Of Mandarins & Minions.
Ah, yes, but….

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 minister has handed over a powerful weapon – if the ‘industry’ can figure out how to use it. Despite the ‘differences’ and differing agendas and ‘needs’ – of the various organizations, and I do include the big operators; they all have one thing in common. All, from Qantas to the smallest insignificant group of aviation enthusiasts would benefit from the two things they all want – an Act which directs the ‘Authority’ to act in a manner which is beneficial and sanity in the rule set. NZ, UK and the USA are world leaders and Europe is catching up fast – they have a ‘reasonable’ Act and workable rule sets.

I reckon if the various representative voices could all, just for even a short period, agree that these two essential elements must be provided, it would be a great thing for this nation. Once the changes have been made, they can return to their own agenda, protect their rice bowls and squabble all they like. Win the first round, the rest will follow as a matter of course..

All it would take is one simple statement:-

Dear Minister.

The IOS support the call for a reformation of the Air Navigation Act and the adoption of the (FAA/UK/EASA/NZ – insert one) rule set.

Luv and kisses

IOS.

There, easy as pie – then the minister would be obliged to honour his promises; that, standing alone would be a fine thing. A politician's promise kept ! hell I’d pay good money to see that happen.
Reply
Fort Fumble simplifies fee gouging - Rolleyes



(04-10-2018, 04:25 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Welcome to the Bureaucratocracy of Australia -  Dodgy

Quote: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]



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..."




Via the Oz today:

Quote:CASA to overhaul costs recovery
[Image: cc340dbb997ea1403c6d1ec5cfe61a80]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is poised to overhaul its cost recovery arrangements. 


Number of fees to be cut in CASA cost recovery revamp

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is poised to overhaul its cost recovery arrangements.

The Australian has confirmed that CASA is rationalising the number of fees for regulatory services.

Under the plan, some 360 different fees would be slashed to about 100, and “as many as possible fixed so that industry will have clarity around the charges they would expect to pay to CASA for regulatory services,” a CASA spokesman said.

CASA will consult with the public on any changes through its Cost Recovery Implementation Statement, due out later this year.

CASA expects revenues of $13.9 million in 2017-18 from its existing cost recovery arrangements, which cover service fees and the issue and renewal of aviation identification cards. This rises to $16.5m for 2018-19.

Last year’s landmark general aviation study produced by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics pushed for an “examination” of aviation safety regulatory fees, “including a review of the number of hourly rates used by CASA relative to the number of fixed fees and possible removal/­reduction of certain fees for GA”.

However, the government has kept CASA’s current funding ­arrangements in place for 2018-19. In doing so, it cited “increasing pressure on CASA’s budget with the demands arising from the growth of new inter­national and low-cost carriers, together with the continued rapid growth and complexity of drones”.

“These pressures will need to be monitored,” the budget papers say.

As well as the regulatory service fees, CASA receives funds from government coffers and from a 3.556c-per-litre excise on aviation fuel used by domestic aircraft.



& a Dear Annabelle from Sandy... Wink

Annabelle thank you for the information, in particular for highlighting cost increases. The independent Commonwealth corporation CASA is out of control, a 30 year failed experiment of regulatory governance. Cost recovery used to be called ‘user pays” and CASA has created the worst, unworkable and costly rules which are killing GA (General Aviation). Many unnecessary permissions have been invented which require swingeing upfront application fees. One flying school applicant known to me, a senior instructor, paid $8000 upfront two years ago, still nothing.

Successive hands off Ministers, hiding behind the CASA corporate structure, have done nothing to halt the slide of a once vibrant GA industry.

The irony of cost recovery (fee gouging) by the make work salary factory of CASA is that the loss of tax revenue to government would far outweigh the scroungings out of a bureaucratically crushed industry.

It seemed that Barnaby Joyce was, at long last, going to do something about it, agreeing with Albo to a simple amendment, adding industry sustainability, to the  Civil Aviation Act. Too bad the ‘holier than thou’ mob got the upper hand, new Minister McCormack is the usual do nothing ‘let’s have consultations and I want concensus from industry’ type.

Alex in the Rises.


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply
Lead, or follow, just don't get in the way.

Hitch - "So how do we decide which one to follow?"

Baa, baa – Bah!~ bollocks - “We” don’t need to be following anyone. It may have escaped Hitch’s notice but the great majority of aviation folk are independent types; flying is a solitary task and most aviators must be able to think for themselves – they ain’t great ‘followers’. That said, they do have tribal loyalty and an inherent ability to follow and understand regulation. This they happily do until its time to call bull-pooh. They may remain with a rubbish company until they can move on, they may work within a rule set which drives them to distraction, this is simply because once the pettifogging happy horse shit on the ground is behind them, they are released to where independent, self reliant, disciplined ‘thinking’ is the name of the game.

No matter which tribe an aviator belongs to, since Pontius, pilots bitch, whinge and moan about everything – from the dunny paper to the boardroom buscuits  – this is indicative of an ‘independent’ mind at work. Some, probably many, hold very strong views and will actively, often vocally express those views, not through civil disobedience or to the point where a group or a company can be ‘embarrassed’ but they are active.

Almost every aviator follows the rules – company, government, manufacturer and even some folk law – all set down in stone, without too much deliberate intent to step outside those rules. This is also part of the mind set, indicative of a self sustaining, disciplined balance.

Scratch the crust off any of the pilot unions and you’ll find some pretty clever cookies who understand their members very well; they have a fairly good system which mostly works. It would be a simple matter for those unions to ask the membership if they support a change in ‘the Act’ or not. A change in the Act would lead to a change in the rules which could, with patience and persistence, remove so many of the more ridiculous demands those rules impose. What kind of a union would, for example, allow criminal charges to be brought and supported on a whim? A short, to the point letter from each of the unions and ‘Alphabet groups’ to the ‘minister’ indicating support for a change to the Act would be a great and wonderful thing.

Remember; the rules don’t just apply to GA. Airlines and operating companies all work under the same rule set – the cost of compliance with the current lunacy is staggering, the cost of producing the enshrined lunacy is mind blowing and increasing; the cost of doing business is prohibitive and the system drives away investment faster than a temperance league raid on the local cat house.

So, no mindless ‘following’ – make your own up; ‘tis a simple question. “Do you support a change to the Act?” Tick a box and send the answer back to your ‘leaders’ of choice. Ten seconds of your life, a one line e-mail - to change aviation for the better and make your life a little more secure, seems like a fairly small, low cost imposition to me.

This is the first and probably the last minister in history who has given this industry one shot at bringing some sanity to matters aeronautical. Don’t be a follower – don’t sit on the side lines, make this thing happen – or quit bitching. There, simple enough; - ain’t it?

"I support a change to the Act". Copy, past – send.

Toot - toot.
Reply
Totally agree with your take on the individual aviator’s MO but cannot find a reason to support the notion that we have a Minister who is giving us anything, let alone a one shot at causing reform. It will not matter how many ‘Change Act’ messages he receives, except at the margins of a total political pressure.
Concensus; on what? Has he put the wording he wants agreement about? Has he specified the groups that must all agree? If indeed that is his definition of the word ‘concensus’. Perhaps put it to a vote? Why not? isn’t that called democratic? Why should everyone agree? Certainly that is not the test for government as we know it. A simple majority is sufficient to make law in this country.
McCormack is stalling, there is nothing until action, and action will not occur until there’s sufficient pressure, a sustained public campaign is the only hope.
Reply
Well then– find the solution.

Sandy - Consensus; on what? Has he put the wording he wants agreement about?

Well Sandy, of course he hasn’t; but he has at least noticed the door is open a fraction. Had Barnaby kept his gig; and, Albo remained ‘deceived’ then the scribes would be putting words to paper for consideration; not to be. But – I can’t remember a minister ever even entertaining a change to the Act for more than the time it took for the backroom whispering crew to call “courageous decision” or make it clear that ‘the blood will on the ministerial hands’.

So there is a shot at change – if every one associated with aviation, just once, got together and shouted a robust YES please, it would be very hard to ignore such a ‘consensus’. There cannot possibly be a ‘safety case’ against – the USA and the UK and NZ are streets ahead; in all area’s with an Act that actually helps aviation become safer, just through reduced compliance cost alone; not to mention the huge cost of litigation our rule set burdens the industry with..

Where you’ll find your remedy of “except at the margins of political pressure” I’ve no idea. But I do believe that if everyone got behind the push for a reformed Act – something may just get done for once; instead of a continuing 30 year chain of bitter disappointment and endless complaint to deaf ears......

If McComic is ‘stalling’ then it’s time we pushed the stick forward a bit; or or a crowd to move forward and moved the CoG in the right direction. We can’t just sit about snivelling over the words used. There’s a shot – we should take it – now; or be forever happy in our self imposed silence. He ain’t ‘giving us anything’, nor will he - unless we ask for it, loud, long and very clearly enunciated. Don't ask him - just tell him, in no uncertain terms.

End of mini rant.....
Reply
As the bubbles burst.


Quote:ADELAIDE Tuesday May 15, 2018
Govt scrambles for answers after defiant Rex cuts SA flights

The Marshall Government is seeking an urgent explanation from Rex Airlines, the provider of the state’s only air service between Adelaide and Mount Gambier, after its extraordinary move to scale back flights after "unfair" complaints about the service.

Finally; the turgid, foetid bubble of foul smelling gas, trapped deep within the swamps of Sleepy Hollow is rising to the surface. Both passengers and politicians waiting in terminals around the country notice the stench as the 11Am service from Piddlemore to Big Smoke fails to turn up and the sweet young thing behind the counter says “Sorry folks – your flight has been cancelled” then races back behind the security door before the message is fully understood. It is then the passengers start looking for the company telephone number and kick up a fuss.

Not one of the shiny brochures or flash magazines claiming all manner of ‘care’ for the stranded passengers will abate the anger – not even for the first time it happens, let alone the fourth time in a month. People get really pissed off when an air service fails to materialize. That is when they start ringing the local politician.

Rex airlines is copping a fair bit of flack at the moment – the good folk of Mt Gambier and Canberra are hacked off, playing merry hell about cancelled flights etc. and want something done, now - now. This of course galvanizes (gooses) the local MP and the Pooh starts hitting the Rex front door. It ain’t Rex’s fault of course, but nonetheless it is the airline which will cop the drubbing. Not fair folks – nowhere near fair at all.

An outfit like Rex is as much a victim of ‘system’ as the irate passengers and to imagine that Rex would deliberately set out to sully their good name, piss passengers off and enjoy loosing the revenue a flight produces is just nuts. The company is suffering due to their willingness to comply with some of the most ridicules rule sets ever written. I shall try to explain it, bear with me, it ain’t simple.

At the beginning of a long chain is the certification required to operate scheduled air services. Any proposed air service operation is subject to an incredibly expensive, complex, time consuming process. Thousands of legally binding pages must be produced, covering everything from paper clip distribution to the onerous responsibility placed on the CEO. In order to gain ‘operational approval’ and begin services; many compromises must be reached and, under the pressure of time and money – the company accept changes to their proposed system and procedures, for no other reasons than expediency and gaining that approval before everyone goes mad. They go along to get along – no option – it’s just the way things are. Once the certification is gained – the next hurdle is keeping it. No easy task – serious amounts of money are invested in not only ‘compliance’ but in being seen to be compliant. In short, by pandering to the whims and dictates of the local CASA office, a company ends up with a huge, complex operating ‘manual’, supporting all manner of trivia, which must be complied with – or else…

This becomes apparent a company needs to recruit aircrew – the sheer cost - which the passenger fare structure must pay for – of clearing a new pilot to line is a big number to begin with – before all the ancillary whistles, bells and gold plating are added. The infrastructure required to place a pilot in the cockpit is not only large, but it costs money, real money to support. In the real world CASA would be told to go and boil their bottoms and take their self opinionated clap-trap with them. Not in Australia though; the mandatory requirement to Kow-Tow to the CASA ‘expert’ rules supreme. Everyone bitches and moans about the imposts – but no one dare speak. They all just plod through the system – as approved – knowing full well that to even bark about it will bring the wrath of the CASA demi-gods (recruited from local flying schools) down around their corporate ears.

Even so, they struggle through – until one day an outfit like Qantas or Virgin decide they need more crew. The AUD$70, 000 it has cost Rex to put a pilot on the flight line is written off to experience with one phone call: “Start on Monday” says the Qantas HR lady and poof – a Rex pilot vanishes. Can’t blame the pilot, it’s a career dream come true: Saab to Bathurst or 777 to LA – no brainer. Which puts poor old Rex in a spot – what to do? They are now not only facing the horrendous costs of ‘compliance’, hidebound by the system they had to have, they must now dig deep and train another pilot. And so it goes, until the point where there ain’t any more pilots and flights must be cancelled. Strict flight and duty rules prevent ‘over time’, long winded check and training systems cannot provide fresh bodies to the system in time and ties up line pilot availability in C&T duties. This is where the inflexible, narrow view of the regulations really bites deep, at the coal face.

Some folk are jumping up and down about the lack of flight schools and the demise of many of these establishments and it is true that the regulations have forced many to close down. It is fair beef and a simple enough case for politicians to understand, hell they may even get something done about it – in time. But it will be way to little and a decade late. The problem is here – now and very, very real. It is but the visible tip of a huge, CASA generated iceberg. Never before has there been such a demand for pilot training, flying schools are flat out everywhere – except Australia – trying to meet the demand. By the time Australia catches up – the bubble will have burst and the revenue gone overseas. Great stuff and well done successive governments who have not only abrogated responsibility but rubber stamped this complete cock up into existence and spent upwards of $400 000, 000, over three decades to produce it. All in the name of ministerial ‘safety’.

The cost of compliance with the current rule set is the radical cause of passengers left stranded in Mt Gambier – not Rex Airlines; they do the best they can, with what they’ve got and what they are saddled with. The government could turn this all around within 18 months; the big question is will they?

Gentlemen, the grand experiment has failed; time to bring in a rule set which allows aviation to flourish. New Zealand is a mere two thousand miles and many light years away; ask ‘em nicely, they may give us their rule set – if not the Bledisloe Cup.

Toot toot.
Reply
More on REX Mount Gambier hissy fit -  Confused

Via the other Aunty... Wink

Quote:Regional Express reduces services to Mount Gambier after 'unfair criticism levelled at it by local officials'
ABC South East SA 
By Lucy Robinson and Selina Green

Posted Wed at 6:00pm
[Image: 733362-3x2-340x227.jpg]
PHOTO: Rex will cut five weekly return flights between Mount Gambier and Adelaide until further notice. (Supplied: Rex)
RELATED STORY: Unreliable, unaffordable flights affecting health care in Mt Gambier: experts
RELATED STORY: Airport upgrade plans lead Regional Express airline to remove services
RELATED STORY: Concern for Broken Hill's economy as airline confirms price hike

Regional Express (Rex) has confirmed it will scale back flights between Mount Gambier and Adelaide after threatening the move in response to criticism.

The airline flagged the plans earlier this week as a way to "better utilise scarce resources", hitting back at what it described as "unfair criticism levelled at it by local officials" and accusing some of targeting Rex for "political grandstanding".
Details released by the company today show it will immediately cut five weekly return flights until further notice.

Rex flights to be cut include:
Monday to Thursday
  • 6:55am from Adelaide, arriving 8:05am at Mount Gambier
  • 8:25am from Mount Gambier, arriving 9:35am at Adelaide
[size=undefined]
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday[/size]
  • 5:10pm from Adelaide, arriving 6:20pm at Mount Gambier
  • 6:40pm from Mount Gambier, arriving 7:50pm at Adelaide

In a statement, the airline said there would still be 36 flights per week between Mount Gambier and Adelaide.

"[This] will provide approximately 61,000 seats per year which will be more than sufficient to cater to the 47,000 annual passengers on the route," the company said.

Rex's announcement follows a number of submissions from individuals and groups in the south-east to a Senate inquiry into regional flight prices that claimed unreliable and unaffordable air services were adversely affecting health care in the Mount Gambier area.

Specialists and patients had reported having flights cancelled, affecting their ability to attend medical appointments.

Rex claims criticism 'unfair'

The airline said it was dealing with a worldwide pilot shortage, but claimed it was the most reliable regional carrier with a cancellation rate almost half that of other major regional carriers.

Is it cheaper to fly overseas than get out of Alice Springs?

[Image: factcheck-image-data.png]

An ABC Fact Check investigation finds this claim is a fair call.


"Rex is undeniably the best regional carrier in Australia with its network average fare rising by only 1.1 per cent per year over the past 15 years and with its reliability being consistently one of the best — even during challenging periods like what we are experiencing right now," the company's statement read.

"In spite of this, local officials continue to target Rex whenever they feel the need for political grandstanding.

"Given the amount of unfair criticisms levelled at Rex by local officials, Rex has decided to scale back its services between Mount Gambier and Adelaide to better utilise the very scarce resources."

Local politicians 'disappointed' by move

The Federal Liberal Member for Barker, Tony Pasin, said he had contacted Rex and asked to speak with its board.

"I'm incredibly disappointed that we've got to this point," Mr Pasin said.

"Quite frankly I don't think it's a good approach to have the community at loggerheads with such a significant and important service provider.

Quote:
"I'm not happy with the circumstance we find ourselves in. I think it speaks to a lack of maturity on the part of the proponents to this point.

"But we need to sit down with Rex and ask them if this is the right approach."

[Image: 9768538-3x2-700x467.jpg]PHOTO: Rex says a global pilot shortage has caused disruption across the entire aviation industry. (ABC South East SA: Stuart Stansfield)

The independent Member for Mount Gambier, Troy Bell, denied Rex airlines had been unfairly targeted for criticism and said he was disappointed by its response.

"Reliability and price have been major issues for a long time now," Mr Bell said.
"Many leaders in the community actually want to work with Rex to improve the service.

Quote:
"It shouldn't be seen as an overly negative thing if people are raising concerns. This is actually an opportunity to improve in areas where customers are giving feedback."

Mr Bell said he had offered last year to sit down for discussions with the airline, but Rex had not taken up the offer.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
(05-17-2018, 07:00 AM)kharon Wrote: As the bubbles burst.


Quote:ADELAIDE Tuesday May 15, 2018
Govt scrambles for answers after defiant Rex cuts SA flights

The Marshall Government is seeking an urgent explanation from Rex Airlines, the provider of the state’s only air service between Adelaide and Mount Gambier, after its extraordinary move to scale back flights after "unfair" complaints about the service.

Finally; the turgid, foetid bubble of foul smelling gas, trapped deep within the swamps of Sleepy Hollow is rising to the surface. Both passengers and politicians waiting in terminals around the country notice the stench as the 11Am service from Piddlemore to Big Smoke fails to turn up and the sweet young thing behind the counter says “Sorry folks – your flight has been cancelled” then races back behind the security door before the message is fully understood. It is then the passengers start looking for the company telephone number and kick up a fuss.

Not one of the shiny brochures or flash magazines claiming all manner of ‘care’ for the stranded passengers will abate the anger – not even for the first time it happens, let alone the fourth time in a month. People get really pissed off when an air service fails to materialize. That is when they start ringing the local politician.

Rex airlines is copping a fair bit of flack at the moment – the good folk of Mt Gambier and Canberra are hacked off, playing merry hell about cancelled flights etc. and want something done, now - now. This of course galvanizes (gooses) the local MP and the Pooh starts hitting the Rex front door. It ain’t Rex’s fault of course, but nonetheless it is the airline which will cop the drubbing. Not fair folks – nowhere near fair at all.

An outfit like Rex is as much a victim of ‘system’ as the irate passengers and to imagine that Rex would deliberately set out to sully their good name, piss passengers off and enjoy loosing the revenue a flight produces is just nuts. The company is suffering due to their willingness to comply with some of the most ridicules rule sets ever written. I shall try to explain it, bear with me, it ain’t simple.

At the beginning of a long chain is the certification required to operate scheduled air services. Any proposed air service operation is subject to an incredibly expensive, complex, time consuming process. Thousands of legally binding pages must be produced, covering everything from paper clip distribution to the onerous responsibility placed on the CEO. In order to gain ‘operational approval’ and begin services; many compromises must be reached and, under the pressure of time and money – the company accept changes to their proposed system and procedures, for no other reasons than expediency and gaining that approval before everyone goes mad. They go along to get along – no option – it’s just the way things are. Once the certification is gained – the next hurdle is keeping it. No easy task – serious amounts of money are invested in not only ‘compliance’ but in being seen to be compliant. In short, by pandering to the whims and dictates of the local CASA office, a company ends up with a huge, complex operating ‘manual’, supporting all manner of trivia, which must be complied with – or else…

This becomes apparent a company needs to recruit aircrew – the sheer cost - which the passenger fare structure must pay for – of clearing a new pilot to line is a big number to begin with – before all the ancillary whistles, bells and gold plating are added. The infrastructure required to place a pilot in the cockpit is not only large, but it costs money, real money to support. In the real world CASA would be told to go and boil their bottoms and take their self opinionated clap-trap with them. Not in Australia though; the mandatory requirement to Kow-Tow to the CASA ‘expert’ rules supreme. Everyone bitches and moans about the imposts – but no one dare speak. They all just plod through the system – as approved – knowing full well that to even bark about it will bring the wrath of the CASA demi-gods (recruited from local flying schools) down around their corporate ears.

Even so, they struggle through – until one day an outfit like Qantas or Virgin decide they need more crew. The AUD$70, 000 it has cost Rex to put a pilot on the flight line is written off to experience with one phone call: “Start on Monday” says the Qantas HR lady and poof – a Rex pilot vanishes. Can’t blame the pilot, it’s a career dream come true: Saab to Bathurst or 777 to LA – no brainer. Which puts poor old Rex in a spot – what to do? They are now not only facing the horrendous costs of ‘compliance’, hidebound by the system they had to have, they must now dig deep and train another pilot. And so it goes, until the point where there ain’t any more pilots and flights must be cancelled. Strict flight and duty rules prevent ‘over time’, long winded check and training systems cannot provide fresh bodies to the system in time and ties up line pilot availability in C&T duties. This is where the inflexible, narrow view of the regulations really bites deep, at the coal face.

