Stewards – Part 1

Rob Scriven, Mark von Motschelnitz

Civil Aviation Authority

Ian Caplin:  Kia ora and welcome to the programme. You’re watching G-Reg, the Government Regulatory Practice Initiative. My name is Ian Caplin, and if you’ve just joined us for the first time, this is episode five of 10 in a series of webinars, which, taken together over October, and now as we find ourselves in November, form the G-Reg 2020 Conference. It’s the sixth annual conference for G-Reg, but the first that we’ve done this way. Our theme is the modern regulator and more on that in a moment. If you are new to G-Reg, G-Reg is the world’s first and only cross government professional network for users of state power. And I don’t mean electricity. I mean, the coercive, the facilitative, and as I say, possibly every episode, the anything else-ive powers of the state, based here in New Zealand.

And even at half time, webinar five of 10 in the series, it still is that. We also welcome viewers overseas in particular, but not limited to those representing the Australia and New Zealand School of Government, those watching us live, those watching us recorded and those watching us in public, because these do go out in public – wherever and whenever you are, you’re very welcome here.

The theme of this whole story arc of 10 webinars is the modern regulator, but it’s very much part of the case of this conference that you can view all 10 in any order and at any time, although they are interconnected.

We focus in this episode on stewardship and we have a 45 minute webinar and we can probably debate the meaning of regulatory stewardship for that 45 minutes. I don’t propose to do so here, simply to say that in a nutshell, stewardship really means and involves looking at government holistically, looking at a regulatory system holistically, identifying what’s in one’s environment as a regulator working in, across and beyond government and taking care and maintaining that, if I can put it this way, the estate. That kind of sounds a bit more like David Attenborough. But I think a more accurate contemporary commentator is perhaps the Dutch eurodance band Alice Deejay who 20 years ago were clearly contemplating the need for regulatory stewardship when they sang their chart topping single ‘Do you think you’re better off alone?’

If that doesn’t work with you, try the Beatles, who I think were probably exposing this more when they decided to sing ‘I get by with a little help from my friends’ because that really very much is the ethos of regulatory stewardship, working across and beyond government, but it’s not always easy. In fact, it can be something of a Hard Day’s Night. As our next guests are going to show, regulation, regulatory stewardship in an international environment in which our next guests work as well as the domestic environment, is very much not a game.  It can though sometimes be a bit of a jigsaw. And for our next guests who work at the Civil Aviation Authority in New Zealand, it’s the aviation jigsaw.

How did they solve the puzzle? Well, Rob Scriven and Mark von Motschelnitz from the Civil Aviation Authority join us in just a moment. They’ll tell you more about their roles and the aviation jigsaw and stewardship in that context. Before I introduce them to you more fully, please, members of the audience, do remember that you’re very free to ask questions and place them while the presentation is on foot at any time. Or if you have any comments. And we’ll pick them up afterwards. It very much is a family show and we do want to hear from you. So without further ado, Rob, and Mark, over to you.

Mark von Motschelnitz: Thanks Ian, I’ll kick off. As you say, I’m Mark von Motschelnitz with the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. I’m the Manager of International and Regulatory Strategy and today I’d like to thank you for allowing us to join you. I’m going to speak a little bit about the nature and the structure of the aviation regulatory system and some of the challenges that that presents to us as a risk based regulator and then I’ll hand it over to Rob, who’s going to speak about the transformation that the CAA has gone through to meet some of those challenges and things that we have in place for the future.

So if I could ask Mariam to cue the first slide.

So this slide is an illustration designed to capture a few ideas and initially, the thing that strikes most of us would be just the fact that it’s truly a global regulatory system.

The aviation system worldwide has standards that each state needs to try to align with, to the best of their ability and to try and influence each other in allowing access to international aviation markets. You can also see from this slide that it’s quite a broad stakeholder group. Some of those are within government within New Zealand. Some of those are within the industry itself. Others are overseas, whether they’re regulatory authorities or the International Civil Aviation Organization, but you can see that the CAA sits at the centre of that and the key input and output there being how we influence those stakeholders.

