[Kharon]

Aftermath.

What is a private Member?

For the purposes of private Members’ business in the House of Representatives, a private Member is defined as any Member of the House other than the Prime Minister, the Speaker, a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. This is the definition used in this Infosheet—in other contexts the term is often defined as also excluding opposition leaders. The commonly used term ‘backbencher’, which is sometimes used as a synonym for the term private Member, strictly refers to Members who sit on a back bench in the Chamber of the House, as opposed to those Members who sit on the front benches reserved for Ministers and members of the Opposition Executive (shadow ministry). Shadow Ministers, technically, are private Members but not backbenchers

Under the procedures of the House, private Members have great freedom in the introduction of bills, with the important exception that only the Government may initiate a bill imposing or varying a tax or requiring the appropriation of revenue or money. Private Members’ bills (like Government bills) are unable to become law unless they gain the support of the majority of Members (and subsequently also pass the Senate). Since they are prepared by an opposition or non-aligned Member, or by a government Member outside the party’s formalised approval mechanisms this has not happened often (although it does happen, and even if a Government may not support a private Members’ bill directly, it may be influenced to adopt similar legislation). Nevertheless it is important that every Member of the House has the right to put legislative proposals before it. It is a way for Members to signal publicly matters they believe need legislative action or to stimulate a debate on specific items of concern.

Well, seems the tools are available to get the job done, but the debate is fierce.  Two fairly well entrenched lines, very hard to reach a majority.  Near as I can boil it down to a couple of sentences the positions are:-

Team A) - Adamant that no matter how the Act is changed the spinners and weavers within DoIT and CASA will take whichever narrow legal view suits them the best and very little will change, no matter how ‘tightly’ or ‘loosely’ the Act is redrafted.  In short the Iron Ring will circumvent the spirit and intent of any new Act and retain the status quo.  Rule of the regulator.

Team B) – Equally adamant that with a change of the Act; the ‘piece of string’ known as ‘Safety’ can be measured by using cost-benefit, risk mitigation etc. as a benchmark.  The purpose of change being to break the stranglehold (death grip) of the ‘Iron Ring’.  The argument – on constitutional grounds – is way beyond PAIN resources and expertise.  However; insofar as it can be understood; there seems to be reasonable doubt that the Act is ‘Kosher’.

Me? I reckon the Kiwi’s got it right; throw the whole lot out – start again, it’s the way the regulations are able to be ‘used’ as suits a pre-determined outcome, rather than the ‘rules’ themselves which create the problems.  That of course was the ‘old’ rules; the new ones are just a mutation of mindless, out of touch crap which can and will be used to rid the skies of the problem aircraft and leave those on salaries with no distraction from the endless round of doing nothing of any significance.  But then, I’m a cynic and I cannot perceive just how the ‘new’ regulations are going to take the aviation industry into a bright, brave new world.  Just more misery and poverty for industry; a better futures for the legal profession.  

Anyway – there you have it: all too much for my wooden head, first thing Sunday morning.  

Toot toot.