PN902

THE COMMISSIONER: Good morning, parties, and thank you for rejoining. Before we move into the evidence, there's a few matters that I just wish to raise with counsel, firstly, to clarify a matter, but then, secondly, to alert you to the need for evidence on some points.

PN903

The first matter I wanted to raise was the chronology that had been provided by Mr Hardy - this is on page 2 - in reference to 14 August 2020. It says that:

PN904

Mr Crouch was placed on a training review and instructed not to return to work.

PN905

Now, that seems to be a reference to paragraph 45 of his witness statement. The question which I'm putting to the parties is: what is the evidence that says that he was placed on a training review? It might be a glimpse of the bleeding obvious, but I need to understand how that was communicated and, then, more importantly, the instruction not to return to work, I'm interested in understanding what that was. Is that something you can help with, Mr Hardy, at this stage, or do you need to take that on notice?

PN906

MR HARDY: Commissioner, I can certainly assist you with it, but I may need to take that on notice just to get the relevant references for you.

PN907

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. And then the issue beyond the references is: what does 'instructed not to return to work' mean? I don't seem to have any evidence on that subject.

PN908

MR HARDY: That may be something, Commissioner, which could be explored with the respondent's first witness this morning, Ms Crisara.

PN909

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, thank you for that. The other matters I wanted to raise are probably matters for the respondent. Probably the first one to raise is that in paragraph 113 of the applicant's witness statement, he says - this is on page 65 of the hearing book. It says:

PN910

At my meeting with Mr Clarke on that same date, 27 April 2021, he stated that the reason for the termination of my training was my failure to successfully complete the ASA 119 Separation Standards theory exam -

PN911

and not his performance. Now, my recollection of the evidence given by Mr Clarke yesterday was that he essentially said the same thing. There was a question I put to him which was to do with the subject of whether two failures of that exam, in essence, meant that there needed to be a termination of the training, and my recollection was that he agreed to that, although that will obviously need to be seen in the transcript, when that becomes available.

PN912

The questions I've got about that subject relate to, first of all, the policy and procedure which applies to the training review, and I don't wish to be just pointed to the relevant documents within the file; instead, I want to hear some oral evidence on the subject of what is the purpose of the training review.

PN913

If one were to take the perspective that failure of those exams twice meant that a person is not suitable to continue forward, then, ultimately, the question which has to be put to the respondent is: what's the point of the whole review if that's the case? I wish to understand that in some granularity.

PN914

MR HARDY: Commissioner, might I say something just in relation to that point, just for the purposes of the record? I think also there was a series of questions which I asked Mr Clarke about the four possible options that are available in a training review, one of which being termination and the other being recourse to further assistance, et cetera, and whether there was anything which mandated or compelled any one of those options to be taken, and his answer to that was, no, that it is a matter of entire discretion by Airservices Australia, and that it, on any review, given - I think his words were 'the overall circumstances' or 'the facts and circumstances' - there was not anything that compelled any of those decisions to be made one way or the other; rather it was the subject of the reviewer to review and exercise a discretion on behalf of Airservices Australia, as they saw fit, given those circumstances.

PN915

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, that may indeed be the case, so I guess what I'm pointing out at the moment is issues which I'm concerned about in terms of the decision that ultimately I have to come to.

PN916

Relatedly to the issues I raised then is to understand the purpose of the discussion of the training review and the exam debrief, and these are referred to, at least in the chronology, from 7 September 2020. There was an initial meeting with Schafer and Nicole; there was then a debrief on 8 September with Thornleigh; there was then a meeting to discuss the training review on 10 September. Again, I wish to understand the purpose of those steps and how that might fit against a proposition that a failure of the two exams preordained the result.

PN917

There is then criticism from the applicant within his evidence and indeed some of the questions from Mr Hardy in cross-examination of Mr Clarke about the length of time for the initial training review. Now, Mr Lovell, I am putting you and your witnesses on notice that that is something that I want to understand what explained that. If it's as simple as, well, it's the dichotomy between a conspiracy and a mess-up, it was in the mess-up, if that's the answer, then that's the answer, but that answer at least needs to be given.

PN918

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN919

THE COMMISSIONER: But if there's some other reason, then I would like to understand what that might be, and I also then want to understand what it should have been, if it's accepted that the length of time was too long.

PN920

All right, I would be grateful if those matters could be dealt with in the course of the evidence this morning. If there's a need to consider recalling any of the witnesses, then obviously that can be considered.

PN921

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner, what I might do is, in respect of each of the witnesses that are to give evidence this morning, I might put some supplementary questions in chief to address the particular issues that you have identified, and then we can see, in light of the evidence that is given by those two witnesses this morning, as to whether it is or isn't necessary to recall Mr Clarke.