You could categorize those areas of influence into, say, three main spheres. There are relationships between the Civil Aviation Authority and the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO which are really designed to allow influence bidirectionally on international standards and that might be for standards for aircraft manufacturing, standards for aircraft operations, and the like.

Also relationships there that are illustrated are between the CAA and say, for instance, the Minister of Transport and the Ministry of Transport as well. And that would be for our ability to influence the types of policy and aviation regulatory environment that we operate in by way of civil aviation rules. And then the third element would be the relationship between the CAA and primarily the sector, the aviation sector.

So those are industry participants and that would be a relationship based on influencing for the purpose of safety and security. So the international system is really based on a set of standards that are agreed and accepted by all of the Member States – IKAO is a UN body.

New Zealand is a member of the treaty that applies to international aviation operations. So those standards that I mentioned before are specifications in some way and also about harmonized operational practices between states.

The challenge, I guess, that the system structure presents to us as regulators that it’s primarily a specification or standards based system, not often easy for a regulator who is set out to operate in a risk based environment or in a risk based way.

What we end up having to do is try and adapt those international standards into our system as best we can.

And the way that we meet that challenge really is illustrated there by the term influence. So what we’re trying to do is influence stakeholders throughout the global system in different ways to be able to allow us to perhaps get the type of standards that would best suit the New Zealand operational environment.

All of this takes place within the context of the regulator operating from the primary basis of looking after the public interest.

And that means that industry participants, as they would in all regulated sectors, would not necessarily always be satisfied with the outcomes. But that doesn’t mean that we’re not engaging with them throughout the entire process to get feedback from them on what types of policies and what types of rules would best suit our industry.

Another point would be that the aviation system is a closed system. No one – and this is a global application – no one can actually participate in the aviation system without going through a series of entry and certification requirements and the rules for aviation are actually drafted from a permissive point of view or a permissive language, meaning that someone is not allowed to actually do something within the system unless the rules permit it.

The approach that we take to managing some of these challenges in terms of the policy and regulatory tools that we develop is to put in place a structured process for analysing and developing that policy and that’s the most effective way of getting quality in our policy advice.

It’s often the case where we’re asked to measure the quality of our advice and the way

10 mins

that we do that is to lean on the strength of the processes that we use for developing that policy.

We’ve got one process, in particular, which is a process that we identify and we title ‘the issue assessment process’ – that’s really a triage level policy work process. It’s designed to help identify critical issues as they emerge and also to prioritize which issues we should progress and which ones that we should actually bump to the top of our list. That’s something that that we do on an ongoing basis and all of the outcomes from that policy development go on to a panel, which is made up of our senior executive who are there to be able to allow us to form one view – a CAA view – as to our position on a particular issue. Throughout that whole process we’re relying on engagement and consultation with all of the stakeholders that play a part, and allowing them to influence us on our decision making as we go.

With that, I’ll hand over to Rob to give a bit of an overview of the things that the organization has done to position us best for this type of environment.

Rob Scriven: Yeah, thank you Mark and kia ora, everyone. I’m Rob Scriven, I’m the Manager of the Operational Policy, Practice and Guidance Team. Yeah, as Mark said, we probably about five years ago we realized the need to shift in the way that we operated as a regulator, in particular, our stewardship role, so that shift from sort of prescription to performance based or risk based regulation meant that we really had to totally rethink about the way that we operate as a regulator and what we did to help create that that environment so that everyone could be engaged in that process, was generate this authority roadmap.

It’s really a sort of a vision on a page that, you know, the title of safe and secure skies to help New Zealand fly. The methodology behind this is really to have this as a tool to help generate narratives and have conversations with our staff around what their function is, what their role is, but just as importantly, what they can do to help shift the organization to a desired future state.

And what we did is we when we created this we had regular conversations, one on one plus one on small groups,just to talk through the narrative. And what I’ll do in this presentation is do an abbreviated version of that. Just so you can get a sense of some of the things that we discussed with our staff to help them understand the role that they can play to generate the right sort of social fabric and economic environment in New Zealand.

