[Peetwo]

Addendum to last - 

LB & Para 377, via the UP - 

LB:

The Parliamentary privilege resolutions agreed to by the Senate on 25 February 1988 say, among other things:

...
3 Criteria to be taken into account when determining matters relating to contempt

The Senate declares that it will take into account the following criteria when determining whether matters possibly involving contempt should be referred to the Committee of Privileges and whether a contempt has been committed, and requires the Committee of Privileges to take these criteria into account when inquiring into any matter referred to it:
...
Offences by witnesses etc.

(12) A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not:

(a) without reasonable excuse, refuse to make an oath or affirmation or give some similar undertaking to tell the truth when required to do so;

(b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or

© give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular.
...

That’s a very (very) high threshold to meet.

I have no first hand knowledge, but I suspect that, in the case of the allegedly low flying pilot, Mr Carmody would simply say that he was told by one of his staff that the aircraft’s “instruments” said the aircraft was flying at one hundred and twenty five feet and, accordingly, it is true that he was told that and he has no reason to believe the statement to be false or misleading. Of course, whether the aircraft was in fact flying at one hundred and twenty five feet is a related but entirely different question.

But it was in my view a very (very) big call by Mr Carmody to flatly assert that Glen has stalked and assaulted CASA staff. Effectively, Mr Carmody seems to me to have asserted that Glen has engaged in criminal acts. I reckon Glen would have reasonable grounds to take those allegations up with the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges.

Odgers says this at page 536, with my bolding, about witnesses whose evidence reflects adversely on another person:

Evidence which reflects adversely on another person, including a person who is not a witness, must be made known to that person and reasonable opportunity to respond given. The committee must consider whether to hear the evidence, publish it, and seek a response to it from another person. These rules, in Resolution 1(11) to (13), do not define the meaning of evidence which reflects adversely on another person. However, certain general principles of interpretation apply.

Evidence given to a committee encompasses written statements or submissions accepted by the committee as well as oral presentations at hearings. The rules do not apply to evidence merely on the basis that it is contrary to other evidence. For the purposes of its inquiry, a committee will seek as many considered views on the subject matter as is reasonably possible. In many cases, the views offered will, and should, differ, contradicting each other and criticising the rationality, accuracy or acceptability of alternative or competing opinions. Thus, evidence adverse to another witness’s case does not fall within the application of the rules. The rules deal with adverse “reflections”, that is, evidence which reflects adversely “on a person” (including an organisation) rather than on the merits or reliability of an argument or opinion. To bring the rules into operation, a reflection on a person must be reasonably serious, for example, of a kind which would, in other circumstances, usually be successfully pursued in an action for defamation.

It seems to me that if Mr Carmody had asserted, to the public and not under parliamentary privilege, that Glen had stalked and assaulted people, Glen would have grounds to pursue defamation action against Mr Carmody. I certainly would, in equivalent circumstances.

P377:

Chapter 18 of the CASA play book

---

Mr Carmody, as the Executive Officer of CASA, has been a complete embarrassment. His emotional rant in the Senate, his disrespect towards Senator McDonald and his deep seeded vitriol and potentially libellous statements against Mr Buckley are representative of who CASA are and how they operate. He acts like a spoilt child who has been caught red handed throwing its broccoli in the rubbish bin. Wha wha wha sniffle sniffle. A stamp of the feet and the cursory ‘NO NOT’ screamed out in between tears.

And the DAS might be the head of CASA, but Dr Aleck is the head that turns the neck. Or if you like - the gloved hand that turns the puppets head. What a performance in the Senate, as always - the little old bearded man quietly, gently and calmly speaking. Oh so innocent, helpful and sweet. A couple of ‘confused looks’ with the odd stammer or two while giving the appearance of a little old innocent man that you would spot sitting on a park bench feeding hot chips to seagulls while muttering to himself. But no not this bloke, he has spent many years throwing herrings at the Senators and appearing to be this little innocent old bookworm peering above his law books while he throws bulls#it to the Senators while muttering about ‘laws’, ‘policies’ and ‘intent’. Smart survivor that one. He has outlived many a DAS from Dick Smith to the Screaming Skull and beyond. But behind the scenes he is an angry, vitriolic vindictive human being who actually enjoys steamrolling innocent people and cheering from the sidelines as people’s personal lives, businesses and way of life burn to the ground. CASA fosters bullies, sociopaths and narcissists.

The only way forward to dismantling the CASA Frankenstein is to;

• hold a Royal Commission into it
  
  
• gut the organisation starting at the top tier, and;
  
  
• adopt and implement the NZ Regulations.
  

MTF...P2