From page 4 of the Hansard for the 28/02/2013 public hearing:
Senator FAWCETT: So the head of power, if you like, that you use to constrain how you do accident investigation is the statement from the minister? It is not a piece of legislation. It is not an act. It is not a regulation. It is a statement from the minister. I am not criticising but saying: that is the fact?
Mr Dolan: What I am saying is that section 12AE of the Transport Safety Investigation Act says:
The Minister may, by written instrument, notify the ATSB of the Minister's views on the appropriate strategic direction for the ATSB.
And, subject to another section, which relates to our independence, so it is an interesting balance, 'the ATSB must have regard' to such a notification. 'Having regard' actually has quite a significant legal force.
Senator FAWCETT: I understand that.
Mr Dolan: That is the basic legal mechanism that is in play here.
Senator FAWCETT: Can you provide a copy of that statement?
Mr Dolan: Yes. As I say, it is available publicly on the website, but we are happy to get a copy to the committee.
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Where it says 'the ATSB's highest operational priority' is to 'fare-paying passenger transport operations', in practice what does that actually drive? Does that drive the scope of investigations to other forms of aviation? Does it drive your priority, as in when you get around to it, or both? What is the practical impact of that?
Mr Dolan: The practical impact is that it drives priority with always limited resources. It has the potential to drive scope. And it leads to a world where we have a tension between the annex 13 requirement to investigate all accidents and a range of significant occurrences and a government expectation that the resources of the organisation will be more focused on the fare-paying passenger than that broader annex 13 requirement. We are always conscious of our annex 13 requirement to investigate a whole range of matters, so scope and attention are driven to a considerable extent by that government policy but always conscious of our other responsibilities.
It would appear that ATSBeaker is beholden to Albo’s circus troupe (a) for funding and (b) because… “so it is an interesting balance, 'the ATSB must have regard' to such a notification. 'Having regard' actually has quite a significant legal force.”
So much for the ATSBeaker being an 'independent investigator'!
Sorry "K" I butted in there!!
Kharon said: Pretty slippery – research indicates an apology or retraction required, methinks.
Good point as the evidence shows the decision by Beaker to abandon salvaging the black box for 'budgetary reasons' was well and truly made prior to the 18/10/2010:
8 December 2009: E-mail from ATSB to CASA raising the possibility of contributing to a joint fund sharing arrangement to recover the black box and CASA advised they didn’t have the necessary funds.
Oh there's so much more mischief and fun in this transcript & AQONs tabled..yippee..hmm..I don't think Beaker will be able to sit down for a week!!
