PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011 (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a.html)

601 29th Jun 2013 07:03


Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.
Not quite true. There are operators and providers who are developing procedures for the implementation of this as we write.

If this is disallowed, there goes 2 months work for nothing:ugh:

Is there any way we can get a dis-allowance motion on CAsA:D

Sarcs 29th Jun 2013 08:08

Senate House of review and government not governing!
 
Creamy said:

I’ve been asked what my solution is. I’ve said it frequently: Elect independents. Australia needs lots, lots more like Nick Xenophon, so that the Federal government once again takes responsibility for governing.

And there in lies the major problem with the current Labor/Green alliance government…they maybe proud of the huge volume of legislation passed through Parliament but have they afforded most of these passed bills proper parliamentary ‘due process’? Not according to Senator X they haven’t (Senate Hansard 28/06):

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (11:47): I say this more in sorrow than in anger, but—yet again—we have another bill that is going to be rammed through without adequate scrutiny. We had amendments last night to the Fair Work legislation, which one of the architects of the Fair Work legislation—Professor Andrew Stewart, from the University of Adelaide—expressed serious concerns about. There was no committee stage for that bill. There was no appropriate scrutiny. Who knows what chaos will ensue from the provisions of that bill for both employees and employers alike around the country?
Here we have a bill that is being rammed through. My contribution will be less than five minutes, because we only have another 11 minutes for the entire debate, to allow other senators to contribute. What has happened here this week is a disgrace. It is absolutely appalling that the house of review has been reduced to a rubber stamp. We have a situation where we cannot have any amendments being passed by this place, because—if we do—the House of Representatives has got up for the winter session.
Senator Cormann interjecting

Hmm..the rubber stamp comment sounds oh so familiar:confused:…but then Sen X continues to vent his spleen:=:

Senator XENOPHON: Senator Cormann says that we should. I take that interjection, because we should. We are meant to be a house of review. We will not have any committee stage to go through these issues. What beggars belief and what I cannot get my head around is that my colleagues the Australian Greens—who I have had a good and respectful working relationship with for a number of years now—have voted for this. I do not get it. I just do not get why they have gone down this path. It completely contradicts what Senator Bob Brown said back in 2005, during the Howard government, when they used the guillotine. But the Howard government, when they used the guillotine, were amateurs compared to what we have seen right here this week. This is disgusting. It is nothing short of disgusting….

….. But I say again: for goodness sake, let's never, ever do this again. Let's never, ever see a situation where 55 bills have been rammed through and where decent scrutiny has been completely abrogated. It has made a travesty of the parliamentary process. This is appalling. Every Australian should be concerned about this. If I am ever in a position where my vote would count on this—if I am re-elected in a few weeks time; if the people of South Australia entrust me with being in the Senate again—I tell both sides and my friends on the crossbenches that I will never be party to something like this ever again. What we have seen this week is completely and utterly disgusting….

This speech was also tag teamed yet again by the good Senator Fawcett:

