The regulatory philosophy
consists of 10 principles that underpin CASA’s approach
to its regulatory responsibilities. If we don’t demonstrate by example what it means to be
a responsible regulator, it’s going to be
that much more difficult for us to expect that operators
are going to demonstrate by example what it means to be a safe operator. The key elements
of a healthy regulatory culture are, perhaps first and foremost,
a just culture, but equally important,
I guess I would say, would be to be clear and consistent in the things we say
and the things we do and that there should be
an alignment between the things we say
and the things we do. We should explain,
as specifically as we can, the reasons why we’re doing things, so that people can understand
what the basis of our actions are and challenge them
if they need to be challenged. It’s important
that we are consistent, but it’s equally important
that we’re flexible where that needs to happen. I think many of the principles have been part and parcel of the way
we’ve done business for many years. I think the philosophy
shines a new light on them, gives them a new prominence and in some cases, I think,
gives them a new significance in the daily practice
of regulatory responsibility, but, by and large,
I think it’s part of the fibre of what a good inspector
is meant to be. The principles
that underpin just culture are part and parcel
of our regulatory philosophy. I won’t say
they’re one and the same, but they’re
very, very closely related. Just culture, fundamentally, is a person will not be
punitively dealt with for an honest mistake
that’s consistent with the level of their training
and experience if they’re forthcoming about
what happened and how it happened, so that the operator
can learn from what happened and prevent it from happening again. All variations of the just culture
principle make it clear that people are accountable
for what they do, but they’re also responsible
for conduct which is deliberate, intentional, wilful, grossly negligent, reckless. That kind of activity is not meant to be protected
by a just culture regime. So whether it’s a disciplinary action
within an organisation or enforcement action by CASA, if there was a deliberate intent
to do something which is unsafe
and, in our case, unlawful, then a person can expect to be
dealt with punitively if that’s what needs to happen. My feeling, though,
is that nine times out of ten, that’s not what’s called for
and that’s not the way an organisation or a regulator
should respond. OK, a regulatory philosophy
dovetails quite neatly into a safety management approach. CASA doesn’t fly airplanes or maintain airports
or maintain aircraft. Its primary responsibility
is to conduct regulation. To the same degree
that operators are meant to put safety
at the forefront of their mind in everything they do
in the conduct of their operations, we have to put
sound, sensible, responsible, risk-based regulatory principles
at the heart of everything we do.

Tagged : # # # # #

One thought on “CASA Safety Video – CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy”

  1. Can you do another video to describe precisely what has changed within CASA since the Administrative Appeals Tribunal found in 2015 that you had been vindictively prejudicial in your enforcement action taken against Mr. Nagid Fadlalla in Perth?

    Like now, CASA claimed to be proponents of a "just culture." But the AAT found scant evidence of that, castigating CASA for denial of procedural fairness, disregarding evidence, and for behaving as if it had a vendetta against its target.

    The AAT decision is here, in case anyone wants to contrast CASA's promotional materials about "just culture" with their actual behaviour.

    Restating my original question: What, in detail, has CASA changed about its behavior as a result of losing that AAT case? It's all very well to SAY these things, but what are you actually DOING, and why should your stakeholders trust you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *