[2009] FWA 175

Download Word Document


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009
Application for registration by an association of employees

VIPA 2009
(D2009/102)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS

BRISBANE, 7 SEPTEMBER 2009

Summary – application for registration as an organisation – Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 - pilots association – objections – discretion to accept an undertaking – context in which discretion may be exercised.

[1] The VIPA – 2009 Group (“VIPA”) filed an application on 20 March 2009 for registration as an organisation under Section 18 of Schedule 1 – Registration and Accountability of Organisations (“the RO Schedule”) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the WR Act”) (“the Application”).

[2] I note at the outset that a previous application for registration as an organisation was made by VIPA Independent Pilots Group. That application was considered by me in decision [2009] AIRC 68. For the reasons given in that decision, the application for registration as an organisation was dismissed.

[3] Item 621 of Part 9 of Schedule 22 of the Fair Work (Transitional and Consequential Amendments ) Act 2009 has the effect in my view of permitting the application that is now before me to be determined by Fair Work Australia (“FWA”) as if Schedule 1 of the WR Act were section 1 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (“the RO Act”) and the references to the “Regulations” were references to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Regulations 2009 (RO Regulations).

[4] Counsel for the Applicant agreed with this proposition and made some further submissions in writing in support the same, which are retained on the file.

[5] No issue arises, consequently, as to the jurisdictional competence of FWA to consider the application before me.

[6] Notice of this application, by VIPA, was published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 15 April 2009.

[7] Pursuant to Regulation 23(1) of the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Regulations 2003 any interested organisation, association or person wishing to object to VIPA’s Application was required to lodge a notice of objection no later than 35 days after the notice was published in the Gazette.

[8] There were two notices of objection to the application. One of these was by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots (“AFAP”). The other was by the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (“ASU”).

[9] It appears that the ASU and VIPA at their own volition entered into undertakings in relation to managing their respective interests as they might be affected by this application. ASU did not maintain an interest in these proceedings, as a consequence. The signed undertakings the parties entered into remain on the file.

[10] The substance of those undertakings are as follows:

[11] Presumably in light of the above, the ASU did not attend the hearing of this application.

[12] Immediately prior to the hearing of this matter, I was informed that VIPA and the remaining objector, AFAP (which had previously filed materials in response to Directions), had also come to a settlement embodied in a written deed. The deed was signed by VIPA on 19 August 2009, and by AFAP, it appears, on 21 August 2009.

[13] The deed was premised on the acceptance by the parties of the following undertaking (as originally proffered by VIPA through the agency of the Interim President, Captain John Lyons):

[14] These undertakings are also retained on the transcript record by way of the submissions of Counsel for VIPA.

[15] Notwithstanding that at the commencement of hearing of the application for registration on 24 August 2009 there were no objectors to the application, it is still necessary for the application to meet the statutory preconditions to registration. It is that task to which I now turn.

[16] I should add at this juncture that I marked all VIPA’s materials as handed up at the hearing as an omnibus exhibit (VIPA1).

BACKGROUND TO THE FORMATION OF VIPA

[17] Before examining the conditions of registration required under the RO Act, it is appropriate to provide some background to the processes by which VIPA came into existence and established itself. The evidence led by VIPA in this respect is by way of the Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting of the VIPA 2009 Group. 1

[18] The Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting demonstrate that on 12 February 2009 six appropriately credentialed pilots employed by Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd met in Melbourne for the purposes of forming the association, and did so by signed resolution. Those pilots, who had subscribed membership then became the inaugural members of the VIPA 2009 Group (and tendered their subscription fees in accordance with the subsequent resolutions). 2

[19] The proposed rules of the association were then circulated, and all members orally conveyed that they had read and understood the proposed rules. 3

[20] The members of the association then adopted by resolution the proposed rules as the rules of the association. 4

[21] The members of the Association then proceeded to establish by resolution a Committee of Management, which would be known as the Steering Committee in the transitional period prior to VIPA’s registration as an organisation. The Committee of Management, so the Inaugural Meeting resolved, comprised 6 members of VIPA, each of whom, by further resolution, was one of the members present at the Inaugural Meeting. 5