So what I’ll do, because it’s quite busy, I’ll ask Mariam to zoom in a bit, but on the top left hand corner is really it’s about the past.

And you can see there the two examples of the balloon, which is Carterton, and obviously 9/11 in relation to the security issues. So from our perspective, it’s recognizing that we can actually learn from the past. And both of these tragic events have been quite significant in shift in the way that the regulatory system has been created, but also the way that we work. And so we are strongly of the view that we can learn from the past and constantly learning and constantly changing.

I’ll shift over to the right hand corner of the map, which is about our aspiration for the system. So where New Zealand is located in the globe, clearly aviation is vital in terms of that global connection. Sadly, not at the moment with the borders closed, probably to our advantage, which is great, but in terms of, you know, the future, it is important that we generate an environment where the international system can trust the fact that we’ve got a safe and secure destination. So we want to generate New Zealand as being a destination of choice, not only for trade, but also for tourism and so that reputation of aviation system is absolutely vital.

And the way that we believe that we can create that is with our stewardship role. So if we move down the map, Mariam, please, to the

…yeah, that’s perfect. Thank you. So that represents the attributes that we require in an organization. And I’ll talk about in the next slide.

But that’s the future state and this this metaphor of a hologram of creating that type of the right sort of environment, so we can support the system and enable participants to do the to the roles that they need to do and generate a vibrant aviation system – that’s really what we’re here about

The other metaphor we use is around moving from today to the future. And if we go to the bottom left hand corner, Mariam, please.

And that’s the bridge. So we use the metaphor of a bridge of moving from where we are today to where we want to move to the future attributes, which I’ll talk to shortly.

And what we do when we talk to our staff, we mention the fact there are some clear strategies that we’ve developed, but there’s also some blanks on the pathways on the bridge, and that is because we haven’t got all the answers. And we really want our staff to help create the environment where those answers flow out. So it’s about generating the type of environment in our organization where innovation, new ideas, we try and test things. Sometimes we fail, but that’s okay because we can learn from it.

So the notion of being quite deliberate about our choices, not only choices around creating strategies for the future, but also deliberately saying no to something as well. So we use this this roadmap really as that opportunity for us to engage with our staff.

And the other item, which I think is worth picking out as well, is the cloud and the shoes and the stakeholders standing in the shoes where the…

so if you can go back to the roadmap please, Mariam…is where what we’re doing here. Sorry, just the left hand side. Perfect. What we’re doing here is actually standing in our customers or our participants’ shoes and thinking about what do they need from the aviation system.

Mark’s talked about some of the engagement processes we’ve got. There are numerous others. It’s really important that we see things from their perspective, whether it’s government, whether it’s the participants or whether it’s the traveling public, what do they want from a system and how as we as stewards of the system enable the system to enable those needs to be satisfied?

So it is about engaging with our staff, bring them along on the story and enabling them to actually contribute to a common goal. And that’s what this roadmap’s designed to do.

If we can move on to the next slide, please, Mariam. Thank you. So this is really about the type of organization that we want to create and we’re on that journey towards that that future state. It is about being risk based and intelligence driven. We want to be quite deliberate with our choices. It’s all about outcomes and not just the activities that we do.

But fundamentally, it’s about the importance of our people and our people are our greatest assets and we’ve spent a lot of time, energy and investment in enhancing their capabilities in order to enable those attributes in our organization to grow.

It’s also about ensuring that they’ve got a really safe environment to work in. That they’re treated appropriately, but also that they have rich and rewarding careers. So a real focus on investing in our staff.

Conscious of time, if I can move on to the next slide please, Mariam.

So, as I say, this is, the roadmap was created about four or five years ago. And there are a number of things that we’ve done since. So if we were to refresh the roadmap, we’d probably create a number of titles that were laid down on that bridge. And as you could see from a slide, it is about our people,  it’s about in enhancing our intelligence capability. It’s about treating our role as a profession its own right, so very much aligned with the G-Reg intention.

