I cannot be anything but deeply impressed by the brilliance of the bureaucracies’ response to the opportunity created by the recommendation that an MoU be established between ATSB and CASA. It has undoubtedly resulted in a chilling effect on the reporting of accidents and incidents to ATSB (hence the plea on the ATSB blog).
Outcome? Fewer recorded accidents and incidents, thus demonstrating that the system of aviation regulation and accident investigation is working.
I dips me lid to Dr Aleck. From his evidence to the Senate Committee on 15 Feb 13 [bolding and underlining in text added]
Dr Aleck: I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.
The fact that the provisions [of the MOU] read the way they do reflects a very appropriate form of reciprocity, in which the ATSB under its new leadership said, 'Yes, we will provide you with more information, and we expect you to provide us with the same.' In the spirit of that arrangement, and I agree it probably should be read largely, the question should that a default position should be: 'We'll give you as much as you possibly can and then you decide when we've given you too much.' ….
Who in their right mind would volunteer potentially prejudicial information to ATSB when the publicly-agreed arrangement is that it will presumptively be given to CASA?