[22] By further resolution, the members of the association sought nominations for the Interim Office Bearers, and having done so, resolved (by election) the offices of Interim President, Interim Vice President, Interim Secretary and Interim Treasurer. 6

[23] The members of the association then resolved to adopt the document circulated as being the “Application for Membership” for purposes of enlisting all persons not then presently members as members of the association. 7

[24] The members of the association then proceeded to resolve that in the pre-registration period, the annual subscription would be $10.00, with the annual subscription upon registration being set by the Steering Committee (but being no more than 1.0% of gross base salary of the relevant pilot). Such a subscription, it was resolved, would be due upon the date of registration of the association as an organisation, should that be achieved. 8

[25] Apart from further resolving to open a bank account through which to manage direct monies received and empowering the Steering Committee to establish Loss of Licence, Legal Protection and Income Protection schemes, the association also resolved as “a priority aspiration” to achieve registration as an organisation under the federal legislation 9, and to pass all the necessary resolutions upon the association being positioned to make such an application for registration. I will deal with the related resolution by the Steering Committee below.

REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION

[26] Section 19(1) of the RO Act reads as follows:

[27] Section 19(1) of the RO Act requires that FWA must grant an application for the registration of an association as an organisation under the Act “if and only if” it meets all the preconditions set out in the section.

[28] In view of this, it is necessary to make the requisite findings in relation to each of the requirements for registration stipulated in s.19(1) of the RO Act.

IS VIPA A GENUINE ASSOCIATION CAPABLE OF FURTHERING AND PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF ITS MEMBERS FOR PURPOSES OF S.19(1)(a) OF THE RO ACT?

[29] Section 19(1)(a) of the RO Act provides:

[30] The material before indicates that the intention of VIPA is to seek registration for the purposes of representing pilots employed by the following entities (including the entities’ successors, transmittees or assignees and related bodies corporate or associated entities):

The above entities will be referred to collectively as “Virgin Blue”. 10

[31] VIPA contends that there is no evidence that VIPA seeks registration for the sake of registration alone. Rather, VIPA claims the application is motivated by evidence of demand for an alternative organisation to represent Virgin Blue pilots other than AFAP. 11

[32] Captain Lyons, the Interim President of VIPA, was of the belief in this regard that VIPA would have a more integral and relevant knowledge of Virgin Blue pilot issues; be focused exclusively on these issues; and be more responsive to industrial issues. 12

[33] VIPA also contends that the purpose of its function as a registered organisation would be to achieve effective industrial representation for Virgin Blue pilots and participate in professional issue relevant to the pilot group. 13 It was also contended that VIPA’s efforts in the pre-registration period to provide insurance products for its members attest to the genuineness of its intentions.14

[34] VIPA further contended that it has 137 members in the pre-registration period, which appears to comprise about 17% or so of the total pilot group employed by Virgin Blue 15 (the employees of which form the eligibility rule as adopted under the rules of the association).

[35] Those pilots who are members of VIPA have each paid $10.00 for their annual subscription fee in the pre-registration period, as it were, and did so in the knowledge that that the annual subscription fee would be set in accordance with the rules upon registration. 16

[36] Upon admission to membership each member was provided a copy of the rules. 17

[37] The VIPA 2009 Group Steering Committee determined in February 2009 that the annual subscription upon registration would be no more than 1.0% of the gross base salary of each pilot. 18

[38] The applicant association does not at this point have any full time office staff 19, an issue which might go to VIPA’s capabilities to function as a registered organisation. VIPA claims, however, that upon registration it will establish facilities and experienced personnel to conduct the affairs of the organisation.20

[39] In view of the above, it appears to me that VIPA is a genuine association seeking registration for the purposes of s.19(1)(a) of the RO Act. VIPA has members and office holders, a structure and an organisational intent which leads me to conclude that it is a genuine organisation (not one formed for an ulterior motive or for purposes of registration only) and one which is capable of protecting and furthering the interests of its members. Other findings below support this conclusion.

SECTION 19(1)(b) OF THE RO ACT

[40] Section 19(1)(b) of the RO Act states the Commission must determine that the applicant “association is free from control by, or improper influence from, an employer or by an association or organisation of employers”.