We’re very fortunate we have staff that we hire in from the aviation sector itself in terms of pilots and engineers and air traffic controllers. They see themselves as aviation professionals. What we want to do is to turn them into regulatory professionals. So it’s an it’s using all their amazing skill sets and experience and supplementing that

and that’s what those learning pathways are about, the occupational

20 mins

standards that we’ve created, but also having an assessment framework that that gives them the kudos of being able to demonstrate that they are on that pathway to become a professional regulator in its own right. So that’s a real focus for us and if we can move on to the next slide, please.

And as I say, this is continuously changing and recently we’ve identified a number of areas where we can do even better. And that’s what this slide is about. We’ve invested heavily in creating operational policy and practice to enable our staff to be able to do their job better. We’ve created a quality systems unit to ensure that we’re more efficient in the way that we work and that we can demonstrate that what we’re doing is adding value.

Likewise, we created a organizational system and performance unit, which is about testing whether or not our stewardship role has been effective. So the interventions that we’re carrying out, is it having the desired effect on the system? So, those, those are real capability building that we’ve introduced since July of this year.

The other area which is I think it’s quite neat is the Regulatory Interventions Unit. Now that is based on Malcolm Sparrow’s theory around picking important problems and fixing them. So this is quite new for us.

But we’re quite excited about this unit and it’s about identifying those aviation risks that need fixing, those emerging risks and arranging our resources around those particular risks and managing them as projects. So that’s quite new and early stages, but really quite exciting for us.

And the last thing, but not least is that we recognize that our best business systems are quite old. It’s actually still quite difficult for participants to interact with us digitally so we are going to replace that business system, so that will help participants to be able to interact with us better and more efficiently.

So this slide is a representation of recognizing that we are continuing on this journey and we need to continue to improve and we are hoping to see the fruits of these changes in the near future.

The last slide please, Mariam.

So this is really what we mean by professional aviation regulator. It’s about being really clear of the type of capabilities that we want in our workforce. For us, regulation is about influence and behaviour. So we are quite deliberate in terms of our decision making and the choices that we make in order to influence that behaviour. So we’ve got a real strong focus on the behaviours, which is the blue part of the triangle.

We want our staff to be systems thinkers. They need to be able to problem solve in a critical thinking type way but also have the ability to communicate and influence the participants that we regulate. So this has been quite key for us in terms of changing the way of thinking of our staff – professional pilots, engineers.

We want to shift them into becoming professional regulators and it is a different way of operating. So that’s recognizing that we can supplement the amazing skills that they’ve got to create a professional regulator, so that’s the last slide for me.

Yeah, really keen to answer as many questions as are tabled. Thank you.

Ian Caplin: Thank you very much, Rob, and thank you very much, Mark for an excellent presentation. I think there’s a number of things, like in all good presentations, you’ve got your favourite bit.

I particularly like the idea of the way that scene is set with the international framework up front, the international prescriptive framework, as Mark put it, and then the domestic risk based approach and reconciling the two, the idea of stewardship across all of those stakeholders, but straight away, and I think Rob, you focus on this in particular, it’s married into capability and you get everybody on board that’s, you know, forgive the pun, but in order to get airbone, you actually get a whole kind of staff on board.

How conscious was that as a decision to do because some agencies would just say we like working across and here’s the people that work across, but you sound like you’ve institutionally got the whole team energized for it.

Rob Scriven: Ian, absolutely, it’s a deliberate strategy. In fact, I can remember conversation with the leadership team at the time, were we talked about, you know, what’s our purpose and even across the leadership team, there was different views and people assumed that we all knew what the purpose was. So, absolutely, that’s the main advantage of that roadmap, is actually getting everyone on the same page to get them engaged with thinking about how they can contribute to that future state.

Ian Caplin: And to make it very clear what the aligned and indeed agreed purpose is and Mark briefly, to you, before I go to the audience who have, who are giving questions and giving a thumbs up to questions. So I’ll get out the way in a minute. I just wanted to ask one thing.

What was your, sort of, what practical tip, would you give for someone or institutionally someone who’s trying to basically, you know, marry domestic risk based scenarios and ways of analysing things with this international prescriptive framework that you have described – how do you even begin?