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (11:53): I, too, rise to speak to these tax bills. As Senator Xenophon has very clearly articulated, the people of Australia should be deeply concerned by the process, the substance and the promise of what these bills mean for Australia. Senator Xenophon and my colleagues have highlighted the process. We have seen, this week, 55 bills rammed through by the Greens-Labor alliance. In the whole three years when the Howard government controlled the Senate there were 32. In the time that the Greens-Labor alliance has controlled this place there have been well over 200.
For those who are listening to this broadcast, the consequence of this process being applied is that due diligence is not performed.
The committee stage, which is the stage where—unlike in second reading debates both in the House and here—senators can go through legislation line by line and question the minister time and again to expose unintended consequences, is absent. So this house of review, which is meant to ensure states' rights and to make sure that legislation has due diligence applied, has been cut out of the process by this government in its dying days. The substance of the bills is broad, and it should be deeply concerning to people that there is no due diligence being applied.
Looking at schedule 1 of the Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill, which appears to be a minor issue in terms of the monthly PAYG instalments, that was not introduced for any good policy reason. That was not introduced to try and support small business or make things more effective. That was introduced because the government hoped to claw back money over the forward estimates in their failed attempt to deliver a budget surplus. So pure politics drove that. Pure politics has made life harder for small business. Small business is what generates jobs in this country.
We have seen that approach by the government—driven by short-term, poll-driven politics—not only result in them changing prime ministers twice but impact on small business, jobs and things like defence. We have seen exactly the same approach in the Department of Defence at estimates. The department have admitted on the public record that the government's drive for a budget surplus has caused them to make decisions that are not in the national interest.
This is not a government that can be trusted for Australia's future, either for our children in terms of jobs, for the economy, for national security or even for things like the incentives—things that theoretically should be good. Here one of the schedules is 'Incentives for designated infrastructure projects' to try and encourage private investment. In principle that sounds like a good thing, but the coalition has concerns about the extent of the discretion that is being given to the coordinator of infrastructure. We only have to look at the 'Bob Brown memorial trust' that was set up by this government—where they make arbitrary, ideological decisions as to where taxpayers' money will be allocated as opposed to scientifically based decisions with a good business case—for us to say, 'We have concerns.'
But the process that has been adopted by this Labor-Green alliance has cut out the opportunity for us to take the government to task on this line by line and to move amendments, as Senator Xenophon has highlighted. The fact that they are putting this through on the very last day of the sitting of this parliament, when the House of Representatives have already risen and gone, means that, even if we were given the opportunity to do due diligence and have a committee stage, there would be no point because no amendments would get up. So the Australian public will have to wear more wasted taxpayers' money, more bureaucracy and more things that will threaten equity and fairness in this nation.
We are coming into a period where the Australian people need to make a choice. There are lots of other measures here I could talk about in the bills, but in the one minute and 50 seconds I have remaining to talk about this it is important to talk about the impact of taxation. Taxation is about the government saying, 'We need a revenue base and we need to have spending for the public,' and we all understand that. But the thing that the public must choose when they choose a future government is who will spend that money wisely. They only have to look back over the last two groups of governments to understand the choice they have.
Going back to the Howard government, in 2007-08 there was a $19.8 billion surplus. In this year's budget there is an $18 billion deficit. Under the Howard government, in 2007-08 there was $44.8 billion in the bank. That is savings. That is what we teach our children to try to do. Under this government, there is $178 billion in debt, and they are on their way to $340 billion of national debt. Under the Howard government the banks and others were paying us interest—$1 billion a year in earnings. Under this government, there is $7.8 billion in interest payments alone. Imagine what that could do for building infrastructure, for giving incentives for jobs, for building a future for our children. When the people of Australia decide on the next government, remember these figures because they are the true indication of who you can trust with Australia's economy; who you can trust to set fair, equitable and effective tax rules; but, most importantly, who you can trust to be the adults who will spend your hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely and effectively. (Time expired)

{Note: I know..I know Creamy you’ll say that speech was..“purely politically driven”…}

OK so much for proper governance from the former Gillard government how much better or worse an Abbott led government would be remains to be seen but at least they won’t be beholden to the Greens…:ugh:

Here’s a thought..perhaps a good litmus test for the new 44th Parliament in the Senate would be allowing proper ‘due process’ and scrutiny of the CAO 48.0 instrument? It seems to have perked enough interest from more than the usual crowd of aviation safety concerned Senators….:E


ps 601 well perhaps FF should have got it right in the first place...embuggerance indeed!:ok:

004wercras 29th Jun 2013 12:06

Ventus45, nice bit of research and a great in-depth read. Kind of brought back childhood memories so to speak. Took me to a time when accident investigation was a specialised respected field, back before Bureaucrat Commissioners were so far up the Ministers ass you can only see their toenails, back when Alan Stray was in his prime, Kym Bills was kicking goals and we were proud to assign a high level of respect to to the Investigative body.

