CASA 139/15 - Authorisation and permission helicopter winching operations (CHC Helicopters) [F2015L01445] - Advice only [2015] AUSStaCSDLM 203 (12 October 2015)

---

Instrument	CASA 139/15 - Authorisation and permission — helicopter winching operations (CHC Helicopters) [F2015L01445]
Purpose	Enables the conduct of helicopter winching operations conducted by Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd, trading as CHC Helicopters (Australia); and allows maintenance personnel and equipment to be winched by helicopter on or off an offshore platform or vessel
Last day to disallow	15 days after tabling
Authorising legislation	Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Department	Infrastructure and Regional Development
Scrutiny principle	Standing Order 23(3)(a)

Consultation

Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken in relation to a proposed instrument, particularly where that instrument is likely to have an effect on business. However, section 18 provides that in some circumstances such consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The ES which must accompany an instrument is required to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken (section 26). With reference to these requirements, the committee notes the ES for this instrument states under the heading 'Consultation':

Consultation under section 17 of the LIA [Legislative Instruments Act 2003] has not been undertaken in this case. The instrument is similar to other instruments issued to other operators who met the safety requirements.

While it is clear from this explanation that consultation was not undertaken in this case, no explicit explanation is provided as to why consultation was not undertaken, such that it was considered either unnecessary or inappropriate (as the case may be). In terms of complying with sections 17 and 18 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, the committee considers it would be better for the ES to have explicitly stated, with a supporting explanation, that consultation was not undertaken as it was considered unnecessary or inappropriate in this case.

The committee's expectations in this regard are set out in the guideline on consultation contained in Appendix 2.

The committee draws this matter to the minister's attention.