Some folk are jumping up and down about the lack of flight schools and the demise of many of these establishments and it is true that the regulations have forced many to close down. It is fair beef and a simple enough case for politicians to understand, hell they may even get something done about it – in time. But it will be way to little and a decade late. The problem is here – now and very, very real. It is but the visible tip of a huge, CASA generated iceberg. Never before has there been such a demand for pilot training, flying schools are flat out everywhere – except Australia – trying to meet the demand. By the time Australia catches up – the bubble will have burst and the revenue gone overseas. Great stuff and well done successive governments who have not only abrogated responsibility but rubber stamped this complete cock up into existence and spent upwards of $400 000, 000, over three decades to produce it. All in the name of ministerial  ‘safety’.

The cost of compliance with the current rule set is the radical cause of passengers left stranded in Mt Gambier – not Rex Airlines; they do the best they can, with what they’ve got and what they are saddled with. The government could turn this all around within 18 months; the big question is will they?

Gentlemen, the grand experiment has failed; time to bring in a rule set which allows aviation to flourish. New Zealand is a mere two thousand miles and many light years away; ask ‘em nicely, they may give us their rule set – if not the Bledisloe Cup.

Toot toot.

Shannon Wells contribution to the debate - Wink

Via the Oz today:

Quote:New regulation is make or break

[Image: 0e6ed4dbdd93b816fe6f51c8794f286d]SHANNON WELLS
If the regulators set the bar too high, general aviation may well be finished. Set it right and airlines could return to regional towns



CASA’s new regulation could make or break general aviation


Australia has long had a love of aviation. We have an aviation pioneer on our $20 note. We recently celebrated the first direct commercial flight from Australia to London by Qantas, and on a per capita basis, we are one of the highest users of air travel in the world.

However, a Senate inquiry into the regulation and funding of air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities is showing not all is going well with aviation outside of the major cities. Consumers are reporting high airfares, meaning they can’t travel, council-owned regional airports say they are losing money, and many air routes have been abandoned or are heavily subsided by government.

The reasons for this are multifaceted, including the lack of pilots, excessive and expensive regulation, relatively high airport charges and ageing aircraft.

General aviation traditionally has been the breeding ground for training and employment of new pilots. This is because general aviation has been responsible for the operation of low-capacity airline routes, charter, freight and other essential services, mainly for remote and regional communities. However, the recent approval of 457 visas for pilots, primarily to fly larger aircraft, has left many in the industry dumbfounded and goes to demonstrate the perilous state the aviation training sector is in.

Given that Australia has a highly educated population, vast and generally (outside capital cities) uncongested airspace, many airports and a good variety of weather, it seems Australia should be an ideal location to not only train enough pilots for our own industry, but to be a training platform to help ease the growing international shortage of pilots, particularly in the Asia-Pacific.

While there are many reasons for our industry failing to meet demand, one suggestion is that it is problematic for a small general aviation company to comply not only with Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations, but also the Australian Skills Qualification Authority regulations, should they wish to issue a Diploma of Aviation, attract international students or pursue the Vocational Educational Training Student Loans scheme.

Flying training by its nature is expensive; courses can cost over $100,000. Without becoming a Registered Training Organisation, thus reporting to two federal regulators, there are limited options for a student to obtain a loan to pay for their aviation education.

In addition to flying training, the other backbone of general aviation is charter services in smaller aircraft (that is, 10 seats or less). For the nearly 30 years, CASA has been discussing the merger of two distinct regulation types, passenger air charter and regular public transport services, into one, namely “passenger transport”(Part 135).

The problem is that regulations for regular public transport services are relatively strict and costly when compared to charter. Several additional staff are required to operate the airline, such as safety managers, quality managers, and continuing airworthiness managers. RPT aircraft are maintained differently, with more costly regulations applying.

Should the new Part 135 rules follow the highest RPT rules that apply now, then I would suggest many charter operators would simply shut down.

CASA has announced that the new regulations are coming in June/July this year, which is good to hear.

However, I firmly believe that this legislation has the potential to make or destroy the general aviation industry. If the regulations set the bar too high, general aviation may well be finished. Set it right and local airlines could return to regional towns, giving greater benefits for everyone in the community.

We all agree that aviation needs to be safe. However, the regulator and the government need to have a greater appreciation on what their decisions can do to organisations other than the major airlines.

The new minister, Michael McCormack, needs to appreciate that general aviation is the breeding ground for the next generation of aviation, supports regional Australia and we can’t afford to be ignored for much longer.

Shannon Wells is the managing director of Airlines of Tasmania (Par Avion), a RPT and Tourism charter business based in Hobart.


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
OF AIRING DIRTY LINEN.....

The argument by airlines and airports over fees and charges was always going to go pear-shaped. Both parties have valid points to argue, both parties are under pressure to turn a profit for their shareholders/string pullers, and both parties outlay a lot of money for an often meagre or modest return. But to air it all in the Senate is dangerous. And this example of REX and Mt Gambier at war is a classic example of how not to behave and why not to air your linen publicly. The inquiry will ultimately fuel the bad blood between airlines and airports. Airlines by nature are arrogant and selfish and only care for the bottom dollar and CEO bonuses, regional airports are mostly owned and managed by redneck Councils and farmer plod Mayors who have not a single clue of how an airport runs.

The gloves are off, the claret is being spilled, and we are only at Round 1. Ding ding ding.....

“Unsafe senate stoush for all”
Reply
Duck it.

Being Evil has price…..

 
Warning - A ramble – feel free to ignore my out loud thinking; or, listen and read.
 
Have you ever noticed how ‘good music’ be it from Beethoven or Queen or even Heavy Young Angels stands out from the nearly, but not quite sets; it does. There is a certain texture and a clarity of sound which somehow, magically, separates it from the not quite so talented. Some paintings have it, some literature has it, even some aircraft have ‘it’. Some politicians definitely have ‘it’. Alas, many do not. It is with those unfortunate’s with whom we must concern ourselves, for a short while at least, this Sunday. Sorry and all that, but it must be done. Why? Howls the multitude. Why, is indeed a good question, to be sure.




 
In my own whimsical way I often wonder about the waft and weave of the fabric which makes our world today – it is crazy, ain’t it. How a once proud, vibrant, entrepreneurial, world changing, war winning, life shaping wonder thing like an aircraft became mundane, treated with the same indifference as a supermarket trolley, or a political party’s promises. Brought low by the same common usage; just another tool in a busy life. It is worse for the politicians of course; flight at least still holds some glamour and a sense of wonder; despite the best efforts of bureaucracy to strip that away and kill the very spirit of enterprise. But the poor old political party hack has not even the remnants of this glory. Yet they hold the very keys to the chains which bind enterprise, freedom and progress in their small, fat, greedy fingers. But, they are afraid; āfǣred of the ‘safety’ bogey-man. This fear has sweet Fanny Arbuckle to do with aircraft smashing into buildings, killing and maiming and burning the voters; no Sir. Their fear is rooted in a much shallower soil, they are scared almost (mostly) witless by those who claim that any blood spilled will be on the hands of those who dared to gainsay the very expensive ‘advisors’ employed by a department which will; carry all the responsibility – unless they can blame some hapless oaf who just happens to have crawled, crept and bull-shitted his way into a position  for which the law demands ministerial responsibility is taken. Aye well, ‘tis almost Sunday and I am allowed the odd ramble. Quality, that certain ‘it’ has been missing within our political leadership for so long now; I’ve almost forgotten the sound of it. Unless I’m driving the Styx ferry boat – then I hear a lot of the same old excuses, the weeping, the wailing and the 'why me'  boo-hooing etc. it's always about them, never about the unholy mess they leave behind. Sorry too much Fellahin – too little, too late: even so; you still pay the time honoured (no GST) fare to Perdition junction. Of course I let GD play with ‘em – as an introduction to the upcoming events. (Oh, I never watch – just steer the ferry).
 
So much for whimsy into ramble. It often happens when I’m sat alone, in the stable late at night, while trying to make sense of the past week’s events, or lack thereof. Never certain whether the quotes which come to mind are reflections of; or, reactions to events (or lack thereof). Take today’s AOPA indaba with Albo for an example of why it is easier to run a tote odds board than second guess the result. Here lays my challenge:-
 
Albo to the rescue – what odds on a serious challenge to Status Quo/
 
Albo all piss and wind – what odds on a backbone being grown?
 
Albo realizing that McConvict played him for a fool and an epiphany?
 
I could, I expect rattle on for a while longer, but you get the picture; the Wagga running of the Reform Plate is almost upon us. The big question is, does this industry really want to be rid of the hand outs from CASA, the un-constitutional Act, the criminal liability and flourish; or, stick with what they have been allowed by a department without accountability, conscience, duty care; or, any responsibility whatsoever? Ayup; ‘tis indeed time gentlemen to piss on the pot – or; get off it.
 
There – ramble over and me knocked off until Sunday comes around. (Whisper for AP viewers only) take a flutter on Albo Odds on favourite tonight– watch this space and the Reform Plate as the drama unfolds. Yes there will be some, of the high flown variety.

Best guitar riff in history - right here, right now playing really loud, at my place.




 
Toot toot.

Unless of course you need a classic to go with that last drink. For TOM...



Reply
Bret Walker SC - Whitlam Oration 2018.

Definitely worth the two coffees to read - excellent insight into the problems/issues besetting our political and democratic systems in current day Australia.

Via the Mandarin, this year's Whitlam Oration by Bret Walker SC -  Wink 


  The information that democracy needs
By Bret Walker  14/06/2018

[Image: parliament-with-neighbours.jpg]
LONG READ: Without a decent flow of information in this popular democracy, how can we have anything like our ‘equal share’ in its power, asks Bret Walker SC,  one of Australia’s most eminent lawyers, in the Whitlam Oration 2018.

There are reasons why we are committed to open justice.  They urge the importance in nearly all cases of court hearings being held in public.  They have led to the ample availability of parties’ positions, as well as the eventual published reasons for judicial decision.  Nowadays, not only are submissions in the High Court published on the internet, but counsel face the ordeal of broadcast speech – and vision.  Perhaps, too much information.

Why are these approaches regarded as being in the nature of things for the courts of law, one of the arms of government?  First, for the essential communication of its governing acts.  Second, to justify its decisions by a sufficient statement of reasons.  Third, to render the courts, the judges and lawyers, properly accountable to the people, the public, who are thereby governed.  None of this is, I think, in the slightest degree controversial.  Indeed, current concerns about open justice stem from the widely held suspicion that there are currently too many non-publication orders and closed courts …


How much more obvious, then, is the need to require our elected representatives and especially their executive delegates the Ministry and Cabinet, to allow us sufficient information to check them, test them, and remind them of their representative capacity?  My suggestion is that this is socially and politically as important as the constitutional freedom of political communication.  Like that implication eventually discovered by the High Court (on thoroughly Whitlamesque grounds), this irreducible need for information about government is not to be seen through an individualist prism: it is not a personal right, but rather an imperative of a representative, parliamentary, democracy.