PN922

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, look, that would be appreciated. I understand the next witness then is Ms Crisara; would that be correct?

PN923

MR LOVELL: That's correct, Commissioner.

PN924

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Hardy, you were about to say something?

PN925

MR HARDY: Yes, apologies, Commissioner. I wonder, just as a matter of housekeeping, following the closure of the evidence today - Mr Lovell and I had a short discussion this morning about how the matter then ultimately proceeds in terms of closing submissions and submissions from the parties generally - my proposal would be that, once we conclude the evidence, which I think, as I mentioned yesterday, I would hope to be achieved by the lunch adjournment today, whether that be 12, 12.30 or 1 o'clock, that perhaps there be a lunch adjournment at the conclusion of that evidence and the parties be given an opportunity to collect their thoughts on closing submissions and that, following the resumption after lunch, the applicant provides you with closing submissions, followed by Mr Lovell's response, and a reply in the conventional sense of closing.

PN926

That was, perhaps, how I anticipated the day unfolding following evidence and I just wanted to raise that and see if that accords with what you were thinking, Commissioner, or whether Mr Lovell wishes to discuss that or have anything to say about that.

PN927

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I had assumed that there would be oral submissions this afternoon, so that's consistent with what you are putting. The only thing I would point out to the parties is that I have another commitment. Let's see. I'm locked out of my Calendar, unfortunately, and I need to re-enter a password. We have (indistinct) system in that respect, but it's at 4.15, I think, so that's the outer limit. If that's insufficient time for the parties, then if you can let me know and we will need to make alternative arrangements with my other parties.

PN928

MR HARDY: Certainly, thank you.

PN929

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, Mr Lovell, when the witness comes in, can I get them to sit, please, to the right of the water bottle, that is, opposite Ms Wade. The reason I am saying that is the way my screen is organised, Mr Clarke, where he was seated yesterday, was cut off from my screen and I couldn't see him without a bit of manoeuvring.

PN930

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, my apologies - Mr Lovell here - the sound just dropped out unexpectedly for the last 30 seconds. Are you able to hear me now?

PN931

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I can, yes.

PN932

MR LOVELL: I do apologise. There appears to be some interface issue between our Teams and the Commission's Teams of this morning that we alerted your associate to. I'm concerned - I'm now speaking through the laptop rather than through the room - and I'm very mindful of the need for Ms Crisara and then Mr Bosnich to provide evidence. Might I suggest this - and I do apologise for the technical difficulties - that we might, with your permission, adjourn, log out of the conference and log back in and hopefully address the sound issue?

PN933

THE COMMISSIONER: That's suitable for me, so perhaps if we adjourn and allow that to occur.

PN934

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I also missed - just for the last 30 seconds, I wasn't sure if there was anything that you said that needed to be repeated. Again I apologise.

PN935

THE COMMISSIONER: I was just hoping to either re-angle your camera so that it focused on the witness, or to have the witness to the right of the water bottle which is sitting midway down your table.

PN936

MR LOVELL: Yes.

PN937

THE COMMISSIONER: So that I can see them as opposed to being cut off.

PN938

MR LOVELL: Okay, certainly we can make that arrangement as we log off and log back on. Are you happy then for us to have the witness sitting in the room when we rejoin?

PN939

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course.

PN940

MR LOVELL: Okay, thank you, Commissioner.

PN941

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We'll give it four or five minutes, thank you.

PN942

MR LOVELL: Thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.14 AM]

RESUMED [10.19 AM]

PN943

THE COMMISSIONER: We have got you back, Mr Lovell, so you can hear and see me acceptably?

PN944

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner, thank you.

PN945

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Now, I see that you have got Ms Crisara, the next witness.

PN946

MR LOVELL: Yes.

PN947

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Crisara, thank you for coming. Do you wish to give an oath or an affirmation?

PN948

MS CRISARA: Affirmation.

PN949

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, in that case, please listen to the words that my associate speaks to you and then repeat them back for her, please.

PN950

THE ASSOCIATE: Could you first please state your full name and address, noting that the address can be your place of employment.

PN951

MS CRISARA: Antoinette Crisara, Store Street, Melbourne Airport.

<ANTOINETTE CRISARA, AFFIRMED [10.20 AM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LOVELL [10.20 AM]

PN952

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Crisara. So, Mr Lovell, if you would commence, please.

PN953

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN954

Ms Crisara, you have a copy of your statement dated 11 March 2022 before you?‑‑‑Yes.

PN955

That statement comprises paragraphs 1 to 24 inclusive?‑‑‑Yes.

PN956

And one attachment, known as AC01?‑‑‑Yes.

PN957

Could you please confirm to the Commission that your statement and its attachment is true and correct in all material respects?‑‑‑Yes, it is true and correct.

PN958

Commissioner, I tender the statement of Ms Antoinette Crisara.