[41] There is nothing in the materials before me that leads me to conclude other than that VIPA is free of control by, or improper influence from, an employer or by an association or organisation of employers.

SECTION 19(1)(c) OF THE RO ACT

[42] Section 19(1)(c) of the RO Act states:

[43] The requirements of this section do not apply to VIPA.

SECTION 19(1)(d) OF THE RO ACT

[44] Section 19(1)(d) of the RO Act reads:

[45] VIPA has given evidence it has 137 members who are employees of the requisite kind under its eligibility rules. 21

[46] VIPA contends therefore that it has at least 50 members, and that are members irrespective of whether they have paid any particular amount of money for purposes of that membership.

[47] I agree with VIPA’s claim: the statutory requirement is that an applicant association must have 50 members. There is nothing before me that leads me to believe that VIPA’s membership, comprising of 137 pilots, is other than as its evidence purports it to be and as its rules expressly permit.

[48] The pilots who comprise VIPA’s membership have completed a membership form knowingly, and it can be readily assumed, given their competencies, they understood that membership form on its plain terms.

[49] There is nothing before me that leads me to find that any of VIPA’s members were unwillingly required to become members or were otherwise misled into becoming members or became members on a false premise or a misunderstanding.

[50] I conclude therefore that VIPA has at least 50 members who are genuine members and the requirements of s.19(1)(d) of the RO Act have been met.

SECTION 19(1)(e) OF THE RO ACT

[51] Section 19(1)(e) of the RO Act requires, for purposes of registration, that “FWA is satisfied that the association would conduct its affairs in a way that meets the obligations of an organisation under this Act”.

[52] Section 5(1) of the RO Act reads as follows:

[53] VIPA has registered for an Australian business number 22 as an unincorporated organisation, formed an association, established rules at the requisite standard and recruited 137 members in a pre-registration period (out of a total pool of some 830 pilots) when its resources and capacities are severely restrained. VIPA has also maintained accounts and introduced two insurance products for the benefit of its members and the association.

[54] I have found above that VIPA has met the requirements of s.19(1)(e) of the RO Act, and has the capabilities to protect and further its members’ interests.

[55] Further, one need only examine Rules 3(a)(i)-xxvi of the Association’s rules to ascertain that its objects are in conformity with the Act’s requirements.

[56] In view of this observation and the wider discussion above, there is nothing before that causes me to find other than that VIPA appears capable at this juncture (which is the only point of time relevant for the purpose of the application) of conducting its affairs in a way that is appropriate under the RO Act.

SECTION 19(1)(f) OF THE RO ACT

[57] Section 19(1)(f) of the RO Act requires that the “rules of the association make provision as required by this Act to be made by the rules of organisations”.

[58] There is no challenge to the proposition that the rules of the association so comply with the Act’s requirements. The rules of the applicant association have been subject to an extended iteration with the Australian Industrial Registry, as it was, and no issues arise for my further consideration in that respect. This was also put to me by Counsel at the time of the hearing.

SECTION 19(1)(g) OF THE RO ACT

[59] Section 19(1)(g) of the RO Act requires the applicant association not to have “the same name as that of an organisation or a name that is so similar to the name of an organisation as to be likely to cause confusion”.

[60] No issue arises in this regard.

[61] I note from VIPA’s materials that VIPA – Independent Pilot Group appears to continue to exist (and appears to maintain a commercial and financial relationship with VIPA). But that association is not an organisation for the RO Act’s purposes, and is not relevant to my considerations under s.19(1)(g) of the RO Act, regardless of the similarities in names.

SECTION 19(1)(h) OF THE RO ACT

[62] Section 19(1)(h) of the RO Act reads:

[63] The Minutes of the Inaugural Meeting reveal the sequence of steps taken to do the things required by the RO Act. This matter is detailed above.

[64] The Minutes of the Steering Committee (which under the association’s rules serves as the Committee of Management in the transitional period 23 reveal that the resolution passed in favour of registration of the association as an organisation was passed under and in accordance with the rules of the applicant association on 9 March 2009.24

SECTION 19(1)(i) OF THE RO ACT

[65] Section 19(1)(i) of the RO Act requires a finding that the registration of the association would further Parliament's intention in enacting this Act and the objects set out in s.3 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[66] Section 3(a) of the Objects of the Fair Work Act 2009 reads:

[67] There may be some arguable grounds, perhaps, that a new industrial entrant to the field might prove disruptive to the Australian economy, particularly given the industry in which it will operate.