Serious subject-matter, not tribal barracking
But communication needs sensible content, as media magnates know (and so often fail to achieve).  If our use, exercise and enjoyment of a guaranteed freedom of political communication is to mean anything, we must have serious subject-matter, not merely propaganda or tribal barracking.  It is impossible to be fervently in support of a political discourse that never rises above that level – however comforting and entertaining it is from time to time, for sure.


If we must use the term “a national conversation”, at least let it have substance.  Without proper disclosure of critical matters known only to government, how can we – why should we – discuss anything about the topic in question with them?  Blindfolded, we’re led into manholes by those in charge of them …   And if it is a combination of past government conduct and present government intentions that is in question, as is usual, what cynics would gull us by calling the lop-sided exchange a “conversation”?  It is certainly not polite conversation …


One aspect of modern politeness, irksome to some and admittedly not always elegant, is the acknowledgement of the traditional owners of the place where we meet.  Tonight, the Burramattagal clan of the Darug people.  That is real information, if in danger of becoming formulaic.  (It is unpleasant how religious right-wingers deprecate such verbal formulae, given that the Missal and the Book of Common Prayer are themselves composed of liturgical formulae …)


The shifts in Australian society that have produced this change in the formal manners of public gatherings is one in which Gough Whitlam was a giant.  Such shifts do not occur by the actions of people who want to hear only “good news”.  Those were the days when socio-political issues properly occupied the front page (first screen?) of the newspaper or news site.


Democracy would rot, not from the head, but in its popular body, were we all constantly to bask in the self-congratulation of “You’ve never had it so good!”  (Of course, that Tory blessing, when accurate, is only so because when you’re moving up from a low base, such as social equality in the 1950s, the upwards trajectory has a long way to go.)


I am no more enamoured of pessimism than anyone, but the indignant objections to the so-called black armband view of history (or of the present, or of the future) threaten the main project of democratic – certainly, social democratic or Whitlamist – government. That is, improvement.  A project conceived by the benign disbelief that there will ever be nothing to fix, no-one to help, no hope of anything better.   Really, what a gloomy mind is the one who wants no information about social ills or political dilemmas – because he or she is not looking forward to curing or solving any such thing.

It is not an ABC or Guardian sourness that sees problems dominate the news about government. Does anyone really think that those nice chaps in the government – any government – are not only here to help, but are also well and truly on top of it?  Come off it.

There is, rather, a serious and systemic bias threatened by this call for more “good news”.  It implies an unpleasant superiority of the past over the present (so often the golden age of the speaker’s childhood years), and shows a dangerous complacency about the challenges of the future.  It lauds the parents and risks the children.


The project of improvement requires a government intent on reform, such as was so vividly the case when Gough Whitlam became Prime Minister.  The merits of proposed reform are rarely equally apparent to everyone at the same time, a state of affairs that would suggest a somewhat creepy passivity if it were ever true.  Why await unanimity, in a democracy?  Explanation and persuasion, two elements of the reform task, crucially depend on the flow of information from government to the people and, at least as importantly, from the people to government.


The economically realist social democracy advanced by the Hawke and Keating governments in retrospect  seems in danger of becoming bipartisan.  It certainly was not greeted thus when those two reformers started to explain and tried to persuade.  Fortunately, they were sufficiently successful to achieve historically significant reform.  I doubt whether things would have gone so well had Bob Hawke and Paul Keating not spent so much time and effort telling anyone who cared to listen why things could not go on as they were.  And their persuasion had the foundation of published information and serious debate.


Correction, contradiction, qualification
The information that democratic reform needs is, as we saw in those years, a body of knowledge and opinion that invites correction, contradiction and qualification.  It becomes the more persuasive the more thoroughly it is tested.  And tests in the privacy of the bureaucracy are never the same as the test of public debate.


It follows that in a decently informed democracy genuine reformers must embrace a real risk of failure in obtaining enough public support.  The alternative approach rewards vociferous naysayers. A supposed reform idea that provoked not much opposition could very likely be not much of a proposal at all: neither seeking real change nor disturbing entrenched self-interest.

"Explanation and persuasion, two elements of the reform task, crucially depend on the flow of information from government to the people and, at least as importantly, from the people to government.”

But there is persuasion, and persuasion.  Our politicians are entitled to use the press and broadcasting to get their messages out, as they put it.  But the great social imperative of a free press, in our society, is not as an agent of government messaging, or even any partisan messaging.  Of course journalists, commentators and proprietors have political attachments and hobby horses, but that unremarkable fact is no excuse not to hold all participants in political contest to account.  A free press tries to do that by asking questions, often by way of challenge.  And here we have been for some time now the victims of pseudo information, misinformation and irrelevant information.


I’m not referring to the human propensity to lie from time to time.  I don’t suggest lies are the information democracy needs, even if so-called spin merchants are the living demonstration that too many people do think that.  No, what has become a clog on the flow of information, more than lies, is the detestable craft of predetermined lines of the day, party lines, and the discipline of remaining “on message”.  I think it’s time that journalists provided a piece of information, and on our behalf, back to political interviewees who think it’s clever, or necessary for their survival in the tribe, to deflect serious questions, parrot non-answers and thrust non-responsive soundbites.  Maybe the journalists should warn those interviewees that the public might be better served by not hearing them on air, until this degenerate discourse is abandoned.


We all know that there are some public figures who refreshingly engage with public questioning, and very often persuasively.  At least, those few avoid the widespread discourteous, condescending and robotic repetition of the juvenile uninformative political interviewee.  We should all inform politicians of that kind that they impede democracy.


Many of us provide information which is then used by politicians, by our answers to public opinion polls and surveys.  Focus groups are the high-end boutique versions of this democratic information flow.  Unless we are careful, the feedback loop of public opinion polls and the conduct of politicians will surrender matters that should be governed through regular informed exercise of universal suffrage and compulsory voting for Parliament, to the reading of entrails conducted by virtually daily sampled snippets of unstudied responses to crafted questions. Push polling is not a mythical monster.
Perhaps we need, continually, much better disclosure and explanation of polling methods, reliability and connexions.


The resemblance between the pseudo democratic opinion polls and commercial advertising is no accident.  “Market research” is a confronting term for the professional gauging of political opinions among the people, but it is grimly apposite.  And we are as yet relatively uninformed and thus innocent of the techniques in play.  Social and constitutional imperatives forbid, I think, any quality control of political communication, to and fro.  But part of our information to government surely ought to be our reaction to slick or negative nonsense, so that those who promote it can at least be told, even if they will not learn, of the disapproval that kind of advertising creates for its sponsors.


Real-time disclosure of donations
The money that political campaigning requires creates its own urgent need for information.  The regulation of donations and disclosure, the provision of public funding and the accounting for expenditure have all attracted legislative attention.  And, I fear, much public disenchantment.  What possible reason can there be to oppose real-time disclosure of donations?  Do I make good this point, or do I rather answer my own rhetorical question, by wondering what may have been the consequence (if anything) of the Prime Minister’s personal generosity to the Liberal Party of Australia being known before the close of polling?


And the electors do not get the information about political donations that they need, if the real people, human beings not corporations, who are responsible for the money donated, are not revealed by real-time disclosures.  Whether by so-called shell companies or our pale imitations of the American PACs, disclosures lacking the names of the people responsible, by which I mean individuals, should be regarded as inadequate.  A proper system to inform us of who is paying the piper would prohibit a party’s or candidate’s enjoyment of the money until that full disclosure has been made.


A practical way of achieving this modest reform would be to forbid any political donations except through the Electoral Commission as intermediary.  The statutory duty of those public servants should be to satisfy themselves that they have been credibly informed of the identity or identities of the individuals responsible for the making of political donations.  No doubt there can and should be an annual threshold for disclosure, which might be set, say, at around current average weekly earnings.

“‘Market research’ is a confronting term for the professional gauging of political opinions among the people, but it is grimly apposite.”

We are used to being told the names of individuals taking responsibility for political statements, especially during campaigns.  The significance of the influence and support that donations to politicians convey, in our democracy, surely justifies being told also the names of individuals taking responsibility for putting their money where a politician’s mouth is.


Donations by corporations and entities like the unions also require more information in order to serve the needs of democracy, than is presently the case.  There is no problem, or should not be, in the names of the authorising officers being published in connection with each and every donation.  But control of these artificial legal persons, which are really aggregations of the interests of individuals forming groups that change in composition almost constantly, justifies a further level of information to enhance the democratic purposes of political donations.


Trading corporation or trade union, it would be beneficial for shareholders or members to know before they buy or join that some of their money will be used for political donations.  Preferably, they should know in advance how much might be devoted during a year for that purpose, and obviously they should also be warned of the identity or identities of the possible recipients of their money by way of political donations.  And if the corporation or union intended to increase the amounts or change the recipients of their members’ money by way of political donations, there should be some corporate democracy, or a union vote, to approve that in advance.


One thing seems clear today.  No-one appears bold enough to argue in public for a return to anonymous unlimited political donations.  The reasons for that minimal consensus ought now be understood to compel extension of our present laws to full and immediate disclosure of the actual identities of donors.  Then we can apply whatever monetary limits an informed democratic electorate, through its representatives, regards as appropriate from time to time.


The influence that money may have on Members of Parliament is by no means limited to political donations.  The Houses now require Members to make continuous disclosure of such matters in the Register of Members’ Interests.  Unfortunately, the standard of information displayed in the various entries you will see in those records is neither consistent nor reassuring.  To be told about connections with a corporation or a so-called trust is barely the beginning of understanding the relevance of the property in question for the political position of the parliamentarian making the supposed disclosure.  And resorting to public registers of corporate information will rarely reveal much more of political relevance, while there are for all practical purposes no such public details available for the innumerable trusts in existence in this country.


So much for the availability of material by which a person rash enough to be concerned with the enforcement of section 44(iv.) and (v.) of the Constitution might be able to discover whether a parliamentarian was entitled to be chosen or continue sitting as one of our democratic representatives.


There are much more substantial reasons why a parliamentarian might not be fit to continue in office than breaches of section 44.  The same is true of other officers of the Commonwealth apart from those bound by section 44 – from the lonely heights of the judiciary to the engine room of the public service.  All three arms of government are for the purposes of democratic government, and accordingly must be accountable to the people.  Some jurisdictions in this country have recognised the inadequacy of the parliamentary chambers with respect to their own members, courts with respect to their own judges and the public service with respect to its own officers, as the means to receive and investigate allegations of misconduct, of which corruption is merely the most urgent example.


Serious question of who guards the guardians
Independent Commissions Against Corruption, and the like by whatever name, provide some answer to the serious question of who guards the guardians.  Do we not need the kind of information that an ordered and impartial fourth arm agency like an ICAC can provide about allegations of official corruption?  Is it not axiomatic that secret and informal dealing with such allegations compounds the democratic failure that results when rumours of corruption are not investigated officially?


However, such agencies are principally investigatory and should both formally and practically report to the Houses of Parliament.  Perhaps, they might be permitted, with safeguards, to brief Directors of Public Prosecutions in the same way as investigating police do. Perhaps, they might be able directly to commit persons against whom they make adverse findings for trial, as if they were a grand jury in olden times or a magistrate today.