Sarcs, superb my friend superb. Two succinct quotes from two astute Senators which simply cannot be ignored. These two blokes hit the frickin nail on the head. We have dumb ass Politicians making monumental decisions based upon a tick and flick system - no research, no analysis, no discussion, just sign off any old **** and let's get out of the office and find another trough.
I think Senators Xenophon and Fawcett should receive some kind of bloody award for their tenacity, commitment, ethics and transparency. These blokes well and truly have fuzz on their fruit :ok: I can only imagine the grief and despair they must cause their 'not so transparent' colleagues who have adopted the bluff and bluster, polish the turd and spin spin spin work ethic.

Keep up the work good Senators, call the riff raff out and 'keep the bastards honest'. Jee, wouldn't it be nice if the work of Senators like these two saw a decline in the depth that our nation is being buggerised? Yep, this weeks chocolate frog award and two blue ties goes to Nick and David. :ok:

Kharon 29th Jun 2013 20:19

Not for nothing.
 

601 # 2201 –"There are operators and providers who are developing procedures for the implementation of this as we write. If this is disallowed, there goes 2 months work for nothing"
To have an existing operation spending time and effort 'developing' new procedures for an ancient problem, clearly shows why an urgent change of regulatory reform attitude is so desperately needed. An operator forced to provide extensive written prescriptions to ensure compliance with the "rule", rather than make a small adjustment to existing company guidelines developed to combat fatigue. The guidelines are not there to provide 'compliance'. The reason for the rule is safety, the outcome should be minimised fatigue risk as an integral part of the overall safety equation, not some half assed notion of being 'seen' as in (subjective) compliance.

The 601 quote should be the title for the Senate 'short inquiry' into the reform process. For my two bob it defines the all of the issues and supports Creamies call for the government to govern. Perhaps, the important issue will finally be combating fatigue; not micro managing prescriptive the rules to a fare thee well, but a sensible, considered application of rule, providing a framework from which an operator can develop a 'tailor made', legally compliant policy, which will protect the public from exhausted crew. It is good to know that the Senate actually paid attention. Well done Sen. Rhiannon, nicely argued.

A decent rule set for fatigue (IMO) only need provide framework; in an ideal world the operators policy should reflect a system based on an in depth analysis of 'their' operation. Then when an amendment to the rule turns up, it is only a matter of fine tuning the existing operating policy to ensure compliance with any newly hatched, scientific or legally defined reason.

A problem for all is the individual, subjective nature of personal fatigue and defining when and how the fatigue chameleon will strike. Then, there are the human nature elements; on both sides, which will exploit any system to suit. Producing a 'system' which covers as many of the negative angles as possible is not a job for whoever happens to laying about office with the odd few moments to spare. Crew fatigue, presents, I believe, a very subtle, complex and oh so human series of closed loop equations.

Increased risk, associated with poorly managed fatigue issues cannot be resolved with a blunt instrument designed to ensure safe prosecution, rather than safe flight. If we are to have 'prescription', let it be to prevent 'human nature' exploiting the situation, prevent 'fatigue' being used as a 'sicky' (because some will) or being used to the maximum advantage obliging a fatigued crew to keep operating (because some will).

The subject is worthy of our best consideration and effort. Anyway – ramble over; well done the FawX team; perhaps we can now have a sensible, open, informed discussion on fatigue rather than having some pensioners home spun version, defining that 10 minutes over the arbitrary line in the sand is a heinous crime rammed down our collective throats.

Prince Niccolo M 30th Jun 2013 01:11

Disallowance of CAO 48.1 etc
 
Sarcs,


Which leaves plenty of time for Parliament to properly review/repeal/amend certain parts of the instrument.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif
As far as I know, disallowance means "all in or all out" - they don't disallow "certain parts".

If disallowed, it goes back to the instrument maker to change the offending bits, but two things affect the level of Parliamentary scrutiny: the depth of analysis during the debate and the overall level of Parliamentary interest. The recent commentary by NX and DF on the guillotine suggests that pilot fatigue will not get any real attention, particularly as the Lib/Nats approach Government when they will automatically protect "their" safety regulator.