PN959

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The statement of Antoinette Crisara, with one attachment, will be exhibit R4.

EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANTOINETTE CRISARA WITH ONE ATTACHMENT DATED 11/03/2022

PN960

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XN MR LOVELL

PN961

Ms Crisara, I have a couple of brief questions for you. I would like to take you to paragraphs 8 to 11 of your statement. That's at the bottom of page 569. Do you have that in front of you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

PN962

In those paragraphs - I will give you a moment to just review them briefly. Those paragraphs refer to what you have called a delay in completing Mr Crouch's training review. In what month was Mr Crouch placed on training review?‑‑‑August 2020, as far as I'm aware of.

PN963

In what month was the first training review report completed?‑‑‑For Luke Crouch, for Luke?

PN964

For Mr Crouch?‑‑‑I think it was in April 2021. I'm not a hundred per cent sure on that date.

PN965

Okay?‑‑‑Round about the following year anyway.

PN966

Yes. I put it to you it was February 2021?‑‑‑Yes.

PN967

Now, that's a six-month delay from being placed on training review and the delivery of the report. Is that a typical period over which a training review would be conducted?‑‑‑Generally, no, but due to the circumstances at the time, we did have a hefty amount of other trainees under review, and that's why it took a little bit longer than usual.

PN968

What would be the typical period, Ms Crisara?‑‑‑The typical period could be at least four to six weeks.

PN969

You said that there's some circumstances, sort of, at that time. Would you be able to elaborate on those for the Commission?‑‑‑Yes, the circumstances were we had the pandemic and had instructor shortage numbers and personnel leaving at the time of all the reviews happening.

PN970

How would those factors impact so significantly the period over which the training review was conducted for Mr Crouch?‑‑‑We didn't have any dedicated personnel to assist with the training reviews at the time because our main concern was getting our training completed. Because of the pandemic, we had to split it up into two sessions of training, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and that didn't allow enough time to complete the training reviews, not just for him, but for other trainees as well.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XN MR LOVELL

PN971

I just want to ask you a further question about the split between the morning and the afternoon sessions. Are you able to describe why there was a need to split the sessions between morning and afternoon?‑‑‑Yes, again the pandemic. We were advised by our health department that we needed to make sure we didn't cross between one group and the other group, so we had to reschedule - realign all the schedules to do a morning session and an afternoon session, so, when the morning session left, there was no one in the building before the afternoon session came in.

PN972

What impact would that have on the capacity of training instructors to undertake training reviews?‑‑‑Well, at the time, we had a number of instructors out ill due to the pandemic and we didn't have enough coverage for other instructors to complete the duties at the time.

PN973

At the time Mr Crouch was placed on a training review, how many other trainees were already on training review?‑‑‑We had 19 before Mr Crouch.

PN974

Are each of those training reviews able to be progressed in parallel?‑‑‑Meaning?

PN975

At the same - sorry, I will clarify this. I will withdraw that, Commissioner, and I will clarify. Are training reviews conducted concurrently, at the same time?‑‑‑We do from the first to the last (indistinct).

PN976

Has that been Airservices' practice prior to these circumstances?‑‑‑Yes, it is.

PN977

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that mean? Does that mean that you start one and you finish that and then you start the next?‑‑‑Correct.

PN978

Right?‑‑‑If we have enough staff, we try to get the first two done and completed, if we had enough staff.

PN979

What actually is a training review?‑‑‑When a trainee fails an assessment, that trainee will get placed under review. The training review gets reviewed by the person doing the review from start to finish to see if there was any discrepancies and it comes out with the outcome of what we determine to be successful or unsuccessful in training.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XN MR LOVELL

PN980

Well, that's a fairly quick analysis, but what's the work involved and why did it take six months?‑‑‑For starters, we didn't have the staff for it to do that and, also, they go from theory exam straight through to practical exam, there would be his daily reports, his periodic trackings and assessments.

PN981

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might just ask, if it's okay, the witness just a couple of questions about her role in respect of training reviews? That might clarify the nature of the evidence you might need about those matters.

PN982

Ms Crisara, what is your role within the learning academy?‑‑‑My role is to assist the trainees with their training and their wellbeing.

PN983

Okay, and - - -?‑‑‑I'm their support person.

PN984

Does that role include responsibility for conducting training reviews?‑‑‑No.

PN985

What is your role then in respect of a trainee who is placed on a training review?‑‑‑I would do - my role is to do a weekly check-up on the trainee and, when the outcome is finalised, to be in the room present with the trainee for the outcome.

PN986

So, who does, within the learning academy, have responsibility for conducting training reviews?‑‑‑It's by our manager at the time, or the delivery manager at the time, and he organises with his staff for someone to commence the training review.

PN987

At the time of Mr Crouch's training review, who was the delivery manager?‑‑‑Michael Boyd.