A critical safeguard on the kind of information that an ICAC should be able to give us, in cases of unfavourable findings, is that we should no longer be told that an individual has engaged in corrupt conduct, let alone that he or she has been found to have done so because their conduct involved the commission of a criminal offence.  No other officer or agency briefing a prosecutor or committing a charged person for trial thereby informs the community that the person in question is a criminal.  That would be a very serious kind of misinformation, in a society still attached, I think, to the notion of a fair trial before conviction.


It is one thing to conduct investigations in private, as police usually do.  It is another thing to shield senior public servants, by which I mean those who decide matters of serious administration, or the content of advice to Ministers, from basic public knowledge of their activities.  They are not, contrary to the delusions of some, a separate and superior caste.  Many of us work in areas where we expect our names to be known, attached to our deeds.  We expect the reasons for our decisions, or advice, or projects to be published.  Is there really something so special about the public service that things should be so different for them?  Happily, legislated attempts to reverse official secrecy as the general rule has done much to deflate these mandarin pretensions.

“A practical way of achieving this modest reform would be to forbid any political donations except through the Electoral Commission as intermediary.”

But it is worth recalling that affidavits to support claims of secrecy have for a long time oddly warned of the threat to the fearless and frank character of a public servant’s advice were it to be published.  How very odd.  The fearlessness of a person confident that his or her position will be known to very few.  The frankness of a person who can be confident of the limited audience he or she has.


A special kind of advice to the executive government is from its lawyers.  Generally speaking, the courts have accorded legal advice the most solid protected confidentiality, in the form of legal professional privilege.  Unlike most forms of confidentiality, the protection extends to immunity from compulsory production, in the usual case, in court and elsewhere.  Nearly 20 years ago, however, the New South Wales Court of Appeal decided, in a case in which I had a hand, that even that sacrosanct privilege did not protect legal advice to the government from compelled production to a House of Parliament.  It could hardly be said that there has been an avalanche of disclosed government legal advice this century through parliamentary calls for papers, but at least judicial authority in this country is plainly in favour of that salutary power existing.


As I see it, the core principle for the Court of Appeal to deny that legal professional privilege entitled the executive to resist producing its legal advice to a House of Parliament was that the people’s representatives should not be denied knowledge of what the people’s government had been advised.  Accountability in a system of responsible government in a parliamentary democracy was seen as compelling that outcome.  It was an important watershed in the jurisprudence of government secrecy.
It is another milestone in the long march away from personal and absolute monarchy.  We have in this country no Plantagenet king with separate and superior interests from his subjects.  We may be crowned, but we are constitutionally a people’s republic.


What explanation can both honestly and cogently be given for resistance by the executive government to disclosure and publication of its legal advice, except perhaps during the currency of specific litigation?  After all, if the advice supports a government decision, as a lawyer I would like to think disclosure of the advice may assist in political persuasion.   Even more as a lawyer, I insist that knowledge that the government has received respectable legal advice that what it proposes is unlawful should definitely be shared with the public.  A genuine rule of law, in a democracy, cannot be satisfied by anything less.


I think a major qualification would be appropriate.  It is doubtful that democracy requires that the State, represented by the government, should be at a marked disadvantage in litigation compared with the opposing party.  Alfred Deakin’s great Judiciary Act of 1903 decreed equality, not disadvantage, for the polity as litigant.  At least during the pendency of litigation by or against the government, including possible appeals and their consequences, legal professional privilege for advice concerning that litigation is a proper value to observe.  But it should be so limited.


Do we think, though, that parliamentarians are by dint of their office able to deal with government legal advice better than we can?  Are the representatives truly a superior location of political power than the people they represent?  You may gather that I think not.  It follows that the legally established availability of government legal advice to the people’s representatives should entail, without further ado, availability to the people.


This would simplify our current statutes regulating the freedom of information.  It may even temper the bitterness of the gibe that such laws would be better termed “freedom from information”.  Simply, except in cases of identified pending litigation, legal professional privilege should never be available to the government against any one or more of its people.


What are the functional reasons to support any objection?  As a lawyer, I resent the notion that I would give worse advice if I knew it would be published.  Actually, in my experience, knowledge of that possibility puts one on one’s mettle.


Important information about government dealings
There is one area where continued secrecy so as to deny the people (if not the Houses of Parliament) information at the heart of government can be, I think, justified.  It is Cabinet secrecy, at least of what I, like Chief Justice Spigelman, would regard as the true or irreducible kind of information concerning Cabinet deliberations.  There are respectable contrary views, but responsible government on the model that involves Cabinet decision-making does clearly to my mind require that members of Cabinet keep their deliberations secret.


Such information is, of course, not to be confused with the abuses so roundly excoriated by the Fitzgerald Commission – the advisers wielding “Cabinet-in-Confidence” stamps to conceal important information about government dealings.


The contrary views include what I regard as an inspiring piece of judicial eloquence, by Justice Priestley in the Court of Appeal, who denied the legal right to absolute secrecy being given to any group of men and women in government, who insisted that the possibility of accountability can never be kept out of mind, and that the capacity for a House of Parliament to compel disclosure of Cabinet deliberations “can only be to the benefit of the people of a truly representative democracy”.


On the dark side, there has always been a great deal of information about what has happened in Cabinet that a democracy does not need, because we should not have it.  We ought be peremptory in our condemnation of breaches of secrecy by members of Cabinet.   It is contemptible.  It has destroyed, I think beyond redemption,  any confident belief in the honour of our political leaders.


The advent of legislation to compel the production of government information in this country is the most concrete demonstration that democracy needs such information, and will have it.  Unfortunately, the retardant tendencies of supposed wise heads in the bureaucracy have bequeathed us a perverse set of exceptions, which render hollow the legislated encouragement that their existence is not meant to deter disclosure.  As a matter of policy, I wonder whether we have sufficiently precluded the obnoxious reflex to deny disclosure because, in truth, it would be embarrassing to government.


As an 18-year-old when Gough Whitlam was first elected, I am no doubt biased in favour of the view that he and his government gave the initial and greatest impetus to changes that those in later governments – of both complexions – made to the régime controlling access to government information.  It would be wrong for this project to be regarded as party political.  There are, or have been in the relevant past, liberals on both sides.


Thus, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and the rest of the “new administrative law”, opened the flood gates on the reasons for administrative decisions.  The common law, displaying the same wisdom that denied the capacity of married women to control property, regarded requests for the reasons for such decisions, even if or especially when they might be judicially reviewed, as a kind of civil impertinence.  Our parliament set an example by decreeing the opposite.  We should not backslide by seeing that reform as the furthest we should go in the quest to understand and challenge the conduct of our government.


My professional career permits me the perspective to suggest that the possibility of compelled disclosure of reasons, in an ordered fashion, under the ADJR Act, has unequivocally enhanced the quality of decision-making in the Commonwealth both as a matter of process and, as a consequence, of substance.


Why ‘commercial-in-confidence’?
A recent boo-word has become fashionable to deflect justified demands for disclosure of government business.  It is the hyphenated phrase “commercial-in-confidence”.  The hyphens don’t make it special. Why should the terms and prices of the always expensive goods and services procured by government, on our behalf and with our money, be secret?  That is, after there has been a tender or contracting process with whatever secrecy that genuine probity requires.  After we have guarded against collusion between tenderers, and like corruption, what other than embarrassment could possibly justify preventing any one of us seeing all the terms on which a new freeway is being bought?

The current slack approach may well be commercial by some lights, but does nothing for democratic confidence.

Another use of public money that is far too frequently cloaked in secrecy is the compromise or settlement of claims against the government.  These involve technical questions of the proper conduct of litigation and expenditure of public funds, none of which justifies the secrecy of which I speak.  


What legitimate ground could there be not to know what the government agrees to pay, say, a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired, or a person who claims to have been unlawfully imprisoned on Nauru?  In all such cases, the legitimate public interest is manifest: there is nothing merely prurient in our curiosity.  The government has no private interests – it is an emanation of us, the governed people.

And a cardinal aspect of justice is consistency of treatment.  Its achievement requires disclosure of prior cases, and its defeat will be promoted by concealment of their outcomes.  Again, the rule of law in a representative democracy not unreasonably prefers that like cases be treated alike, unlike cases in appropriately unlike ways, and that we the people will know enough to spot the difference.


One of the furphies frequently raised to resist such disclosures is privacy.  It is a misunderstood and overwrought value.  It surely yields to the social requirements of democracy.   However, across the board of current practice in relation to government secrets, registered data and even official procedures such as in courts, the privacy of individuals has become the cuckoo in the nest, so far as the information that democracy needs is concerned.  I repeat, there is a linguistic and substantive misfit in too great a concern for the privacy of public servants.


Privacy has been the banner under which we suffer serious unevenness in access to information about the distribution of wealth and thus power in our society.  Long ago, by grace of the Australian innovation of registered title to land, we were all able to know the names of the proprietor of every registered piece of land in the country.  That was, and is, not always very informative, given the sliding doors and trick mirrors of trusts and corporate personalities.  Most of us have no doubt that we the people should be able to know without resorting to private detectives or energetic investigative journalists who it is that really owns the land in our national territory. No-one, I think, would say that we have achieved that state of affairs.


When it comes to the half-way decent operation of the public market in shares and securities, we are now used to requiring continuous disclosure, at least at intervals, of real ownership.  Democratic concerns with what I would call the means of production surely justify at least equivalent disclosure with respect to land and business enterprises.


If one sees the efficient operation of markets as socially useful, itself a matter of democratic concern, one would favour more rather than less information about the location of control of the objects of trade.


Topically, the contribution to our consolidated government revenue by payments of tax on the part of corporations is important.  Votes in parliament, and for parliament, may plausibly be influenced by information on the topic.  Why then do we need to discriminate between companies and businesses as to which of them should have to disclose their relevant revenues and tax contributions?  Would it not be fairer, and we be better informed, if that information was required of all corporations and businesses?  And not anonymised by some industry category that proceeds by misleading averaging, but entity by entity?


What is truly private about the extent of tax contribution by tax-paying entities for the public good?  The profession to which I belong learned painfully that our fitness to participate in the administration of justice, one of the arms of government, makes barristers’ observance of the duty to pay tax, a matter of public interest.  The law is that a legal practitioner’s failure to observe the civic obligations of paying the price of civilisation, that is tax, may render that lawyer unfit to practise.


It would be silly to encourage us lawyers in the delusion that we are really so special.  Are the societies, admittedly few in number, where the tax paid by individuals is a matter of publicly available record, so far off the mark?  The politics of tax, its imposition, its avoidance and its outright evasion are close to the centre of public life in a representative democracy.  At present, none of us can know, except in the case of published criminal convictions, whether any of the participants in those public debates are engaged in revolting hypocrisy.  That would appear to be a deficiency in participatory democracy.