Mark von Motschelnitz: There’s a lot of complexity around that. But I think it hinges primarily on the fact that we definitely need to have the resources and the analysis in place that allows us to have one view.

We have a lot of engagement points in the international system, and some of them are very technical. Some of them are at a strategic level.

But in all cases the key to that would be to make sure that all of those engagement points are centred around our strategic priorities – the way that we do that structurally is we have what we call an Issue Review Panel and I mentioned that previously.

[inaudible] Senior Executives. We use that panel, not only to assess new issues that come through and that panel meets roughly on a five or six week interval. We use that panel to assess new priorities, but we also take the opportunity at each panel meeting to get them to take a look at our work program to make sure that it aligns with the priorities that that we have. So that’s a key element to the process of influencing if you don’t have one view, it’s very hard to know which direction to influence.

Ian Caplin: Absolutely. It’s a unity of view. Let’s go straight to the questions. The first one, and I can see members of the  you’re audience, democratizing this already, please carry on democratizing putting a thumbs up and you can gamify it, so that keeps whizzing up and down the screen and you can see me convulse occasionally. But while the questions are static, how do you ensure, goes this question, that decisions made by your decision makers within CAA take into account or consider possible potential impacts on the broader system. And we’re thinking of internal decisions about restructuring, new programs of work so Mark, perhaps first to you, decisions taken by decision makers, the reorganization, other kind of work programs. How do you ensure that they look at the kind of potential impacts on the broader system, particularly when you’re thinking about being a good regulatory steward.

Mark von Motschelnitz: Well, I suppose it comes back to the composition of that panel that I was referring to, to ensure that they’ve got a clear overview strategically of what’s going on, but also in practical terms of the impacts that any decision would have on the organization. So I guess what I’m describing is a way of making sure that the policy analysis that takes place is then tested at a higher level with the stakeholders and the project sponsors who see the impacts on the rest of the system. And there’s also, I should probably point out, a role in that panel for the industry. So one of the members of that panel is an aviation body representative group that allow industry input to feed in at all points.

Ian Caplin: Thank you – Rob, anything you’d like to add to that.

Rob Scriven: Yeah, I think the other aspect is we’re quite small. And so our size is actually our strength. So our ability to have those conversations, ability to make sure that everyone’s on the same page, is enhanced, because we’re all based at the same location and we have those regular conversations. And so when, you know, when we’re talking about the impact or the system and when units are making decisions, they can just simply speak to their colleagues next door and they can, you know, work through those processes. So that’s, that’s one of the real strengths of our organization that we’ve got that really collaborative approach, that cross functional working and ability to actually just go and speak to each other.

Ian Caplin: And the stewardship really arises from maintaining

30 mins

the regulatory system in peacetime as well as when something more unfortunate and serious has happened, and you’ve already pointed to the systems that you have in place internally and try to push that out and to sell it. Now, if I can put it that way. And that really links into our next question, which has a number of votes attached to it.

How did you – and it’s gone. There we are. It’s going thick and fast. How did you work with your staff. I’ve got it…to convince them that they were part of the regulatory community as well as the aviation community – is a really good question, if I may say so. Did they already need to or see the need, I should say, to upscale themselves as regulators. So it’s an identity crisis, potentially, we know we part of the aviation community. We work in the CAA. It’s slightly odd if we’re if we’re not. But actually, as regulators and as part of a community of regulators, how to get people to identify themselves in that way? Rob to you.

Rob Scriven: So when we created the roadmap, it wasn’t just a nice picture to put on the wall. It was a tool to help with engagement.

Ian Caplin: It is a nice picture though.

Rob Scriven: It is

Rob Scriven: Yeah it’s done by my 12 year old – no, I’m joking.