601 # 2201 –"There are operators and providers who are developing procedures for the implementation of this as we write. If this is disallowed, there goes 2 months work for nothing"
The framework is essentially the same as the standard industry exemptions - the main differences are the numbers and the level of continuous compliance. Like Kharon says, the procedures should be largely unchanged. However, given that CASA, through the 'operator obligations', has ensured that all AOC holders are being forced into either FRMS 'lite' or the full bit, every AOC will have specific numbers less than the published maximum numbers. Of course, the level and quality of CAA oversight combined with guessing how much and how often those numbers will be less than those apparently available (but not really!) is the new replacement for Tuesday Lotto - expensive and low probability for success!

Wouldn't it be nice if the CAO 48.1 stuff was happening because the ATSB had reviewed the fatigue science and concluded that CASA had missed a few bits :{ :ugh: :eek:

Kharon 30th Jun 2013 01:33

Or else.
 
Creamy – any chance of one of your famous 'potted' explanations of the 'disallowance'. I don't and I am sure many others, don't 'get it', at least not all of it, completely. It would be 'counter productive' to ass-u-me any benefit; if, as PNM points out, the new paymasters move to protect "their" watchdog's bowls; full of left over bits from the creator of the Frankenstein monster....:eek:

Or else, we'll have to sool Brother Sarcs onto the job – and more reading will occur than is healthy or desirable for the older, more wooden heads....:D

601 30th Jun 2013 05:08


The framework is essentially the same as the standard industry exemptions - the main differences are the numbers and the level of continuous compliance
The last word in the above quote is the crucial word. It has got to the stage where an operator has to show compliance to the inth degree.

For instance, there are 13 checks for determining the length of an "off duty period" and 8 checks for a "flight duty period." That is only for single shift in daytime at home base.


Once again we get back to the particular officer "accepting" the method of compliance.

Creampuff 30th Jun 2013 06:16

The Senate publishes the recognised ‘bible’ on Senate practice – Odgers’ - here: Odgers' Australian Senate Practice Thirteenth Edition ? Parliament of Australia

Chapter 15, titled ‘Delegated legislation and disallowance’ is a ‘must read’ for those who want to understand disallowance. :ok:

Sunfish 30th Jun 2013 19:30

My guess from the fullsome praise of Rudd in the Murdoch press is that Rudd and Albanese are going to sell him the national broadband network.

Kharon 30th Jun 2013 19:39

Carefully and on tip toe.
 
Ahem – (modest drum roll) My L,L & G: introducing Disallowance Section 42 (1) of the LIA.

Thanks Creamy, duly bookmarked, learn something new etc....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/thumbs.gif
Although, the old "wish I'd never asked" thought creeps in (cursed bloody curiosity bump). Strange stuff at first glance, interesting though once you get a 'feel' for the words. I like the apparent lack of 'urgency' and the feeling of 'latitude' in the words; at face value it does not seem overly 'complex'. No doubt a first year law student would make mincemeat of me in a debate, but then that's not my indaba.

Anyway nothing ventured etc. and no doubt I'll be corrected where wrong. But, it does seem that the NX disallowance of CAO 48 grounds the 'instrument' until 15 sitting days have passed, although it is still 'live', because..."the instrument or provision so disallowed then ceases to have effect"...only works after due process is complete. So ignoring (for the moment) the last sitting days of the 'old' (43) parliament, the instrument is parked, in limbo, until it's had its 15 sitting days; unless the NX motion is withdrawn or resolved within the 15 sitting days. That's fine though, it seems to mean that eventually it must get dealt with, one way or t' other. But wait; there's hope yet for all 601s hard work.

The paragraph starting - "This provision ensures that, once notice of a disallowance motion has been given, it must be dealt with in some way and the instrument under challenge cannot be allowed to continue in force" etc. gives a clue. So then, if the motion is not resolved then the instrument is "deemed" to be disallowed. (Head scratch). Oh, I get it, the instrument is 'live' until -"it cannot be allowed to continue" etc. So, the offending instrument is brought in 'live' and unless someone, sometime in the future can force or debate it through, the thing is dead meat, start again boys. "the instrument or provision so disallowed then ceases to have effect" (601 could, conceivably be at this indefinitely).