Good and bad news on fiscal front
At the other end of the fiscal pipeline, there is both good news and bad news.  The bad news is not so surprising: the Australian style of drafting annual appropriations and the explanatory papers, by which the socially important Budget is presented, is getting less and less intelligible.  Arcane conventions of drafting and non-legal conventions of esoteric meaning combine to defeat, in my opinion, the intended constitutional statement of democratically approved expenditures.


The good news is an example of what a cross-bench with a balance of power can encourage, namely the Parliamentary Budget Office.  Drawing on the worthy precedent of the disinterested and estimable Parliamentary Library, this impartial group of public servants publishes intelligible estimates of the fiscal nature of various political projects.  Most valuably, there are published proper expositions of the operative assumptions used by the politicians in question.


The fiscal information that our national democracy needs is not so much the 19th century accounting required by the Constitution and more or less adequately supplied.  Rather, it is in a plain explanation and serious justification of the assumptions that drive forward estimates and other projections.  On them depends the political fantasy of soaring surplus or devastating deficit.


There are other kinds of reports to government or about government, such as by Royal Commissions and offices such as the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.  I hope I do not delude myself, entirely, in seeing them as information that government may find useful.  Seriously, though, an attitude to such information by government that is symptomatic of a deeper malaise can be seen in the untimeliness of such reports being published, or being responded to by the executive.  The nearly invariable practice of delaying the tabling of such reports until the last day permitted is not clever, or consistent with the function of such reports being prepared.  The undergraduate instinct to leave everything till the last moment should have been left behind upon taking up paid duties in Canberra.


There is a functional purpose to provide a period before which a report to government need not be tabled or published – it is to permit a reasoned government response to accompany or follow shortly thereafter.  That occurs in a distinct minority of cases.  Perhaps the Commonwealth should legislate to require a response, although I cannot imagine a meaningful sanction beyond political disapproval.


Governments gather a deal of good information in our modern administration by means of public consultation.  The formal sequence of process requiring public consultation has been, I think, a significant generational improvement in democratic government.  The involvement of those who could be bothered, not only at election time.


Unfortunately, the concomitant need for prior disclosure of proposals and their context, about which the public is supposed to be consulted, is by no means always met.   Often, this can be litigated, but how much better would it be for government to realise that it is in the interests of government to obtain as intelligent and critical a response to its proposals, as widely as possible, before they become fixed policy.


War and foreign relations have long been understood to be areas of government responsibility where open public consultation could well be utterly counterproductive.  So it was realised in 1787, the year before Captain Phillip’s First Fleet, when the Americans whose successful revolution provided part of the impetus to the British settlement of this country, held their secret convention in Philadelphia to devise a constitution for the new United States of America.  One of their more striking themes stressed the vital qualities of “secrecy, vigour & despatch” widely considered to be desirable for the single-person executive head of government.  Strangely to modern eyes, the quasi-aristocratic delegates to this secret convention devised a bicameral legislature in which the Senate, for the first term or so of General Washington’s inaugural presidency, sat in secret without anything like decent records.


The growing appreciation in the new American republic that such behaviour was itself counterproductive to engendering a proper political spirit was part of a movement throughout Western societies that nowadays treats the publicity of legislative and representative scrutiny functions, by elected chambers, as axiomatic.


But there has always been, and in broad terms is likely always to be, a powerful resistance to the disclosure of military affairs and matters of foreign relations.  That commonsense generalisation unfortunately fails to accommodate serious questions as to the limits we should expect on this exceptional category of government justifiably concealing its activities and knowledge from the people.


Not sacrificial activities of our armed forces
International humanitarian law, the laws of war governing its conduct by civilised nations, essentially deny that the way Australians fight for Australia must remain secret from the Australian community.  To the contrary, the Criminal Code positively requires the eventual publicity of trial by jury for alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity.  Care will continue to be necessary to ensure that the balance is struck concerning the publication of sensitive information, so as both to permit prosecutions to proceed and fair trials to be had.  Our current rather complicated and less than comprehensive legislative efforts in this regard are commendable, but only as a beginning.


And then there are activities which are emphatically not the waging of war, such as the use of the navy in deterring unauthorised maritime arrivals of irregular would-be immigrants or genuine asylum seekers.  It is difficult to understand why any more secrecy should attend these police functions, albeit sometimes on the high seas, than routinely attends the manner of civilian policing within our states and territories.


It is unimpressive that such naval policing should be proposed for the kind of grateful celebration which is the mission of our national war memorial, without a prior opportunity for the people to consider on the basis of proper information whether the activities are worthy of that accolade.  I repeat, these are not the sacrificial activities of our armed forces at war.


My experience has strengthened rather than weakened my regard for those areas of government where secrecy, at least temporarily and often for a very long time, well beyond usual political cycles, is functionally essential.  I have already mentioned the conduct of current military operations, and I will turn soon to foreign relations especially with respect to treaties.


But first, there are the topical and likely enduring areas of national security so far as concerns espionage and countering it, and counter-terrorism.  They are areas which, it is true, deserve special monitoring and parliamentary scrutiny, such as by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.  With respect, that is an important body whose value is more potential than realised.  Its powers and influence are yet to be fully appreciated.  I commend the great contribution that John Faulkner has made in pressing for enhanced public benefit in the better use of such guardians.

”Why should the terms and prices of the always expensive goods and services procured by government, on our behalf and with our money, be secret?”


In the zone of silence, so to speak, such as we must expect when terrorism is being detected or prevented, it becomes all the more pressing to devise alternative methods of accountability apart from the constant publicity which serves that function for ordinary government administration of “a free and confident society”.  It is a source of mild national satisfaction that Australian means of checking and reporting on activities many of which must remain secret are demonstrably superior to those of most countries engaged in counter-terrorism, and are arguably not inferior to any.  It would be a source of intolerable national complacency were we to regard these systems as themselves beyond improvement.


The swirl of political concern with so-called foreign influence, literally today, is  just one example of how seriously we should query those who would tell us what the information is that democracy needs.


 Proposed legislation is, as I speak, still on the drawing board.  Appropriate public consultation has resulted in quite an array of detailed objections and improvements being raised.  So much the better.

For my part, I think it may be unwise to concentrate too much on the foreign provenance of supposed influence.  We have quite enough home-grown bad ideas and dinky-di venality to be just as concerned about secret Australian influence as secret foreign influence.  However, of course there is a further reason, bluntly of loyalty and geopolitical conflict of interest, to examine the possibility of providing more information than is currently available about those who seek in the lobbies or anywhere else to affect the positions and conduct of our government, or indeed our Parliament.


But the provision of information to whom?  If only to the executive or the presiding officers of the Houses of Parliament, there would be a further gap in the democratic justification for compelling by law the revelation of what would otherwise be preternaturally confidential dealings.  Whatever else should be debated about legislation proposed to address the problem of “foreign influence”, there should be attention paid to the prompt disclosure of particulars to us, the voters and the public.


How much more straightforward, if alarming to the governing class, would be the routine, literally daily, revelation of ministers’ and members’ appointments, meetings and discussions with anyone apart from their staff and colleagues.  It may be a prospect of infinite tedium as reading matter, but at least an alert cadre of journalists – and political opponents – would have the means to be aware of a kind of information that democracy obviously needs.


In theory, I suppose an elevated form of foreign relations is the diplomatic achievement of a treaty.  This country’s legal and political traditions mean that we live with the nation being externally bound by its treaties, but the population being neither bound by nor benefitting from the consequences of a treaty, unless and until our Parliament makes them Australian statute law.  Under an appropriate head of power, the Commonwealth can legislate in breach of its international obligations.  But there is the external affairs head of power which extends the Commonwealth’s legislative power so long as it is exercised so as to implement our treaty obligations.


Secrecy as a vice in government
It follows that treaties, their making, their terms and their observance by the nations bound by them should be part of the political discourse of this country.  By one of the British as opposed to American choices of those who prepared our constitutional drafts in the 1890s, we have foisted on us what can be, and has occasionally been, the treaty outcomes of secret negotiations.  How far from the democratic ideals brandished in opposition to Chief Justice Jay’s controversial agreement of the 1795 crucial economic treaty with the United Kingdom.  The very secrecy of his actions as a delegate of George Washington was railed against as itself a ground for impeachment.


Worlds apart, perhaps, but the affliction of the Australian population with the consequences of so-called investor-State dispute settlement clauses in contemporary trade treaties provides a double measure of secrecy as a vice in government.  Always, we should be told when the executive is minded to bind the country to these pernicious provisions whereby the lawmaking of our Parliament and the judgements of our courts may be effectively nullified, or worse still punished.  How can this be occurring without more protest?  Why wasn’t Chief Justice French’s speech temperately demolishing the merits of such provisions not more widely appreciated?  Simply, because too few people have been informed about these secretly negotiated provisions for secret arbitrations by foreigners for the foreign reversal of Australian law.  Or, less kindly, because they are just another, if more breathtaking, example of the patronising belief by some persons in Canberra that they not only know better than we do, but that it is better that we do not know enough to question them.


All of these deficiencies justify the kind of schematic rebuilding that remains my admiring impression of the ethos promoted, not always with practical success, by the governments of the man whose life and contribution we recognise this evening.  I am not sure whether Gough Whitlam would approve of my last proposal, given his struggle to achieve enough power and authority both within the Party and in Parliament, at a time when leaks seemed to make buckets out of sieves.


It is that there is no point in fierce attachment to the public obtaining information in order to keep government accountable, unless public-spirited persons best placed to reveal such information for the purposes of holding government to account may do so without penalty.  This country’s so-called whistleblower legislation displays wisps of righteous sentiment, but a niggardly set of protections and a far from comprehensive coverage.  It is in urgent need of modernising.


Immediately after Federation, Professor Harrison Moore saw as the great underlying principle of our Commonwealth that the rights of individuals were sufficiently secured by ensuring, as far as possible, “to each a share, and an equal share, in political power”.  That is not strictly accurate about our federal and bicameral system, and preceded anything like an equal suffrage.  And it is very conservative in relation to entrenched human rights, for example.  But it does convey the true popular core of our democracy.  And without a decent flow of information in this popular democracy, how can we have anything like our “equal share” in its power?


Many years later, but long before taking office on the High Court bench, Stephen Gageler saw in the making of the Australian Constitution a distinct change from the 18th century disdain for popular democracy.  Rather, “ordinary politics was seen as the primary means by which people exerted real, tangible and ongoing control over government”.  Long may that continue.  And so, our demand for the information we need should not abate.


The Whitlam Oration 2018 was delivered by Bret Walker SC on June 5, 2018.


 


Hmm...Bret Walker SC, why does that name ring a bell -  Huh

Ah yes I remember now... Big Grin

Starting from the top of the page here: Nick Xenophon - The surrogate Minister for Aviation??