[68] More specifically, would the existence of an additional pilot representative organisation lead to ill-feeling between pilots or worse that might comprise the productivity and safety of the workplace, or otherwise cause me to form an adverse view of its role in relation to Parliament’s intentions?

[69] Captain Lyons’ evidence was that he had experienced no such ill-feeling or otherwise on the flight deck in the context of his representative role relative to the existence of another industrial representative. 25

[70] I accept Captain Lyons’ evidence on its face. He has worked with pilots during a period when he has a known identity as a representative of an alternative association and potential organisation. His evidence was that this direct experience had not threatened communications on the flight deck. Given the professional disposition of the pilot group, it would not ordinarily be expected to, either.

[71] On the evidence before me I therefore conclude that the granting of this application for registration as an organisation conforms with the objects of the RO Act and the Fair Work Act 2009, and in particular, poses no threat to the productivity or growth of the Australian economy.

SECTIONS 19(1)(j) AND 19(2) OF THE RO ACT

[72] For purposes of s.19(2) of the RO Act, the requirements of s.19(1)(j) of the RO Act are taken to have been met if FWA accepts as being “appropriate” an undertaking from the association that avoids demarcation disputes that might otherwise arise from an overlap between the eligibility rules of the organisation and the eligibility rules of the association.

[73] VIPA has conceded that AFAP is an organisation to which its members might more conveniently belong, and therefore offered a demarcation undertaking as cited above and which has been accepted. 26

[74] The undertaking proffered by VIPA was in the following terms: 27

[75] The Fair Work Act 2009 defines a demarcation dispute in the following terms:

[76] The demarcation undertaking that has been proffered by VIPA has now been accepted by AFAP as satisfactory for its own purposes within the terms of the deed the parties have executed at their own volition. Despite that, however, given that VIPA had conceded 28 there is an existing organisation (AFAP) to which members of the association could conveniently belong, and that would more effectively represent those members than the association, I must consider whether the undertaking proffered by VIPA for purposes of these proceedings is appropriate, and if so, should it be accepted for purposes of s.19(2) of the RO Act.

[77] I have considered the language of the undertaking required by s.19(2) of the RO Act and the manner in which the witnesses have represented their intention. Captain Lyons put it this way:

[78] The undertaking as provided by VIPA will not remove all risks of demarcation disputes rising upon and after registration; that would perhaps only be achieved by not granting the application.

[79] But the undertaking reasonably represents, as I have discerned it from the evidence, a genuine intent on the part of the applicant association to avoid demarcation disputes with AFAP, with the likely result that the risks of demarcation disputes will be minimised to the extent practically achievable.

[80] The undertaking therefore appears to me to be an undertaking that is appropriate, on its own terms, and as I so found in [2009] AIRC 68 when an undertaking in the same terms was put to me.

[81] I should add at this point that I am aware of the decision of former Senior Deputy President Williams in Re: Australian Nursing Federation (PR953970) in which, under mirror provisions (under s.204 of the WR Act), His Honour held that:

[82] Irrespective of the acceptability of the undertaking which was proffered, His Honour was of the view that there was a discretion vested in the Commission (as it was) to accept that undertaking. His Honour was of the view that there was a criterion on which the exercise of discretion was based and the “touchstone appears to be effectiveness”, in this regard.

[83] In the circumstances before him, His Honour was of the view that the applicant association did not have any real prospect of obtaining federal award or agreement coverage, and it was therefore ineffective, in that the resultant outcome would be “competition and freedom of choice [which is encouraged by the Act] for no effective or useful purpose”. His Honour subsequently dismissed the application before him.

[84] His Honour appeared to be of the view that an applicant association should be subject to a test of relative effectiveness on two counts, at both s.19(j)(ii) of the RO Act and again at s.19(2) of the RO Act, despite the statutory purpose of the latter being to satisfy the former.