Creamy – seems to me the NX move has, to all practical intent and purpose stymied the instrument - unless someone can persuade the Senate otherwise. I wonder will they even debate it?, I doubt most would understand it, let alone translate it into machines, long shifts and dark skies, could care less if they did. Last thoughts, though it's 'live' and even if passed, cannot have effect until some time in the future. If it 'withers on the vine', 601 may well have wasted his time, unless a sensible outcome based approach to fatigue is provided and passes through to law; then he's miles ahead. Now there's a happy thought.

Aye well. Ambles off for a coffee; pondering on the 'fings wot' can give a bloke a headache. Not for too long though.

4dogs 30th Jun 2013 21:10

Disallowance
 
Well PNM,


As far as I know, disallowance means "all in or all out" - they don't disallow "certain parts".
that isn't correct. A legislative instrument can be disallowed in whole or in part. The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 provides the answer:


42 Disallowance of legislative instruments

(1) If:
(a) notice of a motion to disallow a legislative instrument or a provision of a legislative instrument is given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of the instrument was laid before that House; and
(b) within 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that notice, the House passes a resolution, in pursuance of the motion, disallowing the instrument or provision;
the instrument or provision so disallowed then ceases to have effect.

(2) If:
(a) notice of a motion to disallow a legislative instrument or a provision of a legislative instrument is given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of the instrument was laid before that House; and
(b) at the end of 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that notice of motion:
(i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or
(ii) the motion has been called on, moved and (where relevant) seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of;
the instrument or provision specified in the motion is then taken to have been disallowed and ceases at that time to have effect.

(3) If:
(a) notice of a motion to disallow a legislative instrument or a provision of a legislative instrument is given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of the instrument was laid before that House; and
(b) before the end of 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that notice of motion, the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued; and
(c) at the time of the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be:
(i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or
(ii) the motion has been called on, moved and (where relevant) seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of;
the legislative instrument is taken, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), to have been laid before the first‑mentioned House on the first sitting day of that first‑mentioned House after the dissolution, expiry or prorogation, as the case may be.
I'm unsure what Kharon had in mind when he/she used the term 'grounded' - but perhaps a more appropriate analogy might be 'out on parole/bail/suspended sentence'. The legislative instrument has been current law since 30 April 2013 and will continue to be the law until disallowed either actively (by debate and vote) or passively (by the effluxion of time without resolution).

The cute thing is that the Disallowance Motion was moved in the Senate, where a change of Government will not have any significant effect in the first 9 months of the 44th Parliament - in fact, it is likely that the ALP and the Greens would hold the balance of power even if there is a Coalition landslide in the House of Reps. Makes for some interesting dynamics if an incoming Government tries to force the debate in time to avoid passive disallowance :uhoh:

I'm sure that there will be a few people tracking the timing of this little time-bomb... :E :E :E

Stay Alive,

Creampuff 30th Jun 2013 21:25

As I said earlier, the CAO is live law until a sufficient number of sitting days have passed (or the Senate votes on the motion of disallowance). That is likely to take at least a few months.

Sarcs 30th Jun 2013 23:52

Confused??
 
Question to Creamy and co from an ignorant knuckledragger!:E

In the text of Section 42 'disallowance of legislative instruments' that 4dogs quoted it says (my bold):

1) If:

(a) notice of a motion to disallow a legislative instrument or a provision of a legislative instrument is given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after a copy of the instrument was laid before that House; and...
Now from my calculations the Senate has sat a total of twelve days since the 30th of April 2013 and the disallowance motion was placed before the 'House of the Parliament' on the 24th of June. So isn't that well within the fifteen days?? Or am I missing something??:confused:

Kharon 1st Jul 2013 00:57

All good, but:-
 
Ok, thanks I'm cool (ish) with disallowance now; by 'grounded' I meant exactly what 4 dogs said. For 601 then, he is writing a COM section to cover an instrument which is valid as law, and will remain so, until the Senate imbroglio is sorted. What a sheemozzle. Tick - tock, indeed.

