Reece

That single decision by the CAA to now actively pursue ad hoc commercial tenders against the very people it is supposedly tasked to serve and administer, with funds derived directly from those same people, has understandably left everyone outside the CAA speechless. One GA operator who bid on the tender and, despite using GA award pilots and a very much depreciated aircraft, lost out by a margin of nearly 20%, compared the CAA’s latest ‘commercial’ initiative as equivalent to the Defence Dept using RAAF C-130 Hercules aircraft to fly discounted night time freight in competition with TNT, IPEC and the like.

Though this specific $42,000 tender is fairly small beer as things go, it has signalled the CAA’s intention to pursue similar opportunities in direct competition with industry. To quote a written reply to us by T M Grant, the General Manager responsible for the CAA’s Flying Unit, “The CAA Flying Unit proposes to use this (surplus) capacity on an opportunity basis to tender for commercial work which is suited to its aircraft type and mode of operation. The whole basis of the CAA’s reckoning on the ethics and credibility of such a move revolves around their belief that this will actually earn additional revenue for the Authority and thus actually serve to reduce costs to the industry”.

What this single decision has done for the CAA’s already decimated credibility rating within industry is not difficult to see. You only have to ask any GA operator of his or her opinion to meet a torrent of pent-up anger, frustration and general disbelief that the Authority could be so insensitive and greedy in the singleminded pursuit of its “additional revenue at any cost” policy.

CAA Chief Executive, Collin Freeland might well also be gently reminded of the following statement he made at a speech on the 13th April, just a fortnight before the appropriately named Prevention of Blindness contract was signed between the CAA and AIDAB. “One of the CAA’s highest priorities is to rebuild and strengthen the cooperative relationship with the aviation industry and to ensure that the services provided by the Authority meet industry as well as community needs to the maximum extent possible”, stated Mr Freeland. The newfound zeal to use industry derived funds to now compete directly with industry does not seem to gel with the above statement and thus, like many of the CAA’s actions over the past year, must 6e looked upon with a mixture of cynicism and disbelief.

The Flying Unit’s Mr Grant went on to reassure us that ‘. ‘the policy of employing excess capacity to further spread the overhead which is now borne by the aviation industry contributes in a small but effective way towards reducing the level of charges for all operators. This policy is totally consistent therefore with the industry call for every effort to be made to reduce charges and hence costs”. Mr Grant then went on to logically point out that this was actually not a new practice and for years the CAA’s multi-named predecessors had provided paid for services to the Defence Forces of both Australia and New Guinea. This is true the only point that he misses though is that no one in Australia actually operates airways calibration equipped aircraft and the ad hoc use of CAA F. 28s for VIP use is something also that is not realistically available from the commercial sector.

This new decision to actively pursue contracts in head to head competition against industry must therefore be seen quite rightly by every operator as an unjustified, unethical and inappropriate use of government assets.

Sponsoring One’s Enemy

Sometimes we mere taxpaying mortals must wonder what we have done to deserve the politicians that life provides us with. If you think it is bad here then perhaps you should look to the US as a newfound source of amazement.

Consider the latest round of severe US Defence Budget cuts that have effectively killed or debilitated a number of key tactical programmes that would be invaluable when the next shooting war eventuates. In an effort to reduce the US Budget deficit such vital programmes as the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, the vastly improved Navy F-14D, the Army’s AHIP programme, Lantirn and the in production F-15E Strike Eagle all face the axe. All are vitally important tactical programmes that do a lot more to provide a ‘real world’ deterrent than another dozen ICBMs or an investment in SDI technology that will ultimately probably go nowhere as for starters it cannot even counter cruise missiles.

However, the above becomes ludicrous when you consider that over the past four years the USA has sold vastly subsidised wheat to the Soviet Union to the value of nearly $A700m. In short, what America cannot now fund to ensure its men and women in uniform have the best tactical weaponry, it gives away to its very opponent in the form of subsidised wheat. How many additional Flankers, Fulcrums and Blackjacks will now be produced on the savings enjoyed by the USSR in buying cheap US wheat is a question worth further consideration.

More importantly to Australia, the US Export Enhancement Programme has cost us wheat exports of $A1. 7bn since 1986. Australia has in that time seen its share of the international wheat market drop by fully 10% while the US has increased its share, through throwing subsidised wheat at the market, of 14%.

The US Administration would do well to remember that Australia has fought alongside and supported it diplomatically more loyally than any other nation. To treat your allies in an uncertain world in this manner is nothing short of insulting in that a weakened Australian export capability will, and is, leading to a similarly reduced defence capability at a time when America needs all the allies that it can muster.

Is it not time perhaps that the US began paying a fair rent on its three key Australian military installations. Nurrungar, Pine Gap and North West Cape are all vital to the US defence effort and as such represent Grade One nuclear targets. Is it not time, as the US obviously couldn’t give, a damn about the fiscal damage caused to Australia through its subsidised exports, that we exacted a fair monetary return for their use on our soil?