PN988

Commissioner, having asked those sort of clarification questions, I certainly didn't want to prevent you asking any other questions you might have for this witness.

PN989

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Crisara, what I am concerned about is that there is a criticism of Airservices by Mr Crouch that it took so long, and I am giving Airservices an opportunity to explain why it took so long. Now, the most compelling thing that you have said so far about the length of time is that you don't start number 19 until you have finished number 1 and you've finished number 2 and you've finished, et cetera, number 18. That seems plausible that, if you're 19th, it's going to take a while to get to. But, beyond that, I don't really hear from you why it took so long?‑‑‑Well, that's probably not really my jurisdiction anyway. I was only there to assist the trainee, so, on that matter, it's probably better for the delivery manager to answer that question, not really me.

PN990

All right. Is Mr Bosnich in a position to answer that question?‑‑‑I think he is, yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XN MR LOVELL

PN991

Okay. Your witness statement, though, does refer to the pastoral care, if I can put it that way, that you offer to people. Mr Crouch is critical of you in that respect, that it took so long and you were not really giving him answers. Is that something you agree with?‑‑‑No, I gave him an answer that we had a shortage of staff and we were going through the pandemic. I tried to give him as best an update as I possibly could at the time, only on the information that I was given.

PN992

Should it have taken a shorter time?‑‑‑Yes, if we weren't in the circumstances we were in.

PN993

And the circumstances were COVID and shortage of staff?‑‑‑Correct.

PN994

All right, thank you. Any further questions, Mr Lovell?

PN995

MR LOVELL: No, Commissioner.

PN996

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you.

PN997

Now Mr Hardy will ask you some questions in cross-examination. Just be aware, Ms Crisara, that we are dealing with this through video, which means sometimes there is a delay of a second or two in communicating the words to you, so just make sure that you wait for Mr Hardy to finish his question before you start answering. It is also preferable that you not speak over each other, just simply for the purpose of the transcript, which we ultimately have to record and prepare.

PN998

All right, Mr Hardy?

PN999

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY [10.31 AM]

PN1000

Ms Crisara, I think, in answer to Mr Lovell's question a moment ago, you said that it took a bit longer than typical. You then gave some evidence that 'typical' might be four to six weeks. Mr Crouch took six months. You would agree with me, wouldn't you, that six weeks to six months is more than just a bit longer than typical, isn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1001

You would also agree with me, wouldn't you, that, in answer to a question that was put to you this morning, that you did have staff available, it's just they were occupying themselves doing different things? For example, I think you said they were conducting training; correct?‑‑‑They were conducting training, yes.

PN1002

So, you had the staff available. They were doing, I think you said, two sessions of training; correct?‑‑‑I didn't say two sessions of training.

PN1003

Apologies. Per day. One in the morning, one in the afternoon. Apologies, you're quite correct. Pull me up, and, please, if I say something that's not accurate, pull me up on it. Two sessions of training per day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon; correct?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1004

When a trainee like Mr Crouch, or any other trainee for that matter, is put on a training review, they get directed away from the workplace; they get sent home, essentially, don't they?‑‑‑That's right, only - - -

PN1005

And they - apologies?‑‑‑Only because of the COVID situation we were in. We didn't want anyone to be at the office if they didn't have to be at the office.

PN1006

And so Mr Crouch, when he was placed on review, which you accept a date - I think your evidence, if you look at page 570 in paragraph 11, you say, in the middle of that paragraph:

PN1007

When Luke was placed on training review on 17 August 2021.

PN1008

Correct?‑‑‑Yes, correct.

PN1009

And you say there were 19 reviews that were pending?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1010

I'll get to the pending part in a moment, but the case is that Mr Crouch was placed on training review by Airservices on 17 August 2020; correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1011

At that time, he was directed by Airservices to go home; correct?‑‑‑When Luke's case was put on review on 17 August, I was not in the role. I was only in the role from September onwards, so what discussions they had at the time with Luke, I wasn't privy to.

PN1012

Are you aware that, at least from when you commenced in September, Mr Crouch was at home, not performing any duties for Airservices?‑‑‑Correct.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1013

If I put to you that that commenced two weeks before that, in fact, when he was placed on review, he was directed home and performed no further work for Airservices from Friday 14 August, would you accept that that could have occurred?‑‑‑Yes, it could have occurred, yes.

PN1014

And then Monday was the first Monday, which is 17 August, following that direction to go home and, from that point onwards, Mr Crouch performed no work, as far as you are aware, for Airservices?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1015

You are aware, aren't you, that Mr Crouch asked to be permitted to perform certain work for Airservices in that period of review, aren't you?‑‑‑No. I wasn't aware of that, no.

