranky as he was after that complete waste of time. The thumb drive containing the research came home with him; the Estimates went on without that information – the rest is history.

Then, to add insult to injury; we all sat through the CASA version of the Falcon’s story. What a disgusting exhibition that was. The CASA construct was smoke and mirrors, with some very shaky stage scenery; had O’Sofullame been ‘receptive’ and read the offered briefing – he and his committee could have moved the mirrors, turned off the smoke and revealed the tawdry production for the deception it was.

For years now, I have tried to understand why politicians are afraid to take on the aviation agencies – its not as though they would be unsupported, by the big end of town. Take Qantas for example – how much would they benefit from a reformed ‘rule set’ – just in compliance costs alone; the passengers may not see a reduction in prices but the reduction in compliance costs alone would raise a cheer from their investors.

Were it not for a few notable exceptions, you’d be forgiven for rating the senate estimates committee along side the CASA board; an expensive rubber stamp, without the prerequisite knowledge, or backbone, to put a stopper in the ATSB/ CASA bottle of slow poison. P7 is still wondering why O’Sofullame went to work, without the toolkit and sat around all day, doing SFA and claimed the pay for doing so. “Is he part of the problem?” this is being discussed in great detail at our own ‘esi-mates’ meetings. Ayup, ‘tis entertaining enough until you see the destruction and count the cost; then it becomes a never ending black comedy, bad enough when the good guys are in opposition; pathetic when the 'good guys' are aiding and abetting the sting.

Toot toot.

P2 edit - speaking of stacked decks? Tongue

QON (see pic):

[Image: Jerry_Nelson_Mr_Johnson.jpg]
Reply
Choc frog, Tim Tam and Gold star. Well done Dick; well done indeed.



Reply
Changing the Act: Consensus debate heats up?

Because this is much bigger than AOPA Oz, who IMO it would appear (after an excellent lead up - see HERE) have dropped the ball literally metres from the touch line, I have dragged this debate on to this thread... Undecided

"...With respect to the proposed changes, the Minister has called for general aviation consensus, to assist the government in this process.

The AOPA Australia through our Australian General Aviation Alliance will now hold a General Aviation Summit in Wagga Wagga on the 4th to 6th June 2018, inviting representatives from all general aviation associations to participate.

The purpose of the Summit will be to develop a consensus proposal for the government on the issue of change to the Civil Aviation Act..."
.

There are indeed several points of debate on this - example via the AOPA thread:
 

Sandy - I regret to say that AOPA should not have agreed to obtaining a “consensus” before the promise of reform, inferred by the Minister, has any solid shape whatever.
 
 The Ministers plain duty is to resolve disparate views in the National interest.
 That reform is urgent has already been proven and the turnout to Dick Smith’s Wagga meeting endorsed this fact. So why more meetings that can only be attended by essentially the same people? Those retired GA types who don’t have to be struggling under the weight of the expensive and impossible strict liability criminal sanction rules of the implacable regulator.

(05-02-2018, 08:47 AM)Gobbledock Wrote: LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION.....
In essence I understand Sandy’s point and don’t disagree - we’ve had more than enough waffle, conversations, meetings, talk fests, wank fests and in the words of Seinfeld; ‘yada yada yada’. That being plainly obvious, Sandy said;
“So why more meetings that can only be attended by essentially the same people”
With all due respect Sandy, the same people may attend these meetings, but the scope and direction of the meetings are changing. Dick, Ben and Mark aren’t attending just to air their grievances, they are pushing for the public to see that that our industry is dying and successive Governments, Ministers and their agencies are the ones responsible and need to be brought to account openly and publicly, even if that means targeting marginal seats and applying pressure and having their sorry asses kicked out. The situation is now critical and the muppets in fairlyland Cant’berra can’t see beyond their comfy offices and superannuation accounts. The public meetings and forums need to continue to shift from a ‘how do we fix this problem’ approach to a ‘you will fix this problem approach and if you don’t or won’t then we will publicly push for and support any politician who will fix the problem’.
The only way to force change, other than by means of a smoking hole with a Roo tail sticking out of it, is to target politicians, their seats, their comfy disconnected existence and careless attitude towards aviation constituents they are paid to represent....
TICK TOCK

Sandy also took up his dismay, on the AOPA announcement, over on Facebook:

Quote:[Image: IMG_2635.jpg]
[Image: IMG_2636.jpg]
[Image: IMG_2637.jpg]

Now I totally commiserate with both sides of the argument but history is very much against Ben Morgan and AOPA Oz. Like a broken record, the following is a post that I made just 3 short months ago: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...82#pid8282



(02-01-2018, 06:38 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [Image: AMROBA-GA-Meeting.jpg]



Dear Sandy - Wink

I agree about the Parliamentary inquiries and government reviews. The effectiveness of such inquisitions is completely undone by bureaucratic obfuscation and procrastination, all designed of course to wait out and wear down the significance and urgency of the current inquiries/reviews latest findings and recommendations.



[Image: Untitled_Clipping_013118_093436_AM.jpg]



However I believe if the minister/government had the political will to cauterise the CASA Iron Ring and it's malevolent loyal lieutenants, then I think some kind of Judicial inquiry will be required to build a legal case for prosecution of what amounts to decades of ingrained bureaucratic malfeasance that has cost 100s of millions of dollars for no discernible safety benefit to either industry or the air traveling public.

Of course such an inquiry would still take time and money but it is probably a necessary evil if you are to ensure the cancer within has been fully cauterised. After all isn't that exactly what the Kiwis did?  

From P7 on the AMROBA thread: post #95

Quote:ATSB and CASA must be disbanded; the Kiwi’s did it very neatly and have never looked back. They reformed the regulator; then the regulations and have set an enviable bench mark for sanity, economy and a way forward ever since. Can anyone see CASA agreeing to that?


&..

Quote:But at the end of the shift – you still have to convince a basically uninterested politician to tangle with CASA and make some radical changes. That politician must be persuaded that ‘the Act’ as it stands is unconstitutional; that CASA is an escaped lunatic and that the blood is not on his hands.

And from your post in response Sandy:

Quote:Secondly it behoves all of us to share and refine our thoughts on what is wrong and to reach some consensus on the method of reform. To this end it is clear that only by a change to the Act can reform occur. In the variety of diverse opinions about specifics, one would be hard pressed to obtain clause by clause complete agreement. Therefore the focus must be on the necessity for legislative change by demonstrating that the current trajectory is one of failure.

Because such an inquiry is being conducted does not mean that the legislative solution (that most believe is required) could not be acted on by the government and parliament, as such legislative changes are a parliamentary process and not subject to Judicial review or the ultimate findings of such an inquiry.


MTF...P2  Cool


 

After listening several times to the excellent Dick Smith oratory, I never thought I'd say it, but I would be more inclined to believe the veracity of the Albo offer of genuine discussion on changes to the Act... Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)