To anyone not following the nuances very closely, your posts, along with some of the rubbish at the inquiry, read as though Australia did not promulgate the weather change at Norfolk which is simply not true.
At no time have I said that, or even hinted at it. I really don't know how you get that interpretation.
My point has been that Heffernan appears to be having a go at Harfield in this latest hearing, not about what the rules were or who was responsible for what, he is having a go at him
for having done absolutely nothing to fix it. To the good senators, it looks like CASA hasn't done their job, the ATSB - god knows what they are doing- they seem a bit lost about what their job is, AsA is saying "it isn't our responsibility" and the senators are getting a bit frustrated/exasperated. All these bureaucrats sitting around going "it's not our fault" and conveniently running lines that end with it being no-ones fault (except the pilots, of course), and them not having to actually
do anything differently in future.
If you think it can legitimately be done outside your own borders then please enlighten us all (that sounds sarcastic, but I genuinely would like to know).
OK, Norfolk is Australia. That's step 1. Accept that Norfolk is Australia, just like SY. Australia is getting someone else to do the airspace management at Norfolk. This happens by agreement, thru ICAO. Australia can ask to change the agreement to put in place FIS (hazard alerting) or whatever else Australia decides wants to happen at/inbound to Norfolk, to Australian standards (if that is currently not the case) with NZ, and then NZ to Fiji, or whomsoever else is required. If NZ politely declines to amend the agreement, Australia can lodge a dispute with ICAO, who can force agreement upon NZ, or Australia could even petition to take management of the airspace back (including an appropriate area around Norfolk to facilitate services). ICAO has a resolution system which can do that. In reality, most countries agree on such things without having resolution forced upon them.
States are voluntarily part of ICAO, but that membership infers rights on ICAO.
In practical terms, I'm sure Australia does not want to take over a big section of oceanic airspace- it costs money! These days, the way things are done is to put the onus on operators eg. Australia could require (thru normal air regs) the PIC of an operation inbound to Norfolk to calculate a PNR and obtain updated wx from Norfolk/sat phone/HF briefing/whatever at 30 mins prior to PNR. Doing so means your landing fee is $100, not doing so means it is $10,000. Or it could be an offence (and I don't want to start an argument about whether an offence can be committed over the high seas). But there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
Anyway, before we get too far off track- things can be done, and it appears no-one is doing them, nor has any intention of doing them.