Kharon said: I cant find the link now, perhaps someone could oblige, there was statement published explaining why CASA insisted on this, as policy; but I can't lay my hand on it. (DAS or Gibson ?? – memory still good, crap filing system).
Here you go "K"! You can check but I think you will be disappointed:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - 2011 Media Releases
Kharon just like so many robust discussions on FF policy and embarrassing faux pars, throw away lines and possible libellous sensitive documents I’d say this is one of many that has found its way into the ‘FF Shelfware Library’.
Can’t imagine how the catalogue system works but at a guess I think you would be looking for the miscellaneous 2 aisle. (NB Not to be confused with the miscellaneous 1 aisle which contains all the various versions of yet to be promulgated shelfware manuals like the SPM and Investigators Manual).
Ok now you have the MSC 2 aisle go to shelf two under shelf one labelled “DAS/CEO past and active” (which incidentally is probably where Mick Quinn got someone to get a copy of “Regulatory Policy- CEO-PN001-2004 issue No 3: CASA's Industry Sector Priorities and Classification of Civil Aviation Activities;”).
This will get you to the right page. Item 10 Mr. Bryan Aherne - Supplementary 3 – is well worth the small amount of trouble to download: 23 pages of solid logic, the sort one would 'normally' expect from a national safety authority.
BA’s other supps below that one are also well worth a read, although you will need several cups of coffee to stop your eyes glazing over with some of it. 
All good factual data and robust analysis backed up by solid research…pity BA doesn’t still have a guernsey at FF or ATSBeaker. However like other previous experts (Ben Cook etc) I think he wouldn’t have the necessary sociopathic tendencies to last very long and would be swamped by the GWM wannabes.
Also on the Senate Inquiry submissions page in the additional info section reference ‘Written_AQONs_280213’pdf, creamy will be pleased to know that Senator Fawcett confirms for us (the guy must read pprune!) the relevant version of Annex 13 applicable to the time of the accident is in fact…well let’s just go to the relevant AQONs:
Written Questions Taken on Notice – Australian Transport Safety Bureau from Public Hearing – Thursday, 28 February 2013
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Fawcett
1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.
ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.
2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.
ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
However I notice there is no retraction/apology letter forth coming from Beaker...which I guess comes as no surprise after all muppets are invertebrates!
On the subject of CAR265 enforcement actions leading to further threats of CAR269 action, I heard a rumour that some poor bugger was wodgered by Wodger Wabbit with CAR265 manufactured caveats on his instrument rating renewal…hmm how does that work when 265 appears to be applicable only to “licences and approvals” …nah can’t be true can it?? 
Doing a Kelpie and pondering the improper definition and apparent abuse of CAR265 and CAR269….