[85] Section 19(2) of the RO Act reads as follows:

[86] As I have alluded to earlier 30, the sub section does appear to vest in the Commission a discretion (by reference to the word “if”) to accept an undertaking, even if that undertaking is appropriate.

Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum to former s.204(5) of the WR Act makes this clear:

[87] As I have said above, the purpose of s.19(2) of the RO Act is to circumvent the consequences of there being a more effective pre-existing organisation to which a member of the applicant association might more conveniently belong (for the purposes of s.19(1)(j) of the RO Act). It does this by ensuring to a degree appropriate to FWA that an undertaking as proffered would avoid demarcation disputes that might arise between the eligibility rules of the applicant association and the organisation.

[88] To re-introduce by way of the discretion at s.19 (2) of the RO Act, however, a further, additional test of the relative effectiveness of the applicant association vis a vis an existing organisation (as His Honour did) does not yield a compelling construction of the interaction of sub clauses 19(1)(j) and s.19(2) of the RO Act (or its predecessor Act, which was in the same terms).

[89] It appears to me that a better view of the construction of the discretion vested in FWA is to consider the totality of the circumstances relevant to the undertaking before accepting an undertaking as being appropriate.

[90] If there were no discretion vested in the decision-maker, the decision to approve an undertaking as being appropriate might rest exclusively on the language and terms of the undertaking itself. This might be reducible to a procedural requirement only.

[91] However, by vesting the decision maker (now FWA) with the discretion to accept the undertaking, the RO Act allows FWA to consider, for example, whether the undertaking might be adhered to in reality, or otherwise respected, given the evidence before it in respect of the conduct of the applicant association or the dynamics of the relationships in the particular workplace.

[92] This construction ensures that the discretion to accept an undertaking as being appropriate is exercised relevantly (that is, within the direct context of the section), on the basis of the evidence that has been adduced, and not in another context (such as in relation to s.19(1)(j) of the RO Act.

[93] Moreover, it ensures that the acceptance of an undertaking as being appropriate is not taken in a procedural consideration, but as a substantive consideration in the context of the relevant evidence as a whole.

[94] That said, if I was to adopt the approach of Senior Deputy President Williams above, and with which, respectfully, I do not entirely agree, I can find in the evidence no basis for a finding that the Applicant could not be an ‘effective’ organisation for reason that VIPA does not to have any prospect of a representative function in respect of industrial instruments.

[95] The operation of the current legislative arrangements (under the Fair Work Act 2009) in fact positively accommodate such an outcome, and particularly so in respect of the scope for VIPA to achieve status as a Bargaining Representative (s.176 of the Fair Work Act 2009) to have substantive status for the bargaining and ongoing representative process.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE RO REGULATIONS

[96] An application for registration must also comply with Regulation 21 and Regulation 22 of the RO Regulations.

[97] Regulation 21(1)(a) of the RO Regulations provides and application by an association for registration as an organisation must:

[98] This requirement was satisfied by the application being made on (former) Form R70, which is an appropriate form as set out in the Rules of the Commission (as it was).

[99] Regulation 21(1)(b) of the RO Regulations require an association to include in its application for registration:

[100] VIPA purported to comply with Regulation 21(1)(b) of the RO Regulations by including in its application declarations by Captain Baker and Captain Kazerooni, acting in their capacities as Interim Secretary and member of the Steering Committee respectively. Captain Baker, I should add, is also a member of the Steering Committee. I am satisfied these individuals were authorised to so act. 31

[101] The standing of the members of the Steering Committee is appropriate, in my view. Rule 61(e) of VIPA’s Rules is a transitional rule applying to the Steering Committee, which includes a provision empowering the Steering Committee to do all things necessary and convenient for Registration.

[102] Regulation 21(1)(c) of the RO Regulations provides:

[103] The requirement set out in this Regulation was satisfied as the Application was lodged, as it must be, in the Registry (as it was then) on 20 March 2009.