Rob Scriven: So basically, what we did was we had a deliberate strategy of having very small work groups. So every staff member went through them. And those groups were maybe, six, seven, we had a trained facilitator, who was also a staff member and a member of the senior leadership team. And basically, what we did is we had a structured conversation around the roadmap with the narrative and get people thinking about what they like about it – about the story – what they don’t like about it, but just as importantly, what they can do to help influence the change. And that was really fundamental in terms of getting them to actually think about that they can influence, how they can

change the organization to a to a future state. And I mentioned before about the blank lane on the capability building bridge.

That again was a deliberate choice because we haven’t got all the ideas and it was amazing, when we had this conversation, what great ideas came out from the workforce.

Ian Caplin: I think what’s also interesting about what you said and particularly the presentation was the idea of being a regulator and it aligns to what G-Reg stands for, being a professional calling, but you’ve also tied that up to being a good regulatory steward is, is almost an automatic product of being a regulator. It’s not something that, you know, the people upstairs do who work cross government. It’s actually everybody in your organization. It’s really pervasive. What, what do you say to that Rob.

Rob Scriven: I think if staff come into work and just simply doing activities or  tasks that their job will become quite boring quite quickly. So creating that line of sight between the how they can contribute to New Zealand’s prosperity. You know, that’s a big lump, big jump. But, you know, break that down into how that how that contribution is made is actually really quite empowering and that’s what we try and do is actually say to them ‘Hey, this, this is what you’re contributing to that has that effect and it has this effect and the outcome of that is x and y.’ So really creating that line of sight between their work and the organizational outcomes plus you know, thinking about it from a lead impact on the ovation system is really important.

Ian Caplin: Absolutely. And it’s a link worth making. Let’s go back to the questions, members of the audience, keep them rolling, keep them coming in. Question here. ‘I’m quite interested in the Regulatory Intervention Unit at the CAA. So, number of questions rolled into this, in fact, what’s the role of this team and what led to it, it’s genesis and how is it different from the CAA’s investigatory team or function?’

It goes on to talk about it’s a unit staffed in a way that reflects responsive regulation where perhaps most of the interventions are more education than coercion. There’s a lot in there. I’m going to hand it to you both tussle about who takes that one first. Over to you both, gents.

Rob Scriven: Shall I have a first go, Mark?

Mark von Motschelnitz: Yep, go ahead.

Rob Scriven: So it is quite neat, so it will evolve over time, but it’s about…So we’ve got a risk identification system called the Regulatory Safety Management System which is about units on a regular basis, discussing the aviation risks that exist currently plus the emerging ones. And what we do is we have those units come together and then there’s a panel that looks at those risks in a broader sense.

What we want to do, what we found out was that these risk will identify, but it’s actually quite challenging to put the resources against them because of all the other imposts on those resources. This is about ring fencing resources to have a look at emerging risks and designing interventions that fit that particular risk. So depending on the problem that’s identified will determine how we interact and that might be education or it might be a combination of some inspection or monitoring activity, plus a strategy that that looks at prosecuting for a particular theme, so the intervention will be designed according to the problem that’s been identified and as part of that we will come up with matrix as to how that problem is being monitored and so that we can in a project management sense, we can gauge how we’re progressing against mitigating that risk. So it’s a unique intervention, according to the problem that’s identified

Ian Caplin: It’s interesting and it is quite the bespoke and tailored. And I think to you, Mark, given what you said, you’re reconciling a risk based bespoke regime of interventions with essentially a top line international set of prescriptive standards, how do you deal with that?

Mark von Motschelnitz: I think that that is our challenge, I suppose, and it’s all about aligning ourselves and working with other like minded states, I suppose, if we’re trying to influence the international system.

I might make a just a point to add to Rob’s comment around the intervention team. So that team is focused on a lot of the same type of initial problem solving that say the policy team is faced with. I think the key distinction within our organization is that the policy team is focused on interventions that might require a new regulatory tool. So we perhaps might need a new rule or we might need to develop some sort of amended procedure or amended primary tool that’s available to the operational workforce, the interventions team itself is developing interventions primarily within the set of existing regulatory tools.

If they identify a situation or a problem that requires a new tool that then gets referred back into the regulatory policy development process. So they complement each other in that way. Together we’re picking out the key problems in the system and then aligning those with the priorities that we have that we may take to the industry or take internationally for for discussion.

