That is the documented procedure. There appears to be a lot of argy bargy between the LAMEs and maintenance watch. If that is a problem then that is an internal engineering issue and nothing to do with flight crew - sort it out.
I have no issue with maintenance watch, they fill the mandated position as required by the regulator and often provide good advice and in all my dealings the guys are great.
I'm happy to be proven wrong - I've never seen that procedure you speak of..
But
Are you sure the procedure allows a
verbal instruction from someone sitting in Sydney to allow further flight with an aircraft with an open defect in lieu of what the LAME would do in the same situation ? As in that's the entire reason why LAME's exist in the first place and have a licence granted to them by CASA.
I can imagine a procedure exists so that any defects that occur en route/at an unmanned port need to be reported to maintenance watch for liasing with IOC, engineering rescue support etc. But that's it.
I think pilots need to be aware, a verbal instruction is as good as it never happening. One of the major facets of our trade is and one of Qantas's stated Maintenance Error Reduction Beliefs they like to display everywhere, is to 'only accept written instruction'.
Happy to be proven wrong though. Maybe its just my self belief failing me again.