[104] Regulation 21(1)(d) requires an application made by an association seeking registration as an organisation to:

[105] Schedule 1 of VIPA’s Application contained a list of the members of the association as is required by Regulation 21(1)(d)(i) of the RO Regulations. It is a confidential document and must remain sealed within the body of materials relating to this application, with its access regulated by myself and\or the applicant association only. 32

[106] Schedule 2A of the Application serves to meet the requirements of Regulation 21(1)(d)(ii) of the RO Regulations, in that it cites the offices in the association.

[107] Schedule 2B of the Application specifies the details, in relation to the names, addresses and occupations, as required by Regulation 21(1)(d)(iii) of the RO Regulations.

[108] No material was submitted in respect of Regulation 21(1)(d)(iv) of the RO Regulations as it would appear not to be applicable to the applicant association.

[109] VIPA attached, by way of Schedule 3 of the Application, a copy of the Rules, including its eligibility rule, passed by the members, as they were at the time of the Application in support of Regulation 21(1)(d)(v) of the RO Regulations.

[110] Schedule 4 of the Application was provided in support of Regulation 21(1)(d)(vi) of the RO Regulations.

[111] Regulation 22 of the RO Regulations requires that after receiving an application for registration, the General Manager of FWA must:

[112] My examination of the documentation accompanying the purported application reveals that the application was gazetted in the Commonwealth of Australia, Gazetted No. GN14, at page 914 on 15 April 2009. Therefore I am satisfied that Regulation 22 of the RO Regulations has been met.

CONCLUSION

[113] Section 19(1) of the RO Act requires that FWA must approve the registration of an association as an organisation under this Act “if and only if” it meets all the preconditions stipulated of the section.

[114] For the reasons given above, I have found that the applicant association has in each instance met the requirements of s.19(1) of the RO Act and the requirements of the RO Regulations.

[115] I must therefore grant the application of an association being ‘VIPA’ (the name of the association under Rule 1 and the name of the organisation following the registration of the association as an organisation provided for at Rule 61(a) of the association’s rules) for registration as an organisation under the RO Act.

[116] VIPA will be registered as an organisation and have status as such from Friday, 11 September 2009.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

J. Nolan of Counsel for the Applicant

Hearing details:

2009.
Brisbane:
August 24.

 1   Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 2   Pages 2, 3 and 7 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 3   Page 4 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 4   Page 4 of Attachment “CB2” and Attachment “CB15” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 5   Page 4 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 6   Page 5 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 7   Pages 5 and 6 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 8   Page 6 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 9   Page 6 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 10   Rule 5 of Rules of the VIPA, Attachment “CB15” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 11   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 7-11 and 44

 12   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 43

 13   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 20-21

 14   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 24- 27 and VIPA 2009 Submissions in Reply dated 7 August 2009 at PN 2.12 – 2.19

 15   Attachment “CB3” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009. It is noted that Attached “CB3” contains the names, contact details and employers of the purported 137 members of VIPA. Of the 137 members, 135 members are employed by Virgin Blue Airlines Pty Ltd and 2 are employed by “V Australia Pty Ltd” (sic).

 16   Attachment “CB4” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 17   VIPA 2009 Submissions in Reply dated 7 August 2009 at PN 2.11

 18   As per the Inaugural Meeting Minutes 12 February 2009. See page 6 of Attachment “CB2” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 19   Witness Statement In Reply of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 7 August 2009 at PN 11

 20   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 23

 21   Attachment “CB3” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 22   Attachment “CB28” of Witness Statement In Reply of Captain Craig Baker affirmed on 15 August 2009

 23   See Rule 61(e) of the Rules of the VIPA

 24   Attachment “CB9” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 25   Witness Statement In Reply of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 7 August 2009 at PN 9

 26   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 28; VIPA’s Outline of Submissions dated 2 July 2009 at PN 4.6. and 4.7

 27   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 28 – 29

 28   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 28; VIPA’s Outline of Submissions dated 2 July 2009 at PN 4.6. and 4.7

 29   Witness Statement of Captain John Lyons affirmed on 2 July 2009 at PN 31 - 33, 40 - 42

 30   See paragraph 76 above

 31   Attachment “CB14” of Witness Statement of Captain Craig Baker sworn on 2 July 2009

 32   That said, I note that several of the Minutes as provided (example CB13) include updated names of new members.




Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code {C}, PR988926>