PN1016

THE COMMISSIONER: Parties, can I just interject there, please. Mr Lovell, we are just picking up some difficulties hearing Ms Crisara. Is there a microphone that we can bring her closer to, please?

PN1017

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, it's right next to her. We might just ask her to move the court book folder, in case it's too near.

PN1018

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. All right, thank you.

PN1019

MR LOVELL: Ms Crisara, if you can sort of say something to - - -

PN1020

THE WITNESS: Hello, Commissioner.

PN1021

THE COMMISSIONER: Hello. Yes, I think that's a little bit better, but, it is incredibly difficult to take a transcript over video - there are all sorts of problems associated with it - so if you can just be conscious of that and perhaps project your voice into the microphone, that would be of assistance. Thank you.

PN1022

Please go on, Mr Hardy.

PN1023

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1024

Ms Crisara, you are aware that Mr Crouch, for example, wanted to perform blipping duties in that time?‑‑‑No, I wasn't aware of that, no.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1025

You are aware that sometimes trainees under review get asked to perform blipping duties; correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1026

And that Mr Crouch, you say, wasn't asked to perform those duties; correct?‑‑‑I'm not aware of the blipping duties because I don't schedule the blipping duties for the SSOs. That's conducted by another staff member, so, who they chose, I wasn't aware of.

PN1027

Are you aware of whether Mr Crouch was asked to do blipping duties, or are you not aware?‑‑‑Not aware, no.

PN1028

Can I ask you to turn to - it's not numbered - it's page 571, so just the page obviously immediately following 570. Can you look at paragraph 24, please. You give evidence there that Mr Crouch was not asked to perform blipping duties. How did you make that statement if you're not aware?‑‑‑Only because they used the trainees that have completed a lot more phases than Luke, but they would be used first.

PN1029

But you just gave evidence that you did not know whether Luke was or wasn't asked to perform blipping duties. I'm asking how do you say that when - how do you say Luke was not asked to perform blipping duties if you're telling us today that you don't know whether he was or wasn't asked?‑‑‑Only because we're not, at the time, I had the scheduler that did the blipping duties, said to me I'm going to be using these students to do blipping duties.

PN1030

So, you were given that information?‑‑‑At a particular time, yes.

PN1031

What time was that?‑‑‑Whenever they needed SSOs.

PN1032

Right and so you wished to then codify your earlier statement, which was that you didn't have that information because it was dealt with by other people. That was your earlier evidence?‑‑‑Sorry, what was that? Could you - - -

PN1033

Your earlier evidence was that you did not have that information because it was dealt with by a different team or division?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1034

But now you're saying you did receive that information?‑‑‑Only whenever they needed the training.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1035

Which one was it, Ms Crisara? Did you receive it, or did you not receive it?‑‑‑I received it whenever they needed the figures to perform.

PN1036

Thank you. Can you turn please, Ms Crisara to page 597. That's an annexure to your statement that is titled annexure AC01. See that?‑‑‑

PN1037

MR LOVELL: Mr Hardy I might just point out the witness (indistinct) bringing that up now.

PN1038

MR HARDY: That's okay. No, no, you let me know when you're got that up, Ms Crisara?‑‑‑I have that up.

PN1039

You've seen that table before?‑‑‑Yes, I have.

PN1040

Did you prepare it?‑‑‑Yes, I did.

PN1041

And it contains numbers one through to 20 and Mr Crouch being the 20th, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1042

And then you've de-identified other than Mr Crouch, student names A through to S, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1043

The number that is after their name, is that a reference - what's that a reference to - is that the course number?‑‑‑Yes, it is.

PN1044

And you've got a column about went under review?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1045

Ms Crisara, what this table doesn't tell me is - or the Commission - is when those reviews were completed. Do you have that information?‑‑‑Not with me today, no.

PN1046

Where is it?‑‑‑At work.

PN1047

Is it contained in documents?‑‑‑I think so, yes.

PN1048

Well, I call for those documents, please. That is, the documents that set out the date that student A through to S on annexure AC01 completed their reviews.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1049

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any objection to that, Mr Lovell?

PN1050

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, no. What I don't know, and I take from Ms Crisara's answer just now, is whether that information is in a consolidated format, or would need to be consolidated. But I have no objection to providing that information.

PN1051

MR HARDY: And if it assists, so that we're not then - if it was on one view bombarded with a whole lot of separate - 19 separate documents, I'd be content for that information, for example, to be provided by way of an updated AC01 that has a column of review complete and just contained the dates, if that assists.

PN1052

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might just then make one practical administrative point. I do anticipate that the information might need to be consolidated. So, Airservices would require a reasonable time frame in which to see that occur.

PN1053

MR HARDY: No objection for myself.

PN1054

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, Ms Crisara, how long do you think that might take to compile?‑‑‑A couple of days.