Ian Caplin: I think I can probably rechannel my David Attenborough to say that it’s a bit of a symbiotic relationship there, but we were looking at and when you’re looking at that and in the round, and it ties in slightly to our next question, which has a number of votes again – thank you very much, members of the audience for doing the voting too, there’s lots of voting going on in the world at the moment…could you give an example of what a shift from standard setting to performance based means in practice for the front line, and how does this look from a perspective of the general aviation operator. And I guess it just picks up a little bit, Mark on what you were saying about the difficulties with prescription. Rob, I’m going to ask you this one first. The front liners. How do they take this?

Rob Scriven: So it has been quite challenging, to be fair, to shift the thinking, it’s not an easy task. But there’s been a really good example in relation to Rule Part 100, which is safety management systems. And that’s, you know, work that Mark and his team has done in creating that rule. It is a role that is pretty much performance based. And what we need to do is to…our staff had to shift from prescription to that performance based in terms of their assessment around how well an operator is managing their safety performance. So that has been quite a significant amount of effort in terms of training, significant amount of effort in terms of coaching and significant amount of effort in terms of assessing staff so that they’re able to operate in that that environment.

But they have to think quite differently. They need to think about, not about whether a particular rule has been complied with, but around the performance of the operator from a safety perspective and that’s quite different, obviously.

Ian Caplin: And also, I guess from what you’ve both said, the stewardship is pervasive as well, so they have to think about the entire effect on the sector.

Rob Scriven : Absolutely

Ian Caplin: With all this and I guess the background,

40 mins

the question and it’s a final question, sadly, we are running out of time..Did your transformation require, briefly, any legislative changes or review of a standard that you work to and wondering if this transformation, the question says, was limited to investing in staff capability to do a better job or something more. So what was it all about. Briefly from each of you, Rob first.

239

00:43:16.290 –> 00:43:36.120

Rob Scriven: So I’ll do that the latter part which was, I did focus a lot on people. But there was also investment in terms of our processes and our and our procedures. So yeah, it was, I deliberately had the presentation around people focus, but it was broader. Yes, so there are other systems improvements that we’ve made.

Ian Caplin: OK. Mark, anything to add to that.

Mark von Motschelnitz: Well, I would just add that I support what Rob is saying in terms of moving our workforce to being more focused on being professional regulators, we’ve got a lot of aviation expertise, technical expertise and positioning ourselves to work in a performance based environment is not necessarily in line with what some of our staff have been used to perhaps in their prior career. The aviation system is inherently prescriptive in a number of ways. And it will likely remain that way. There are certain specifications for aircraft manufacturing or aircraft operation that we would definitely want to keep in a prescriptive form and most of the performance based rule development or most of the risk based thinking around regulatory development, it’s really kind of aimed at organizations where they’ve got the systems in place, quality systems in place, safety management systems in place that can actually support a risk based environment and that’s a, that’s where it becomes not only the responsibility of the regulator to shift in that direction, but also the industry as well.

Ian Caplin: And very much better together. And that’s a nice place to leave it. Thank you very much, Mark, and thank you very much indeed, Rob.

In the closing seconds a poll is about to wind its way towards you, members of the audience, for you to please fill in. And it broadly asks what your views are on regulatory stewardship and how they’ve been affected by watching this webinar, please do fill that in. Is there one thing you can do, after this webinar today and every day however great or small, to be an even better regulatory steward. We carry on the theme of stewardship next week, please do stay tuned – and we will be ultimately I think I’ve said this a couple of times – releasing the back catalogue of these webinars. We’re not doing it immediately because we prefer to incentivize having you here live so that we have all these lovely questions coming, we can have a terrific two way as we did with Mark and Rob. Thank you, gentlemen, once again. Do please have a shot at that poll.

Please also do look at the G-Reg website where there’s plenty of information about the work of G-Reg, if you’ve got anything that you’d like to ask us, please do get in contact with us via the website. That’s it for now. Until next time, from all of us here, many thanks and ka kite ano.

ENDS