manwell,
I think that you have misinterpreted the purpose and intent of these BASI editorials.
If you refer to the conclusions of the 1991 report, part of the conclusions is:
Pilots and ATS personnel should be made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the psychological factors which can reduce a pilot's effective visual field. Pilots may be trained to scan more effectively and to accomodate to an appropriate distance when searching for traffic
These editorials go same way in addressing the above conclusion, but in no way promote the increased reliance of see-and avoid in Australian airspace as the (NAS 2b effectively does) but merely as a
final level of protection , and therefore in no way represent a 'backflip'by BASI.
Sincerely, I would like to know on what basis you consider the report to be 'intellectually dishonest' and would appreciate it if you would provide some facts or links to site(s) or reports to support your argument and/or counter the BASI reports' conclusions.