PN1055

All right. Well, if I can leave that with you Mr Lovell, you can assume that it will be require by the Commission at least in a consolidated form.

PN1056

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1057

MR HARDY: Ms Crisara, your role, as I understood your evidence this morning, and as I read your statement, is one of wellbeing and pastoral care and those sorts of things for students under review?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1058

I think you were asked some questions about your understanding about why it is that reviews are taking as long as they were, and I think you said that you don't know and that there's a better person to answer those questions. Would you accept that a delay, and we'll start with a four to six week - I don't want to call that a delay. Let's talk about periods, that a four to six week time period, when an individual is on review, is a stressful period?‑‑‑For the trainee?

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1059

For the trainee, correct, yes for the trainee. Would you accept that?‑‑‑Yes, I would.

PN1060

And that is because there are severe consequences that could potentially flow from a training review. Would you accept that?‑‑‑Severe consequences being?

PN1061

Well, that their training may be terminated?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1062

And if their training is terminated, what follows is a termination of employment albeit in a separate process?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1063

And that faced with a review, there are - I mentioned termination, but there are other consequences as well. There are essentially, as I understand the evidence, four options. I'll read them out to you cumulatively, and if you can say yes, that's your understanding, then that's fine. If you need me to go to each one, I'll go to each one, but at the end of a review, the recommendation can be continuing the training, further training support intervention, a recourse or termination. Is that your understanding of essentially the four options?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1064

And the termination of that training sees if that is the recommendation, an individual lose their employment, as a separate process?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1065

Once they've lost their employment, let's say they were a really eager, keen, air traffic control student and they wanted to continue being an air traffic controller and pursuing their passion and pursuing their skills and prior training and education, can they go anywhere else? Is there another air services competitor, or anywhere else that they can go to achieve that?‑‑‑No.

PN1066

So, it is only at Airservices that they can achieve that outcome?‑‑‑As far as I'm aware, yes, it's the only place.

PN1067

That would heighten, wouldn't it, the absolute concern of a student who has gone through studies, he's going through this training, wants to be a trainer to, wants to be an air traffic controller to have their training completed. It's a very very important step for those people?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1068

And that a four to six week period where they're being reviewed, a month and a half, in that context, as I think you've said, that is a stressful period. You would understand for them, that would be a stressful period?‑‑‑Correct.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1069

If you extrapolate that from six weeks to six months, where on the stress, as a wellbeing and pastoral care person, where on the stress scale do you think that might support a person facing that sort of set of circumstances?‑‑‑Probably stressful for the trainee.

PN1070

Well, at its highest level, is it - I mean, once you reached a particular point after that six week period and you're heading towards six months, could you be any more stressed, do you thing?‑‑‑Depending on the individual, actually.

PN1071

Yes, I get that. Each person will respond to that differently, but if you're saying that your evidence is that you could understand a person being stressed at six weeks, at six months, you've got to - well, would you accept that they would be more stressed - - -

PN1072

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. That question has already been asked.

PN1073

MR HARDY: I'll withdraw it; I'll withdraw it. Ms Crisara, in your role then, knowing that people could be stressed over a four to six week period, and knowing, as I will put to you, that a period extending to six weeks would only exacerbate that, isn't it absolutely incumbent upon you in your role to know exactly all the reasons as to why things are taking as long as they are?‑‑‑I thought I explained that due to staff shortages.

PN1074

No, but I think you said that as to why these reviews were taking on, you don't know that and you must ask another person that question?‑‑‑As far as I know. The review - because of the situation we were in, that's why it took so long. It was just the thing at the time. I didn't have to talk to anyone about that.

PN1075

But why - apologies, did I cut you off, Ms Crisara? Have you finished your answer?‑‑‑Yes, I have.

PN1076

Why, going from number one to number nineteen, why does that have to be done consecutively?‑‑‑Well, why wouldn't you do it consecutively? How does it stand if you do number 19 before we do number one?

PN1077

Ms Crisara, my role is to ask you questions; your role is to answer those questions, understand?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1078

Can you answer my question, please?‑‑‑Could you repeat that question, please?

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1079

I can. How is it, or why is it that you need to run one through to nineteen consecutively?‑‑‑Because you want to give the first person the opportunity to have that review completed first, because that was the first person under review.

PN1080

But what stops you running one and two together, or one and two and three together?‑‑‑We don't have enough - or we didn't have enough staff to run one, two and three together.

PN1081

Yes, but you could run one, two and three together. There's nothing that prevents you doing it?‑‑‑That's right, if we had the staff available, yes, we could have run that.

PN1082

And we accepted a minute ago that we had the staff available, they were just doing other things; they were training people?‑‑‑Training was our priority at the time.

