A specific case I was involved in quite a number of years ago, involved someone who had been charged and convicted of a crime but it was later determined their were some unusual circumstances - meaning that the fact of the criminal record was not, legally, a bar to holding an ASIC (it wasn't Qantas, but another major Australian airline) and the security department advised they did not want to issue an ASIC in any case. I was told at the time that they had to discretion to do so. One of them, an ex Police Officer, told me that the person would be working on what effectively would be the company's property and the company has even a common law right to refuse entry to anyone it sees fit but more specifically in this case, they just didn't want someone who had ANY sort of criminal record.

There is more and more evidence that psychopathy is directly linked to a deficit in connection between a critical part of the brain. The result is not just a lack of emotion but also poor outcome judgement, meaning decision making is compromised as well, hence the seemingly impulsive behavior. The part of the brain that controls emotion and makes you pause and think through actions is malfunctioning or just not connected properly to the other parts. This then leads to the thought that given enough technology you might be able to 'fix' such an individual. There are more and more recent studies proving the theory now that high resolution MRI is available. On sociopathy its really somewhere between normal and psychopathy, about a quarter of incarcerated ASPD diagnoses also fit the psychopath diagnosis. With a sociopath there is a genetic disposition that makes you more vulnerable to it, however the sociopath has a weak conscience (as opposed to the psychopath with little to none) so can be environmentally altered to right/wrong outcomes.

You can't deny an ASIC for other than the prescribed reasons, you can however have a work protocol that prohibits anyone with a criminal record. They are two different things. If someone is barred from an ASIC for improper reasons you can ask for a review and then take it to the AAT, this is all written in the transport security act so no company or individual can over-ride that.

(Not DFAT. Home Affairs. Used to be Transport, Cities, Communications X, Y, Q in its various names over the years.)

43”, two people who know the facts have tried to tell you the truth about the powers of the QF Group Head of Security. They are totally correct in what they have said and they can’t elaborate further for legal reasons.

Take it as a fact that the Head of Security can withhold the issue of an ASIC without having to give reasons and there is no appeal process.

Because this is not fact, if you go against an ACT of law you are in breach of it, so what is being said is complete tripe. You have the right to appeal and go to the AAT, the head of security can say and write whatever he likes, but you can challenge that in court via the ACT. If they are then found to be acting outside their powers, they will be in a very bad place and QF would risk losing their powers as an issuer. Large operators such as QF are already operating on dispensations as the main issuing bodies are supposed to be airports, but large operators are delegated authority to issue ASIC for expedience and convenience.

I doubt the pilot at the centre of all this willy waving over who knows what with ASICs is ever likely to be needing one any time soon.

Going Boeing, 43 et al….
You're both correct.
The Qantas Head of Security can deny the issuing of a Qantas ASIC without having to define a reason. He/She cannot stop an applicant endeavouring to obtain an ASIC elsewhere (such as AviationID Australia) but that ASIC will not be able to be used to access the secure area of any Qantas property.

An ASIC is not for private property access, its for access to security controlled airports and aircraft. An AUS (australia wide) ASIC grants me access to all security controlled airports across Australia, including QANTAS used parts if my job requires that. QF issued ASIC are just that, QF issued, there is nothing special otherwise, the same as Melbourne and Sydney airport issue ASICs, they are just the issuer. If you are referring to door access that's another thing, that's just a local control mechanism and in no way limits your access to work, just creates extra work if you don't have it. I think what people are confusing is access to property with ASIC requirements, QF could imprint electronic access to its facilities outside of airside secure areas, and of course that can be revoked at anytime. If an employee is removed from duty then the ASIC must be removed as it is no longer required for employment. But you cant go the other way around and remove an ASIC for no cause and then fire the employee because they can't hold an ASIC, unless its within the stated reasons. This is to prevent ASIC removal being used as a circumvent for discrimination.

It does sound whatever case happened there was either sound reasoning for the refusal, or, very poor legal representation. In any case a letter to the secretary of home affairs for review is the course of action should an ASIC be denied or cancelled, if he then refuses the issuance, it progresses to the AAT. If that procedure has not been followed a court wont be interested, and I don't think will get involved in any way as there is a prescribed procedure. Much like how workplace issues are resolved.

Anyone heard any more about that bloke who was accused of murdering that couple in Victoria?

No.

Apparently the validity of his ASIC and medical are more interesting

Technically we should not be talking about him at all, given he's now charged with murder and there is an ongoing investigation and upcoming trial most likely. The ASIC discussion and medical stuff were loosely related but not directly of interest to the case, anything more closely related should be discussed with the police and left from public view until the case and trial concluded.

We are talking about an accused pilot and his alleged crimes. Media do it all the time.

Sub Judice applies to any publication of material that could bias a juror. Publication is inferred by making any information 'publicly available', so posting on this site is considered publication of information.

Comments that infer past tendencies, work habits, aggression and similar that draw a picture of the person would be considered contempt of court. The site even warns that it may be frequented by the press who could promulgate such information and make it viewable to a potential juror. There are strict guidelines that apply to reporting on a case once the suspect is charged until the verdict delivered and possibly further if appeal is probable.

Those psychometric tests work really well.

Human remains have been found.
Regards R W

Media pick their way very carefully through a legal minefield with the advice of very expensive lawyers. Hence my earlier post quoting media without further comment.

You had 8 years to come up with a first post......and you blew it with that comment.

Didn't read like a personal theory :rolleyes:

I'm shocked the thread remains open!