Comment – The New DoTA

On 16th April the Governor in Council approved the reorganisational structure of the Department which now includes an Office of Civil Aviation under the direction of a Controller (shades of 1921 when we had a Controller of Civil Aviation incorporated in the Department of Defence), a surface transport administration (covering land and sea modes of transport) and a resources and coordination administration.

Most importantly for the civil aviation industry in Australia, the Controller has direct administration over five basic divisions – airports, airways, flying operations and airworthiness, domestic air transport policy and international air transport policy.

What has not really changed, although it had been hoped for, is that the old Air Safety Investigation Branch has now been re-established as a Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, the head of which is still responsible to the Secretary to the Department of Transport. It should have been a simple task for the Minister to indicate as he did at a conference with industry representatives “that the new Bureau would operate autonomously under its own head with full and free access to himself”. Amendments to legislation could be effected to have the Bureau report to the Minister.

However, the most surprising aspect of the whole re-organisation was that portion of the Ministerial statement which referred to the Controller exercising delegations granted to him by the Secretary of the Department under the Air Navigation Act 1920.

This seems a strange way to do things, and will certainly upset that portion of the aviation industry that wanted total independence for any Controller of Civil Aviation.

The Minister should have stated that he had certain powers of delegation under Section 31 of the Air Navigation Act and would exercise such powers in favour of the Controller as the Secretary to the Department already had such delegations.

The aviation industry, I am sure, would have given greater credit to the Minister for the changes that he ensured would be implemented after the pressures if his statement had included the words “and I will, by the instrument of delegation, delegate to the Controller all my powers and functions. . .

At the time of promulgation of the new basic structure covering civil aviation matters there was a ‘spill’ of all, as they are known, second division positions in the Department. These positions cover branch heads, divisional heads and the old deputy secretary position.

With the ‘new look’ of the Department and the Office of Civil Aviation it is hoped that the appointees to positions within the OCA will all be civil aviation orientated. Perhaps it would not be too much to hope that second division officers ‘compulsorily’ transferred to other multi-modal positions during the 1973-81 era would return to their first love – civil aviation? It would also be hoped that professionally qualified and unqualified appointees to positions within the former civil aviation areas might be found positions back in their other modal areas.

The Controller, when appointed, should surely have unqualified access to his team appointments to ensure that the virility of the civil aviation administration pre-1973 is resurrected in 1982. Therefore the appointment of the Controller is a matter of relative urgency.

A deal of concentration has been focused on the staffing of the Office of Civil Aviation, but how can the industry, which through individuals and organisations can accept the credit for the implementation of that Office, be better served than it has been since 1973.

The previous article in this journal referred to “whilst the views of industry are sought in some aspects in of legislation,” could Australia not adopt the US legislative procedure of “notice of proposed rulemaking” to ensure all the industry and the public are aware of the change and the reasons for same.

At present, and particularly in the flying operations and airworthiness areas, segments of legislation, the subject of the proposed change, are sent to certain organisations or individuals with very little overall time to comment. What is needed is more ‘lead time’ for such revisions. As distinct from operating entities (airlines, training schools etc.) there are bodies that have to call together representatives from diverse places after the Department has issued proposed amendments.

Let us have the Commonwealth Gazette make the vehicle for such advice with comment times three months in advance. After all the Departmental officers have had plenty of time to mull over proposed changes!

Notices to Airmen and Aeronautical Information Circulars will still be the vehicle for short-term notification of necessary almost immediate action. But in the field of airspace coordination particularly, let us have industry/user participation in the deliberations, not continue the cosy Department of Transport (speaking for the industry)/Department of Defence Airspace Coordination Committee. In the fields of domestic and international air transport policy let the industry as a whole know more of what the bureaucratic thinking is with more give and take in interchange of information to allow decisions to be made.

Industry and the bureaucracy should both feel that decisions have been made as a consensus – not as a ‘blackmail’ decision or an outright political decision when viewed from opposite sides of the fence.

To this end let us have a restructuring of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council (AVIAC) and a more open approach by members and the committee of advisors.

During 1981 a new body of interested organisations in civil aviation was formed as a result of the recommendations of the General Aviation Study not meeting with the unqualified approval of the general aviation industry. That body was GAVIC – the general aviation industry conference.

For 1982 onward let us have AVIAC consist of a Chairman (the Minister) his chief advisor, the Controller of Civil Aviation, the chairman of the major airlines – Ansett, East West, Qantas and TAA – and four representatives from GAVIC, which is Formed from at least 14 organisations interested in civil aviation.

And as a guide to the workings of the new Office of Civil Aviation let us have an expanded index of divisions, branches, and sections that deal with particular areas listing the names of the people in those areas and a brief summary of what they are responsible for. A reference such as this would save the industry innumerable phone calls to find out just who could best answer a policy or technical query. Such a compendium is that published by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and queries from overseas sources can be directed to the right areas immediately – because the information is available.

As a last rejoinder – the united aviation industry attitude has resulted in a significant achievement as far as government administration is concerned. Let the good work not be undone by a reversion to the individual approach rather than to the collective.