PN1083

Yes, as against a person or a group of people who are sitting at home with no work, feeling stressed about an at least four to six week delay, to then going on to six months. Is your evidence to the Commission that there is then no way to reallocate after a morning or afternoon session, a trainer to undertake a review?‑‑‑At the time, that's right. There was no one available at the time.

PN1084

What does it take for them to do a review of one person. How long should it take? What's involved for them?‑‑‑They go through all their training records. They go through their dailies, read every report that's been written on that person to make sure that the training that they were delivered was accurate and come up with a report that way.

PN1085

All right?‑‑‑But with writing reviews, you probably need to speak to Frank again, because he was more involved in it than I was.

PN1086

Yes, no, no, I understand, I understand that. Could I ask you please - - -

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1087

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you move on, Mr Hardy, Ms Crisara, I've listened to what you have to say and I accept to a degree what you say about first in, first out. With due respect to the parties here this morning, I'll try and give my decision first in; first out, but there may well be other matters which come along which are much more urgent, and so I'll write my decision on that one, and this one might take me a lot longer, because it's more complex and there's a thousand pages to read. You know, these things occur, so surely there are occasions where the degree of review is different and they'll be done out of sequence?‑‑‑I'm not sure with that, Commissioner, I'm sorry.

PN1088

All right. When I look at your AC01 which is on page 597, I realise you may not know this information, but you might want to think about this. When I look at the AC01, Mr Crouch is number 20, he went under review on 17 August. Actually, I just wish to ask a question about number 16. It's saying student P142 and then there's in square parenthesis, 138. What's the number in square parenthesis?‑‑‑138 he's on a course of 138, but he was recourse to 132.

PN1089

I see, okay, right. The question I just wanted to ask is that Crouch went on review on 17 August, but then there were four that went on review in July. Did those - did the outcome of those matters take until February?‑‑‑That information - I haven't got that anywhere, Commissioner.

PN1090

All right, okay. Well, look Mr Hardy, if you'd continue please.

PN1091

MR HARDY: Certainly, I think what you mentioned a moment ago, Ms Crisara, was that one of the reasons a training review is done, is if someone isn't performing to standards you would like them to be. Could I ask you to turn to page 14 please?‑‑‑14?

PN1092

Yes, 14 of the court book, thank you?‑‑‑

PN1093

MR LOVELL: I'm just handing Ms Crisara the first volume of the court book, Commissioner.

PN1094

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1095

MR HARDY: In particular, when you get to that page, would you look at clause 50.1 and 50.2 please, and have a read of that, those two clauses?‑‑‑Yes, I've read that.

PN1096

Thank you. You will see two distinct clauses, correct, clause 50.1 and then 50.2, as a separate clause with a heading Procedural Fairness?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1097

You will see that clause has got some opening words and then (a) through to (e), correct?‑‑‑Correct.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1098

This clause is a clause within the Airservices Australia Air Traffic Control and Supporting Air Traffic Services Enterprise Agreement 2020 to 2023. If you take that as accepted, Mr Lovell, if that - if I'm incorrect in that, I take it that is where it comes from. Are you aware of that document?‑‑‑I'm aware of the document, yes.

PN1099

You see in clause 50.1, the primary focus of managing an employee of performance, obviously, or conduct, when it's unsatisfactory it's to constructively assess the employee to improve and/or conduct to a satisfactory level within a reasonable time. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1100

Giving feedback and assistance as is appropriate, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1101

Then when you get to paragraph 50.2, which is procedural fairness, Airservices will adhere to principles of procedural fairness when managing an employee in relation to suspected under-performance, and this is a case of managing suspected under-performance, isn't it, a review; a training review?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1102

One of the things you will do when doing that, is (a), promptly advise the employee of concerns, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1103

And part of the training review is to upline those concerns, should there be concerns found, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1104

And to provide enough time to an employee - this is part (b), to be represented or supported in relation to the performance and conduct management process, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1105

Could I take you to your statement, please? Just keep that page open, if you wouldn't mind. Could I take you to page 570 please, paragraph 13, and your opening sentence. Have you got that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1106

It's regrettable - you found it regrettable that the reviews took up to - including Mr Crouch's, that's who you're referring to there when you say Luke, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1107

Took up to six months to complete. Now that's regrettable, isn't it, because it's not a reasonable time frame in your view, correct?‑‑‑It's not.

PN1108

Yes, and it's not prompt, is it?‑‑‑No.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1109

No, and you understand, don't you, that that is - there was - the evidence is there was a six month period that this review was undertaken for reasons of staffing and COVID, as I understand your evidence?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1110

And Mr Crouch, then has the opportunity to pick that document up and I'll take you to if I need to, it's dated 17 February 2021, accept that, if you can. It's given to him, if you can accept this, on the following day, the 18 February 2021, and Mr Crouch is given - initially, he is given five working days to review and respond to that report. Were you aware of that?‑‑‑Yes, I am aware of that.

