Sarcs:
SimonBl, I think you'll find the Hansard people are very good and will not miss anything!
I'm familiar with Hansard and have the utmost faith in the accuracy of the record.
FYSTI:
Would any retribution against witnesses not constitute contempt of the Senate?
The Chair and one or two of the Senators made it perfectly clear:
Senator CAMERON: It gets murky and murkier, I must say. Thank you very much. I have got to say that you are very courageous.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator CAMERON: We will certainly be watching very closely in relation to any action that may be taken against you. I indicate publicly that I am sure every Senator here—most of the senators here—
Senator XENOPHON: I think every senator.
Senator CAMERON: Every Senator? Is that the case? I hear some senators say they like AWAs.
Senator XENOPHON: No, no, but the disadvantage issue is a separate issue.
Senator CAMERON: The disadvantage issue is separate, okay.
CHAIR: Our standing orders of the Senate make it very, very clear: if you need our assistance you will contact us, but I know damn well you won't.
Senator EGGLESTON: This is a very serious matter that we have heard evidence about. I wonder what the role of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is—the overarching authority for aviation—in terms of the terms and conditions under which crew work? Perhaps that is something the committee should seek some advice about.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: We would also like to know the answer on that—myself, Michael and all our fellow colleagues out there.
Senator EGGLESTON: I am sure you would.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Most definitely. And we welcome it.
Senator EGGLESTON: And if we get advice, we will pass it on to you.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Eggleston. I just want to clarify. When I said, 'I know damn you won't.' I mean you damn well won't need to, because Mr Buchanan is a very responsible employer and I am sure he would love to hear if there is any breakdown in his occupational health and safety systems and to address them.
Mr Kelly: Thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: Just a couple of things to follow up. Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you told me before in your evidence that you were provided with emails from a number of flight attendants about their complaints. As I understand it, you have permission to provide that to the committee but not necessarily disclosing their names for public consumption. I do not know whether we need to discuss that with the secretary.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Cabin crew have asked me to ask the Senate to consider these emails without publishing their names or making their identities public at any stage.
CHAIR: We can take them in camera.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Okay, thank you.
Senator XENOPHON: There is one final issue, if I may.
CHAIR: Yes, you may.
Senator XENOPHON: Ms Neeteson-Lemkes, you gave evidence—when was it?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: 31 March.
Senator XENOPHON: Yes, it is a long time ago. Can you say whether the allocated work you have had has been about the same? You are not suggesting there has been any prejudice against you since that time?
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: There have been some questionable moments and times since my last appearance. It is sad that you cannot pinpoint a single person, but the behaviour one would deem quite odd—and I deem it quite odd myself.
Senator XENOPHON: There is an avenue you may want to take up with the committee if you consider you have been prejudiced.
Ms Neeteson-Lemkes: Correct.
This is what I found in Standing Orders, couldn't find any details (after a quick look) of any penalties, though:
Molestation of witnesses
(11) A person shall not inflict any penalty or injury upon, or deprive of any benefit, another person on account of any evidence given or to be given before the Senate or a committee.