I'm disappointed that nobody has yet added to this post except for one telephone call to advise that CAsA are immune from discrimination complaints because it is written in their charter. I had a feeling this was the case and hoped someone may highlight the relevant rule that makes them immune from transparency in matters of discriminatory treatment such as bastardisation, marginalization, incorrect interpretations, failure to define, selective opinions, personal vendettas, waste of taxpayer resources to prosecute until the defendant is bankrupt, compromising of personal evidence to prevent scrutiny or legal examination, extending proceedings to damage financially and generally misusing their authority for vexatious and petty vindictive pursuits.
If somebody can point to the relevant rule that makes them immune, please advise us all so we can contribute to the Brandis enquiry. Somebody then can start a new thread to concentrate on this upcoming event which may have more sway than the Truss WOFTAM which I'm guessing only served to gazump the Senate enquiry.
It's one thing having laws, but exemptions from the law don't sit well without strident examination and review.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 25th May 2014 at 02:12.
Reason: May the farce be 'with you' as opposed to against.