02-15-2020, 05:00 PM
K,
I have a bit of a leaning towards the USA's use of sunset clauses in bills whereby there is a
time limit on legislation, after which it must be legislated again. If it works out as not fit for purpose
its amended or simply let lapse.
I cast my memory back to the old reg 206, if you recall it was rather an absurd piece of legislation.
Enacted to protect the airline duopoly from competition, but used unmercifully to stifle legitimate businesses.
Many a business was crushed after seeing an opportunity that had nothing to do with RPT, making a business case,
investing money, then having it pulled out from under them because one of the two duopolist's saw a quid in it for themselves. Some really ridiculous claims were made. Remember Ansett demanded the first Lear jets into the country
had to be operated by their crew as they were transport category aircraft.
In those days DCA could deny an import licence for almost anything, and they did, at one stage prior to the sixties only British made aircraft were allowed, even for themselves, despite the Poms not producing anything much that was suitable.
The old reg 206 still exists in legislation today, no longer fit for purpose and completely redundant, but still available for CAsA to use as a weapon on anyone as pleases.
Legislation should be fit for purpose, unfortunately what CAsA has served up is not even close, nor does it achieve what was intended "Safety". So what was the point of it all?
Dick Smith is dead right when he said "Copy the Best", China has made itself a leading power by doing just that, The Kiwi's did just that for aviation which has become third biggest contributor to GDP.
There has been much in the media about the cost burden of red tape on the Australian economy, in the red tape Stakes CAsA would have to be a world leader.
In China the "party" rules by fear and intimidation, is it much different in Australia?
Is "democracy" dying in Australia?
We elect politicians to do the "peoples" bidding, but just how much power do they have?
In recent times we have seen what happens when a minister goes against their mandarins recommendations.
The leaks begin until eventually, politically, their tenure becomes unsustainable.If they just sit Mum and let the bureaucrats get on with it all remains calm, unless of course there is a major stuff up, but all good, the minister is the sacrificial lamb, their throat gets cut and the Mandarins continue with their derry do.
The Mandarins live inside the Cant'Berra bubble, a privileged quarantined world remote from reality, there they play their game of thrones, is it much different in China?
I have a bit of a leaning towards the USA's use of sunset clauses in bills whereby there is a
time limit on legislation, after which it must be legislated again. If it works out as not fit for purpose
its amended or simply let lapse.
I cast my memory back to the old reg 206, if you recall it was rather an absurd piece of legislation.
Enacted to protect the airline duopoly from competition, but used unmercifully to stifle legitimate businesses.
Many a business was crushed after seeing an opportunity that had nothing to do with RPT, making a business case,
investing money, then having it pulled out from under them because one of the two duopolist's saw a quid in it for themselves. Some really ridiculous claims were made. Remember Ansett demanded the first Lear jets into the country
had to be operated by their crew as they were transport category aircraft.
In those days DCA could deny an import licence for almost anything, and they did, at one stage prior to the sixties only British made aircraft were allowed, even for themselves, despite the Poms not producing anything much that was suitable.
The old reg 206 still exists in legislation today, no longer fit for purpose and completely redundant, but still available for CAsA to use as a weapon on anyone as pleases.
Legislation should be fit for purpose, unfortunately what CAsA has served up is not even close, nor does it achieve what was intended "Safety". So what was the point of it all?
Dick Smith is dead right when he said "Copy the Best", China has made itself a leading power by doing just that, The Kiwi's did just that for aviation which has become third biggest contributor to GDP.
There has been much in the media about the cost burden of red tape on the Australian economy, in the red tape Stakes CAsA would have to be a world leader.
In China the "party" rules by fear and intimidation, is it much different in Australia?
Is "democracy" dying in Australia?
We elect politicians to do the "peoples" bidding, but just how much power do they have?
In recent times we have seen what happens when a minister goes against their mandarins recommendations.
The leaks begin until eventually, politically, their tenure becomes unsustainable.If they just sit Mum and let the bureaucrats get on with it all remains calm, unless of course there is a major stuff up, but all good, the minister is the sacrificial lamb, their throat gets cut and the Mandarins continue with their derry do.
The Mandarins live inside the Cant'Berra bubble, a privileged quarantined world remote from reality, there they play their game of thrones, is it much different in China?