[Peetwo]

Alphabets push for winding back strict liability offences -

Finally the Alphabets collectively lift the scab on CASA's attempted O&O of the Government response to ASRR Recommendation 32:

Recommendation 32

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority reassesses the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

Response

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

CASA, in consultation with the Department and industry, will conduct a review of the penalties for offences in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the CASR.

This review report will be provided to the CASA Board and Director of Aviation Safety and the Attorney-General’s Department (in terms of Criminal Law penalty policy) for consideration by 30 June 2015.

The Government is also aware that CASA is giving consideration to the establishment of a civil penalty regime, noting this would require a change in CASA’s legislation.

The Government supports CASA releasing a policy paper in the first half of 2015 to the public and industry for comment to seek their views on this proposal.

Via the Oz today... :

Strict liability in penalty review

12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

Aviation safety authority and bureaucrats will kick off a review of penalties in the civil aviation rules next year.

The contentious issue of strict liability will be on the table when Australia’s aviation safety authority and bureaucrats kick off a landmark review of penalties in civil aviation rules next year.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it would review penalties under the Civil Aviation Act and the regulations with the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development after the drafting of the remaining regulatory reform agenda.

“It is expected the review will be initiated in 2018,” a CASA spokesman said.

The review is expected to focus on “the proportionality of the penalties imposed for specified offences, having regard to the seriousness of the offences ­involved”, the spokesman said.

“Consideration will also be given to the possible decriminalisation of certain legislative ­requirements, and the possible ­relocation of certain of offences from the regulations to the act and vice versa. Consideration will also be given to the propriety, desirability and practicality of a civil penalties regime.”

The issue of strict liability ­offences — which remove the need to prove the person intended to do something wrong, or did so with knowledge, recklessness or negligence — will be within the scope of the review.

“The extent to which strict liability offences should be retained in the civil aviation legislation will be considered in the course of the review,” the spokesman said.

“Strict liability offences are common in Australian legislation governing public safety, including our own longstanding Civil Aviation Regulations and the earlier Air Navigation Regulations.’’

In 2014, a report by the panel led by aviation veteran David ­Forsyth — which criticised CASA for taking too hard a line — urged a review of penalties, a recommendation the government agreed with.

The Forsyth panel said there was concern about the severity of the penalties in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.

The review cited the example of failing to inform CASA of a change of address within 14 days’ attracting a much higher fine than when a driver doesn’t inform the motor registry of the same thing.

But the review has been plagued by delay.

The Australian Aviation Association Forum honorary chairman Greg Russell said he had sympathy for the size of the reform agenda CASA was dealing with and said this was “no mean feat”, though “we are continuing to see encouraging signs out of CASA”.

The nature and level of penalties had “certainly been an irritation” in the sector.

“What do you do first?” Mr Russell said. It’s just terribly important to get these regulatory things fixed, at least this phase of it. Then the industry will know where they stand. I think that’s the big bugbear.”

Aircraft Owners and Pilots ­Association executive director Benjamin Morgan said his group wanted to see a “wholesale retraction” of some of the penalties.

He also said he was concerned breaches of most of the provisions of the regulations, and some of the provisions in the Civil Aviation Act, were “strict liability”.

Aerial Application Association of Australia chief executive officer Phil Hurst echoed the concern on strict liability.

“The concept of having an ­advanced high-reliability industry and a culture that goes with that is that you’ve got to be able to put trust in people to do the right thing,” Mr Hurst said.

“You have to verify. Without doubt, you’ve got to verify. But you don’t use strict liability as a simple way of making the issuing of penalties easier.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Mike Higgins said: “A safety culture cannot be imposed. It must be fostered. A regulator can police sensible accepted standards, but it cannot foster the safety culture with a rule book and a heavy-handed application of penalties.”

CASA has previously come under fire for being slow to adopt recommendations from the Forsyth report.

After the CASA executive considered a draft preliminary review of penalties, it was decided a full review of penalties would be started after the regulatory reform agenda was dealt with.

Plans to release a discussion paper by March this year were postponed. It is now expected CASA will release a paper for consultation on the nature and level of penalties in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. The CASA spokesman said a review of offences and penalties would be “useful and constructive”.

MTF...P2