Quote:Mark this occasion - 17:57 Australian Senate Chamber 18 March 2015 -  perhaps not as momentous but certainly as significant in the history of the stifling suffocation of the GA industry through imperious & odious big "R" overregulation by the CASA. At that time in the Senate Nick had a win when his Disallowance Motion on CASR Part 145 was put to a division - DIVISION:AYES 34 (4 majority) NOES 30 PAIRS 5

As it is quite long the following are quotes from the NX debate speech - for those interested the full speech can be read here
Quote: Wrote:I am moving to disallow these regulations today for several reasons. Primarily, the impact of these regulations is to reduce the safety of Australia's aircraft maintenance regime by transferring the authorisation to certify airworthiness of aircraft from licenced engineers to non-licenced and less-qualified people. The role of licenced aircraft engineers is vital. They have a thorough and sound knowledge of the aircraft as a whole—they know them nose to tail and back to front, and from wing tip to wing tip. And, while the other individuals who may work on specific areas of maintenance are undoubtedly experts in their particular field, I am concerned that they do not have the same comprehensive 'big picture' knowledge as licensed aircraft mechanical engineers. 

This is an important issue about airline safety in this nation. We do not want to see airline safety being diminished. The regulations propose to have non-licensed aircraft engineers to do certain types of maintenance and to have certain powers. It is my view that they should not have the authorisation to sign off on the airworthiness or maintenance undertaken on aircraft. I am concerned that the changes in these regulations may put our aircraft maintenance systems below the minimum global standard. Clearly, this has significant implications not only in terms of safety but in terms of our international reputation, and may even put us at risk of being restricted or banned from international airspace.  

I am also concerned that the impact of these regulations has not been fully understood or clearly communicated by the regulator to the parliament. Further, in an expert legal opinion to the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association, Mr Bret Walker SC, one of the nation's most senior counsel, indicated that the regulation may possibly even go so far as to make it illegal for licensed aircraft engineers to continue to carry out the work they have done for many years without new and costly administration processes being established by maintenance organisations and airlines. If Mr Walker is right, and I believe he is, that is a shocking unintended consequence...
Quote: Wrote:The amendment to the part 145 MOS, which we are debating today, has the effect of significantly reducing safety oversight of Australian aircraft maintenance. That is not just my view and that of licensed aircraft engineers but also, effectively, the very powerful opinion of Bret Walker SC, who has looked at the issue of its legality. The effect of the amendment has been to introduce two fundamental changes. Firstly, they have transferred the internationally recognised authority of a part 66 aircraft maintenance engineering licence holder to certify for the airworthiness of maintenance tasks to non-licensed personnel, who do not meet minimum international requirements. Surely we in this place should all be concerned about that. Secondly, it invalidates the existing guidance material for part 145 that requires an airworthiness determination and certification to be conducted only by a part 66 licence holder following specialist maintenance tasks. 

The standards put forward by ICAO specifically require that personnel who are providing airworthiness certifications and signing maintenance releases meet minimum training and experience requirements. These standards are the global minimum—I emphasise that they are the global minimum—requirements for aircraft maintenance safety. The government's policy for the Australian aviation regulatory reform program is to align with these international standards wherever possible. Where this alignment is not able to be achieved a state difference must be notified to ICAO. It is my view that the changes outlined in these regulations do not align with ICAO and do not meet the minimum safety standards set out by it. Again, I refer to the very considered opinion of Bret Walker SC. 


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
ALL BEHOLD THE FERTILISER CONVENTION

ICAO held a little gathering in Sydney of like minded spin doctors, bullshit artists, wordsmiths, muppets and pony Pooh peddlers to supposedly discuss some of the mystiques of aviation.;

“Aviation’s focus on constantly evolving security threats, increased use of sustainable alternative fuels, airport privatizations, and sector-wide gender equality were brought to the attention of global airline CEOs today when ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu addressed the 74th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Sydney, Australia. During her mission, she met with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport”.

More nauseating vomitus horriblus can be read below. However this link comes with a disclaimer and that anyone with an inkling of aviation, safety, or heaven forbid  both of these skills combined will be behooved by the article and will be reaching for a mega sized spew bucket.

I’m not sure why Miniscule McDo’nothing was there, other than to stand around with that blank look on his face and hoover up all the free cucumber sandwiches and cups of green tea.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Prio...A-AGM.aspx

Tick tock chunder chunder
Reply
(06-28-2018, 12:35 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: ALL BEHOLD THE FERTILISER CONVENTION

ICAO held a little gathering in Sydney of like minded spin doctors, bullshit artists, wordsmiths, muppets and pony Pooh peddlers to supposedly discuss some of the mystiques of aviation.;

“Aviation’s focus on constantly evolving security threats, increased use of sustainable alternative fuels, airport privatizations, and sector-wide gender equality were brought to the attention of global airline CEOs today when ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu addressed the 74th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Sydney, Australia. During her mission, she met with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport”.

More nauseating vomitus horriblus can be read below. However this link comes with a disclaimer and that anyone with an inkling of aviation, safety, or heaven forbid  both of these skills combined will be behooved by the article and will be reaching for a mega sized spew bucket.

I’m not sure why Miniscule McDo’nothing was there, other than to stand around with that blank look on his face and hoover up all the free cucumber sandwiches and cups of green tea.

https://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/Prio...A-AGM.aspx




Priorities for security, environment, privatization and gender parity raised as ICAO Secretary General addresses IATA AGM 



[Image: 2018-06-04%20-%20NEWS%20-%20COM.31.18%20...36x300.png]
Aviation’s focus on constantly evolving security threats, increased use of sustainable alternative fuels, airport privatizations, and sector-wide gender equality were brought to the attention of global airline CEOs today when ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu addressed the 74th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Sydney, Australia. During her mission, she met with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
 
MONTREAL, 6 JUNE 2018 – ICAO Secretary General Dr. Fang Liu addressed the 74th Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Sydney, Australia yesterday, raising a number of points with the attending airline CEOs on the event’s main topics, which this year include constantly evolving security threats, the increased use of sustainable alternative fuels, airport privatizations, and sector-wide gender equality. 
 
“Against the backdrop of an unpredictable global security environment, and the significant forecast passenger and cargo growth which is top of mind for all of us, our sector will continue to be faced with serious security risks from terrorist groups, radicalized individuals, and other threat sources,” Dr. Liu remarked. “It is ICAO’s view that the highest-priority threats requiring our vigilant focus today are improvised explosive devices (IEDs) carried by passengers, landside security in public airports, cyber-attacks on mission-critical air transport systems, and the potential for malicious deployments of Remotely-Piloted or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (RPAS/UAS).” 
 
On the topic of sustainable alternative aviation fuels, Dr. Liu noted that ICAO has been encouraged that many airlines have committed to increase their adoption and deployment of green fuel alternatives, stressing that “ICAO supports this progress through its Global Framework for Aviation Alternative Fuels, and the platform it provides for related policy, data, best practices and other resources to be shared.” 
 
Shifting her focus to airport privatization, Dr. Liu recalled that a change in ownership structure in no way diminishes a government’s responsibility to fulfil its related ICAO compliance obligations. 
 
“These include safety, security, and efficiency standards, as well as airport and air navigation service charges, and pertains to both facilities which are entirely privately owned, or which are managed under Public Private Partnerships (PPPs),” she commented, “Airlines can greatly assist this process by providing advance planning data on the future types, characteristics and numbers of aircraft expected to be in use, as well as the anticipated growth in flight, passenger and cargo volumes.” 
 
With respect to aviation gender equality, a priority emphasized by ICAO Member States at ICAO’s last Assembly in 2016, Dr. Liu emphasized that while “air transport connects people, cultures and businesses across the globe, and strengthens socio-economic development worldwide, at the same time it has not been very successful at providing an open, inclusive working environment for women.” 
 
“In China for instance there is a proverb which states that women hold up half the sky, but in aviation today, whether we are talking pilots or airline CEOs, women are only making up one twentieth of these positions,” Dr. Liu underscored. She called on the airline CEOs to make gender parity a personal priority, stressing that it must be driven from the top in any organization, and highlighted ICAO’s new Gender Equality Programming and upcoming Summit on the topic jointly hosted with South Africa in Cape Town this August. 
 
During her stay in Sydney, Dr. Liu met with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and Shane Carmody of Australia’s Civil Aviation Authority for discussions on issues of common interest and strengthened partnership between ICAO and Australia.





Tick tock chunder chunder

The timing of this love-in/talkfest corresponds to when a week before Creedy came out with his bollocks fluff piece (reference: On chasing tales and washing spots ) on how we are now in the top six nations for compliance to ICAO SARPs:

Quote:Hmm...I wonder how much that ICAO rubberstamp 'bollocks' cost us? Not to mention the cost to HVH in wining, dining (plus extra curricular activities), while pulling the wool over the eyes of ICAO (wet lettuce) Thor in the course of his wanderings through the Halls of AAI top-cover experts the ATSB [Image: dodgy.gif] : Mount NCN post #106

Got a feeling my next Aunty task will be to systematically pull apart that complete and utter load of BOLLOCKS - [Image: angry.gif]

In the meantime here is a challenge for CC, given our stellar standing in the world of aviation safety administration can we now request that the FAA IASA team come back and doubly reassure the members of the A4ANZ that we are in the stratosphere of Category 1 member States? Come on CC, money where your mouth is mate!!  

Now back to big, bad, Bazza and his COI with RRAT committee matters of an aviation nature... [Image: rolleyes.gif]

Digging around on BO's CV I note that he was listed as the proprietor of a company called - ASIA PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT PTY LTD.

Here is the website homepage for that company: http://asiapcmanagement.com/



GD - "..I’m not sure why Miniscule McDo’nothing was there, other than to stand around with that blank look on his face and hoover up all the free cucumber sandwiches and cups of green tea..."

I can answer that one GD, apparently along with ICAO, he was there to schmoo the topend of town Airlines and their international counterparts to reassure everyone that everything is rosy in dodgy Dunceunda land (Warning: bucket will be requiredConfused )

Quote:05JUN2018
Address to the International Air Transport Association
Sydney


..As the Australian domestic and international aviation industry grows, it is our responsibility to make sure that safety remains a key focus.

I acknowledge and welcome the new top six safety ranking given to Australia by the International Civil Aviation Organization as a result of the recent audit of Australia's aviation safety system.

The travelling public can take comfort that Australia has a robust aviation safety system in place, and that our Government and our industry are committed to a strong safety culture...

Hmm...no comment, except - 'BOLLOCKS!'  Dodgy  

MTF...P2  Cool     



Ps Chocfrog to Noodle on twitter who was able to garner this response from Creedy on twitter:
Quote:[Image: 3inwmkepv8hgdll8ka9c_bigger.jpeg] Stephen Creedy@StephenCreedy


Australia aces its ICAO audit with a top six ranking https://bit.ly/2HU35iZ .
[Image: DbxB1bYU0AINqIi.jpg]
3:29 PM - 27 Apr 2018




[Image: ISB0FW4X_bigger.jpg]noodle@fishonoodle

FollowingFollowing @fishonoodle

More

Replying to @StephenCreedy
So the long list ICAO sarp’s Australia doesn’t follow means absolutely nothing.......hmmmmmm.......cash always ticks a box


[Image: 3inwmkepv8hgdll8ka9c_bigger.jpeg] Stephen Creedy@StephenCreedy

Replying to 
@fishonoodle

Interesting point. Seem to recall that's what got us some years back. Better harmonìsation since then?