I guess the real question is – will CASA now notify operators with an urgent official advisory of the instrument status and a recommendation. There is now time, money and effort gone into 'compliance', operations manuals have been amended and it appears, that none have any idea whether they are compliant or not right now. Will an amnesty be provided during the hiatus; or, will errors made through conflicting interpretation be prosecuted. A real Safety watchdog would pass on their collective operational and legal wisdom; tout de suite The tooter the sweeter I reckon. Oh, where's Wodger Figjam when we need him?, he is after all 'the' acknowledged expert on 'old to new' and 'new to old' interpretation.

Dock - "Well M'lud, we were compliant with the new, but not any longer with old; but we are now told that the 'new' is invalid and we are in breach of the old". Judge – "I need a Bex now and a nice little lie down; Oh, and do not, ever mention approvals for operational classification again: ever".

004wercras 1st Jul 2013 04:03

Motion allowed?
 
All this talk about disallowance and motions.
This clip was taken of Albo's elephant in the middle of the room, reacting to industry criticism.
Fort Fumble vs 'An ill of society', part 1;


Creampuff 1st Jul 2013 05:21

Sarcs

Paragraph (a) is only one of two, cumulative, criteria for disallowance to take effect under the provision you quoted.

Paragraph (a): notice of disallowance given in time – tick.

Paragraph (b): 15 sitting days have elapsed after the notice of disallowance was given – cross.

In any event, 42(3) is probably going to be an important provision in this case.

If the House of Reps is dissolved before the motion is voted on or 15 sitting days of the Senate elapses, the business before the Senate, including notices of motion, terminates. It’s therefore almost certain Senator X’s motion of disallowance will be terminated - i.e. no longer have any effect.

However, an effect of 42(3) is that the CAO will be taken to have been laid before the Senate on the first day the Senate sits after House of Reps was dissolved. At that point, Senator X or someone else will (again) have 15 sitting days in which to move a motion of disallowance, and there will (again) need to be 15 sitting days after that motion, or resolution to support it, before the CAO will be disallowed.

Sarcs 1st Jul 2013 08:59

Okay thanks for that Creamy, that certainly clears it up!:ok: Hmm....still a good move by NX certainly shows that even a singular independent can still have an influence on the Parliament:D

By the way I noticed Cybercasa also agrees with you Creamy!!:E

'Cybercasa'

Maybe "K", 004, 601 or Sunny could pose a Q or two...seems they're reasonably amenable to replying??:rolleyes: {Had a touch of the Ds, cheers Fantome!}:ok:

Estimates report is out:

Budget estimates 2013-14

June 2013
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
View the report as a single document - (PDF) :ok:

004wercras 1st Jul 2013 11:51

CAsA Selfies??? Cyber technology Regulatory style!
 
Cybercasa hey? I've heard of cyber sex but cybercasa?? That is just downright disgusting, kinky, but disgusting!

I imagine CAsA 'Selfies' will be their next venture in the cyber world? Selfies such as;
• The Screaming Skull posing nude alongside pot plant Pete.
• The Voodoo witch doctor posing in PNG with a medicine man while holding a copy of the new ICAO Annexe 19.
• The deputy DAS posing in front of a bathroom mirror without his false teeth in and wearing nothing but his beige slippers and latex undies (easy to wash).
• The entire executive team posing with their snouts in a trough.
• Group shots of all while attending silly seminars in Montreal, Washington DC, Singapore and the Maldives.
• Selfie shots of Bankstown AWI's playing 'nude leapfrog'!

Indeed, I am certain one of the GWM mates can assist with the implementation of such robust technology.

601 1st Jul 2013 13:26


Maybe "K", 004, 601 or Sunny could pose a Q or two...seems they're reasonably amendable to replying??
If we still had the CP/CFI meetings that we used to have, we could ask a real CASA person, not some bit or byte twittering away in cyberspace:ugh:

halfmanhalfbiscuit 1st Jul 2013 20:29

From senate estimates report.

3.35 The committee raised the perceived fear within the aviation industry of
retribution for speaking out against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
Mr McCormick, told the committee that he was:
…at a lost to understand this… no one has brought anything to me or to my
industry complaints commissioner to complain about bullying or
harassment.37
3.36 He also gave the following guarantee that 'if anybody threatens retribution
from within CASA or carries out retribution we will take action'.38


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:17.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.