Homework for the RRAT committee.
Should the McDolittle committee ever get off it's beam ends again and actually do something useful; (about now) there is a question (or two) that could be asked, the answers enlightening.
'We' (a few of the BRB) have been running a count of the legislation changes made in Australia and a comparison graph to map out the 'changes' other 'grown up' administrations, such as the UK, USA and NZ have made in the same time frame.
To do this exercise properly, it is important to 'register' - HERE - for the true Australian count. Failure to do so provides a different 'count' and the data received 'on the street' differs somewhat from the 'official' count (curious ain't it). It is a remarkable difference; the overseas administrations tally of change notifications match the official count and those transmitted to industry.
So, the homework questions:-
Since 2017 there have been 232 email notifications of changes to regulation sent to Australian subscribers: a half a dozen of which describe re write of an entire suite. How many of those were obtained by those not 'registered?
How many of the notified changes were fully explained in terms of benefits to industry by way of savings, ease of operational restriction, added 'safety' value' and alignment with ICAO?
I say we have for 33 long, weary, expensive years lived with a regulatory suite in a constant state of flux. The cost to the taxpayer and industry into the Billion dollar realm. The regulations are not ICAO compliant, are cumbersome and onerous. How much more time and money must be expended before the Minister and government realise that the regulatory reform program is a long standing waste which is killing off an industry which, overseas, is flourishing?
Final question - how much easier and cost / operationally effective would it be to simply adopt the world wide gold standard? The savings; cost benefits and operational increased activity stand alone would affect the national budget and increase revenue for the nations coffers.
What would the savings be if the regulatory reform program were dumped and the ICAO compliant rule set transitioned in, without interference?
There you go - a question or two worth the cost of having a Senate committee ask. Should the McDolittle coven ever reconvene and actually do something that is..
Toot - toot. (and yes, we do have definitive answers). NFP.
Should the McDolittle committee ever get off it's beam ends again and actually do something useful; (about now) there is a question (or two) that could be asked, the answers enlightening.
'We' (a few of the BRB) have been running a count of the legislation changes made in Australia and a comparison graph to map out the 'changes' other 'grown up' administrations, such as the UK, USA and NZ have made in the same time frame.
To do this exercise properly, it is important to 'register' - HERE - for the true Australian count. Failure to do so provides a different 'count' and the data received 'on the street' differs somewhat from the 'official' count (curious ain't it). It is a remarkable difference; the overseas administrations tally of change notifications match the official count and those transmitted to industry.
So, the homework questions:-
Since 2017 there have been 232 email notifications of changes to regulation sent to Australian subscribers: a half a dozen of which describe re write of an entire suite. How many of those were obtained by those not 'registered?
How many of the notified changes were fully explained in terms of benefits to industry by way of savings, ease of operational restriction, added 'safety' value' and alignment with ICAO?
I say we have for 33 long, weary, expensive years lived with a regulatory suite in a constant state of flux. The cost to the taxpayer and industry into the Billion dollar realm. The regulations are not ICAO compliant, are cumbersome and onerous. How much more time and money must be expended before the Minister and government realise that the regulatory reform program is a long standing waste which is killing off an industry which, overseas, is flourishing?
Final question - how much easier and cost / operationally effective would it be to simply adopt the world wide gold standard? The savings; cost benefits and operational increased activity stand alone would affect the national budget and increase revenue for the nations coffers.
What would the savings be if the regulatory reform program were dumped and the ICAO compliant rule set transitioned in, without interference?
There you go - a question or two worth the cost of having a Senate committee ask. Should the McDolittle coven ever reconvene and actually do something that is..
Toot - toot. (and yes, we do have definitive answers). NFP.