Battling bureaucracy

While there have been some welcome developments within CASA, such as a generally more cooperative face, it seems that when push comes to shove, old habits die hard.

There are a range of projects now underway that are both sucking CASA and industry resources away from mainstream regulatory reform, and reinforcing the way CASA used to do business before the Standard Consultative Committee set up a process to guarantee early consultation.

For example, CASA’s proposal for a six monthly survey of industry is all its own work and many in industry are scratching their heads at having to provide CASA with the same information two or three times. Either CASA does not understand it already holds much of this information (or can get it from other government agencies that demand it), or its management is simply too lazy to put its own house in order before burdening industry and already time poor operators with another non-safety related task.

The argument has been put forward from CASA that such a survey “would only take a few minutes, especially if you are in aerial work” – but this completely misses the point.

There are literally hundreds of government agencies out there that require “just a few minutes”. Overall, “just a few minutes” makes small business owners feel as if they are working for the government rather than themselves.

In the aerial application sector we are required by law to keep comprehensive records of every single job, we are required to keep close control of inventories, we have to have state government dangerous goods compliance, we have to comply with fair trading requirements and, of course, many demands are different between states – just dandy if your operations straddle a border. And this is on top of the normal business costs associated with ASIC, ATO, OH&S, CASA and of course the surveys for ABS.

No-one begrudges an organisation the information it genuinely needs to do its job, but when they propose to get that information by penalising industry for CASA’s own inefficiency, then it should come as no surprise when industry rejects that proposal.

Business people who have to operate in the real world can spot laziness and inefficiency a mile off, and CASA is certainly making itself a big target for this accusation at the moment.

It seems someone has forgotten why we came into this swamp in the first place.

CASA needs to refocus on safety – simpler regulations, safety promotion and better field intelligence and action on real safety threats.

Regulatory simplification needs new life breathed into it. CASA regulations Parts 61 (licensing), 91 (general operating rules) and others such as 133 for helicopter operations are long overdue and a lot of work has already been done. The fact that Part 137 is now being used without the sky falling in is proof that it can be done. Small, tightly focused working groups that have industry at their core is the proven way forward.

Safety promotion should move from CASA doing things to CASA helping industry associations do things.

Professional associations are in touch with their members, have tailored programs to meet industry needs and risks and are orders of magnitude more efficient in delivery than government.

For example, AAAA has developed a chief pilot’s course (and already run two validation courses) to give chief pilots the skills they need to manage safety. CASA has neither assisted nor recognised that crucial safety program, despite it being far superior in safety outcome to CASA’s time-intensive chief pilot interview process.

Never mind moving people to Brisbane or elsewhere – the real issue is how a bureaucracy relates to the people it is regulating and whether it is efficient and has systems that can provide a quality outcome – consistently.

In the case of CASA, this appears a perplexing challenge.

Industry manages to deal happily with thousands of clients every day, and we generally get it right – why shouldn’t CASA be held accountable to the same standard? The only way to battle unwarranted cost and interference of bureaucracy in your business and your industry is to support an industry association that takes the fight up to the bureaucrats and demands the same standards of them as they would happily inflict on others. Often it is what industry associations are able to avoid for you that provides the real value in supporting them.

Elections may come and go, but rust and bureaucrats never sleep – even in a drought. r Australian Aviation is proud to be the official supporting journal of the Aerial Agricultural Association of Australia. The views in this column are those of the AAAA, and not necessarily Australian Aviation’s.