[Peetwo]

Update: 29/01/20

Ref: ...I also note that yesterday in the inquiry additional documents webpage there was added some further answers, to Senator Sterle's written QON, from the CASA Iron Ring (Dr Aleck) that perfectly highlights that there will be no compromise/reform from the current regime's  overbearing, complex and archaic regulatory philosophy - 

---

Ref: 4  Answers to written questions on notice by CASA taken on 11 January 2021 from Senator Sterle. Received on 27 January 2021.  

---

Questions on notice

Questions to be asked to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for the Rural and Regional Affairs
and Transport Committee Inquiry into:

The current state of Australia’s general aviation industry.

Background

In 2014 the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR) made 37 recommendations for the Australian
Government to consider. Only recommendation 20 was not agreed to by the government.

The following questions on notice are with reference to recommendations 30 and 31, which are:

1. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two-tier regulatory framework (act and
regulations) to a three-tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
(a) regulations drafted in a high-level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling
standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences
(b) the third-tier standards drafted in plain, easy to understand language.
2. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority structures all regulations not yet made with the three-tier
approach, and subsequently reviews all other Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Parts (in
consultation with industry) to determine if they should be remade using the three-tier
structure.

Furthermore, many submissions to this inquiry make reference to the complexity and difficulties with
comprehension of the current regulations, including the recently developed CASRs and their
associated Manual of Standards (MOS).

Questions on notice:

1. Does CASA acknowledge that regulatory complexity and difficulties with comprehension of regulations
and standards relate to ASRR recommendation 30 (b)?

CASA is aware that some aviation stakeholders can be frustrated by the complexity of civil aviation
legislation as a whole or with parts of the three tiers of legislation. However, CASA consults all
proposed legislation with industry providing the opportunity for any feedback to be incorporated in the
final legislation where possible.

2. Regarding regulatory complexity and comprehension issues, including the time lost for the
stakeholder’s activities due to this, does CASA acknowledge the legitimacy of the frustrations from
aviation stakeholders and that these relate directly to a divergence by CASA to ASRR recommendation
30 (b) and to paragraph 1 © of s9 of the Civil Aviation Act (1988)?

Refer response to Question 1. In addition, CASA does not agree it has diverged from paragraph 9(1)©
of the Civil Aviation Act and considers we have acted in accordance with the Government’s in-principle
agreement of ASRR recommendation 30(b) and notes that implementation of this recommendation is
continuing.

3. Does CASA acknowledge that the cost impact expressed by many aviation stakeholders is referenced
to and due this complexity of regulations and standards, and that the time wastage and lost economic
activity resulting is a significant cost impact to their activities?

CASA acknowledges that complexity in regulations and other aviation safety standards will in some
cases have an unavoidable cost impact on stakeholders. However, CASA does not agree that this
impact is generally of a significant nature or that time and economic ‘loss’ is fairly attributable to
compliance with unnecessarily complex regulatory requirements.

4. Does CASA include lost time and lost economic activity in its cost impact considerations and if so, how
does CASA make this assessment and will CASA provide detail as to how it calculates and includes the
cost of lost-time and lost business opportunities into its cost impact considerations and calculations?

CASA prepares a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for any new or amendment regulation or standard
that may have a significant cost impact on stakeholders. The RIS outlines the total cost impact of the
new or amended regulation, including the cost of lost time for business to comply with the regulatory
requirements. This involves estimating the time that affected businesses are required to devote to
complying with the new or amended regulation. RIS and the incorporated estimates for cost of lost
time are reviewed and assessed by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

5. Given that CASA has actually moved to a four-tier model of regulatory structure, with the fourth-tier
including the development and promulgation of plain English language guides, will CASA acknowledge
that this is evidence that the third-tier, Manual of Standards, have not been developed and
promulgated in “plain, easy to understand language”?

CASA has not moved to a ‘four tier’ model of regulatory structure as guidance material including Plain
English Guides (PEGs) are not the law. The PEGS are a CASA initiative to provide a convenient, simple
and consolidated summary of the rules using graphic illustrations and other aids to help facilitate
another means of understanding for the relevant legislative requirements.

6. Can CASA explain and detail what aviation stakeholder consultation they conducted in order to
establish aviation sector support for such a departure from adopting ASRR recommendation 30 (b)?

CASA’s responses to questions 1, 2 and 5 confirm that CASA continues to act in accordance with the
Government’s in-principle agreement of ASRR recommendation 30(b).

---

Follow up to above...

Via Oz Flying yesterday:

Impact of Complex Regulation not Significant: CASA
28 January 2021



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has told the Senate Inquiry into the General Aviation industry that complexity in regulations has not had a significant impact on stakeholders, according to a statement made public yesterday.

The statement comes in a reply to a question on notice asked by Senator Glenn Sterle in the inquiry in November regarding regulation complexity and the burden on operators and pilots.

"Does CASA acknowledge that the cost impact expressed by many aviation stakeholders is referenced to and due this complexity of regulations and standards, and that the time wastage and lost economic activity resulting is a significant cost impact to their activities?", Senator Sterle asked.

"CASA acknowledges that complexity in regulations and other aviation safety standards will in some cases have an unavoidable cost impact on stakeholders," the response said. "However, CASA does not agree that this impact is generally of a significant nature or that time and economic ‘loss’ is fairly attributable to compliance with unnecessarily complex regulatory requirements."

Several submissions to the inquiry complained about the impact of complex regulations in terms of time and cost, including John McDermott of McDermott Aviation, who stated that the industry was operating safely even though in many cases it was unknowingly working outside CASA regulations.

Senator Sterle also queried CASA about how it assessed the cost impact of regulations on operators and how that was considered in the rule-making process.

"CASA prepares a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for any new or amendment regulation or standard that may have a significant cost impact on stakeholders," CASA replied. "The RIS outlines the total cost impact of the new or amended regulation, including the cost of lost time for business to comply with the regulatory requirements.

"This involves estimating the time that affected businesses are required to devote to complying with the new or amended regulation. RIS and the incorporated estimates for cost of lost time are reviewed and assessed by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet."
The senate inquiry is ongoing and all submissions and replies to questions on notice are on the inquiry webpage.

I also note that in yesterday's 20/20 inquiry public hearing, the AFAP also picked up on the CASA AWQON (above) and made pretty much the same OBS in regards to CASA's opinion that they have implemented and are being compliant with the ASRR (Forsyth report) recommendation 30(a):

30. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority changes the current two-tier regulatory framework (act and regulations) to a three-tier structure (act, regulations and standards), with:
a. regulations drafted in a high-level, succinct style, containing provisions for enabling
standards and necessary legislative provisions, including offences

Which is totally in direct conflict with historical industry evidence/experience in the preceding 6+years since the former Minister Warren Truss presented the Forsyth ASRR report to the Australian Parliament -    

MTF...P2 

ps Note that CASA's self-serving, self-delusional belief that they have implemented and have been compliant with pretty much all the Rev Forsyth's recommendations dates back to 31 July 2017: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviati...y_2017.pdf
 

Completed – Implementation Ongoing CASA will continue to focus on new regulations and instruments adhering to Commonwealth legal drafting practices and avoiding inconsistencies with other pieces of relevant legislation. Rules will continue to be prepared in accordance with a three-tier regulatory structure and using easy to understand language. CASA is committed to the remaining reform programme regulations drafted for public and industry consultation by the end of 2018.