Not wanting to let that seemingly ignorant statement from SC go unheeded, this was my reply:

Quote:FYI what got 'us some years back' is alive and well a decade later, ref: Chasing tales and washing spots - Part II http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139&pid=8629#pid8629  + http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=36&pid=8374#pid8374  &

Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of
#ICAO @icao @icaoFangLIU http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139&pid=8829#pid8829 



&..

&.. RT Three decades of Australia taking the piss out of #ICAO - Part II http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139&pid=8860#pid8860  + http://www.avmassi.com/about-us/our-team/mike-smith.html  & https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/047_h_ray_22_jan_2014_redacted.pdf  & Dear Lachie - Part II http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=139&pid=8873#pid8873  + https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/rrat/add1718/addinfo/IRDC/2_DIRDC_ICAO_Letter.pdf?la=en  & @AlboMP @wikileaks http://wikileaks.redfoxcenter.org/cable/2009/11/09CANBERRA1040.html  #avgeek
Reply
STEVE CREEPY’S TOENAILS JUST SPOTTED POKING OUT OF THE MINISCULES FRECKLE

The Governments strategically appointed presstitute, Steve Creepy, has so much Miniscule DNA all over him that he could be mistaken for a lab Petrie dish. Presstitute Steve is just another Government appointed footstool on the Government payroll whose purpose is nothing deeper than spinning stories and painting favourable pictures for what is an inept, deceptive, truth burying Government.
Reply
On recycled minions; & FF deckchair shuffles??  Dodgy

Just had a gander at the miniscule 4G's relatively new aviation adviser:


Quote:Experience

Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Senior Advisor - Aviation
Company Name Deputy Prime Minister's Office
Dates Employed May 2018 – Present  Employment Duration 3 mos
Location Canberra, Australia


Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Senior Aviation Adviser-Office of the CEO
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed Sep 2017 – May 2018  Employment Duration 8 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Special Aviation Adviser
Company Name Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development
Dates Employed Jul 2017 – Sep 2017  Employment Duration 4 mos
Location Canberra, Australia
Western Sydney Airport Division-Airspace and flight path design

Office of the Minister of infrastructure and transport
Senior Advisor-Transport (Aviation)
Company Name Office of the Minister of infrastructure and transport
Dates Employed Mar 2016 – Jul 2017  Employment Duration 1 yr 5 mos
Location Canberra, Australia

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed Oct 2015 – Mar 2016  Employment Duration 6 mos
Location Canberra, Australia
Manager of CASR Part 141/142 review team.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Standards Officer (Large aeroplanes)
Company Name Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Dates Employed Aug 2013 – Oct 2015  Employment Duration 2 yrs 3 mos
Providing policy guidance and regulation development for the CASR operations suite of regulations.

Cathay Pacific Airways
Check & Training Captain B777
Company Name Cathay Pacific Airways
Dates Employed Jun 1998 – Jun 2013  Employment Duration 15 yrs 1 mo
Location Hong Kong
Training and Checking of line pilots. Originally joined as Second Officer on the B747-400.

Hong Kong Airline Pilots Association
Vice President-Professional, Hong Kong Airline Officer Association
Company Name Hong Kong Airline Pilots Association
Dates Employed Sep 2008 – Sep 2012  Employment Duration 4 yrs 1 mo
Director of Rostering, Negotiator, HKALPA technical and safety committee.

Ansett-Kendell Airlines
Pilot
Company Name Ansett-Kendell Airlines
Dates Employed Oct 1995 – May 1998  Employment Duration 2 yrs 8 mos
Location Adelaide and Sydney
Co-pilot Metro 23 in Adelaide. Capt. SAAB 340 in Sydney

Air North
Senior base pilot/ training pilot
Company Name Air North
Dates Employed Dec 1994 – Oct 1995  Employment Duration 11 mos
Location Alice Springs, NT

Air Frontier
Chief Pilot
Company Name Air Frontier
Dates Employed Jun 1994 – Dec 1994  Employment Duration 7 mos
Location Darwin, Australia

Peninsula Aero Club
Chief Flying Instructor/ Chief Pilot
Company Name Peninsula Aero Club
Dates Employed Nov 1992 – Jun 1994  Employment Duration 1 yr 8 mos
Location Tyabb, Victoria

Groupair Flying School
Flying Instructor
Company Name Groupair Flying School
Dates Employed Mar 1991 – Jul 1992  Employment Duration 1 yr 5 mos
Location Casey Airfield, Berwick, VIC


By the look of it the middle name of 4G's adviser should be Steve 'Flip-flop' Campbell... Big Grin 

However it would appear that SFFC does have previous experience of dealing with NFI miniscule's and the aviation IOS... Dodgy      

Hint: 

[Image: r0_0_2071_1270_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

"...Senior Advisor-Transport (Aviation)...Company Name Office of the Minister of infrastructure and transport...Dates Employed Mar 2016 – Jul 2017..."  

What is it with the NAT-NUMPTIES and Dept Mandarin's penchant for recycling the same trough feeding bureaucratic dross - FDS!  Dodgy 

PS: This is a worry... Confused 

"..Manager, Part 61 taskforce, Part 141/142.."

While on that phot of the infamous Tamworth rally I note the seemingly absorbed Fort Fumble Chair Jeff Boyd would appear to have disappeared from the ranks of the irrelevant FF Board... Huh 


Quote:CASA Board
Board role

The CASA Board is appointed by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
The Board is responsible for deciding the objectives, strategies and policies to be followed by CASA and for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner.

Board members

[Image: casa-board-member-mark-rindfleish.jpg]
Mr Mark Rindfleish
First appointed: 16 April 2018
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/casa-board-member-mark-rindfleish.jpg[/img]
Mr Mark Rindfleish has over forty-five years as an Airline pilot and senior Operations Manager with airlines in Australia and overseas.
Mr Rindfleish has held the positions of Director of Flight Operations for Ansett Australia, Vice President of Flight Operations Air New Zealand, Executive General Manager Operations Ansett, General Manager Safety Jetstar Airways and Head of Flying Operations and Chief Pilot of Jetstar Australia and New Zealand.
In addition, Mr Rindfleish has served in a number of advisory roles including Safety Advisor to the Boards of the various Jetstar Airlines, Chairman of the Flight Operations Committee Association of Asia Pacific Airlines and Chairman of the Star Alliance Flight Operations Committee.
Throughout his career, Mr Rindfleish has maintained a keen interest in sport and general aviation and regularly flies light aircraft.
Mr Rindfleish is a Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, a Master Air Pilot and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors.

[Image: anita_taylor.png]
Ms Anita Taylor
First appointed: 3 December 2014
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/anita_taylor.png[/img]
Ms Anita Taylor is a chartered accountant with mediation, psychology and governance qualifications. She has a Bachelor of Science (Psychology) and a Bachelor of Commerce (Accounting). Ms Taylor is also a glider pilot.
Ms Taylor is Chair of the CASA Board Audit Committee. She is also the appointed independent director for Australian Canoeing and Executive Chair of Red Eight Produce. She is an experienced company director, having previously served as Chair of the University of New England controlled entities UNE Life and Sport UNE; as a member of Regional Development Australia – Northern Inland Committee (RDANI) and the RDANI Finance and Audit Committee; as Executive President of the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA) and Chair of the GFA Sports Committee; and as a member of the Air Sports Australia Confederation (FAI) Committee. She has also served on committees of other community and sporting organisations, including public and listed companies.
Ms Taylor and her husband run a superfine merino and angus cattle property in regional New South Wales.

[Image: philippa_stone.png]
Ms Philippa Stone
First appointed: 1 October 2015
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/philippa_stone.png[/img]
Ms Philippa Stone has honours degrees in Arts and Law from the University of Sydney. She is a partner of Herbert Smith Freehills which she joined in 1984. At Herbert Smith Freehills Philippa is the Joint Global Head of the firm's Capital Markets group where she specialises in equity raisings and mergers and acquisitions.
Ms Stone has been a guest lecturer at the University of New South Wales on corporate control transactions and at Sydney University on capital markets transactions. She is on the Law Council of Australia's Corporations Law Committee and is a member of the Australian Securities Exchange's Listing Appeals Tribunal. Philippa was a member of the Commonwealth Government's Business Regulation Advisory Group ("BRAG") on the CLERP 9 reforms and other Corporations Law simplification changes.
Ms Stone has been a member of the International Air Services Commission, and prior to that a non-executive director of Airservices Australia.

[Image: cheryl_cartwright_low.png]
Ms Cheryl Cartwright
First appointed: 17 April 2017
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/cheryl_cartwright_low.png[/img]
Cheryl Cartwright has more than three decades' experience in media, politics and industry associations including senior management roles and has a strong focus on strategy and governance, including with not-for-profit boards. Her media experience covers print, radio and television. She has been a political and media adviser in Opposition and in Government and has been Chief of Staff to a senior Cabinet Minister. From 2005 to 2017 she was Chief Executive of the Australian Pipelines and Gas Association(APGA), working closely with the APGA board to redefine and energise the association, dramatically increasing its size and influence and raising its profile. She brings to the board comprehensive experience in communications, messaging, strategic planning and corporate governance.

[Image: jane_mcaloon.png]

Ms Jane McAloon
First appointed: 2 January 2018
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/jane_mcaloon.png[/img]
Jane is a Non-executive Director of Healthscope, Energy Australia and Cogstate Limited and is a Senior Adviser with Gresham. She is National Chair, Defence Reserves Support Council and a Director with Bravery Trust.
Jane has been in the natural resources, energy, infrastructure and utility industries for over 25 years. Jane was an executive at BHP Billiton for 9 years during which she worked on key strategic issues, corporate transactions, as well as market, regulatory and reputational matters. Prior to this she was an executive at AGL. Jane spent 10 years in leadership roles with the NSW Government Cabinet Office, Energy, Rail and Land/Water Departments.
Jane has been a safety regulator in the energy sector and always worked with safety management systems as a fundamental principle in successful business.
She holds a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Economics (Hons) from Monash University and a Grad Dip in Corporate Governance. She is a Fellow of the AICD and the GIA.

[Image: shane_carmody.jpg]

Mr Shane Carmody - The Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety
First appointed: 7 June 2017
[img=0x0]https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/shane_carmody.jpg[/img]
Mr Shane Carmody commenced as Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety on 7 June 2017.
Mr Carmody's most recent appointment was as Deputy Secretary, Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. In this position his responsibilities included the Office of Transport Security, Aviation and Airports, Local Government and Territories and the Western Sydney Airport project.
Mr Carmody has extensive experience at senior levels in the Australian Public Service. His roles have included Deputy Secretary/Chief Operating Officer at the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security and Deputy Secretary Strategy in the Department of Defence, Deputy CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and Deputy President of the Repatriation Commission. He has significant policy, regulatory and business management experience.
Mr Carmody joined the Australian Public Service in 1989 after a 15 year career as an Army Officer, where he served in various Australian and overseas locations.

CASA Board contact
CASA Board Secretariat
colin.mclachlan@casa.gov.au
PO Box 2005
Canberra ACT 2601


Last modified: 4 July 2018
  
Not that it is really very relevant but who is the current Chair of the FF Board?  Rolleyes


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)