PN1111

How does a five day - in the context of being - what we've just read in that enterprise agreement, of being compelled to - for the organisation to do things promptly, but then to provide enough time to an employee, how would Airservices possibly of considered that it took six months to prepare this report, in light of COVID and you'd accept that COVID didn't just disappear on the 18 February 2021, did it; it continued.

PN1112

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I'm not sure where this is formulated as a question.

PN1113

MR HARDY: It's about to be.

PN1114

THE COMMISSIONER: I guess we'll find out. Mr Hardy?

PN1115

MR HARDY: The COVID pandemic continued well after February 2021, didn't it?‑‑‑Yes, it did.

PN1116

In fact, it's still floating around today, 6 April 2022, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1117

How, as a matter of procedural fairness, can you say - would you say that Mr Crouch be given a five day period to respond to a report which took six months to review and prepare? Is that - do you regard that as sufficient time?‑‑‑I'm only following the process from Airservices, and that's what our process is, a five day review, to review and appeal the decision.

PN1118

Yes, but your process was also, as you told the Commissioner, typically, four to six weeks to do the review ?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1119

And it took you six months?‑‑‑Due to staff shortages, yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1120

And what else?‑‑‑With COVID-19.

PN1121

And which existed at the time Mr Crouch received it, but yet you hold him to a five day - business day turn around on review and response. How is that procedurally - - -?‑‑‑Because that was our process. (Indistinct) five days to appeal and turn in a review decision.

PN1122

So, you pick and choose when you alter your process, do you?‑‑‑No. I didn't pick the process; I just follow it.

PN1123

Well, how was it followed if four to six weeks turned to six months? Who decides that that's then now the new process? Who decides that?‑‑‑Management, I guess; it's not me though.

PN1124

All right, and if it wasn't decided for Mr Crouch, notwithstanding the organisation must adhere under that provision that I took you to, to principles of procedural fairness?‑‑‑I didn't understand, I'm sorry.

PN1125

All right, that's fine.

PN1126

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Crisara, could I ask you a couple of questions please? Have you read Mr Crouch's witness statement?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1127

Fine, okay, and you'll recall in there that he refers to a number of conversations or exchanges with you, perhaps by email or other forms?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1128

When I read his statement, it leaps out to me that he was saying to you, in not as many words, that this is taking too long, it's not good enough. Would you accept that?‑‑‑I do.

PN1129

All right, now what he reports here as saying is well look, that's what the system is. Is that again, not a fair response?‑‑‑I did say that due to staff shortages and the pandemic is why we were in the situation we were in, (indistinct) time the review has taken longer than usual.

PN1130

Right. But nonetheless, you picked up that he was not happy with progress?‑‑‑Yes, I did pick that up, yes. Did you report that to anyone?‑‑‑I did, I reported it to our Operation and Training head at the time.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1131

Who was that person?‑‑‑Steve Clarke.

PN1132

All right, and what did you say to Mr Clarke?‑‑‑I brought up our concerns to Steve that the process is taking a little bit too long and he just wants to do it on the phone. He wants to finalise his training review.

PN1133

You've put that in the sense of you told him the process was taking a bit long. Did you say to him, look, this is not good enough. We've got a person here who is holding out; he's getting very stressed; something needs to be done?‑‑‑I did mention that to Steven, yes.

PN1134

Right, and what did he respond?‑‑‑He said he would have a look at it for him.

PN1135

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, could you repeat that please?‑‑‑He says he'll look into it for me; he'll look into it.

PN1136

Did you notice any action on his part to do something about your concern?‑‑‑Yes, he did. He actually approached the Delivery Manager at the time to find out how long it would be.

PN1137

And who's the Delivery Manager at the time?‑‑‑That was (indistinct). He's no longer with the company.

PN1138

Right, okay. So, do you recall when that approach was made?‑‑‑No, I don't, sorry.

PN1139

All right, thank you, Mr Hardy.

PN1140

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner. Was that approach that the Commissioner was talking to you about, how did you make that approach? Was it verbally or in written correspondence?‑‑‑Verbally.

PN1141

And the evidence that you've now led, that doesn't appear in your witness statement, anywhere, does it?‑‑‑No.

PN1142

Would is surprise you, if I said that, in my reading of Mr Clarke's statement, he doesn't recount having any such conversation with you either?‑‑‑Probably didn't include the conversation.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1143

But you're aware that that period was becoming - - -

PN1144

MR LOVELL: Mr Hardy is asking Ms Crisara to speculate on the content of another witness' statement.

PN1145

MR HARDY: All right, I'll withdraw that; I'll withdraw that. Mr Crouch said things to you, you'd accept, and just accept it's to the effect of this. I've been waiting for months?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1146

How much longer will it be?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1147

Is the review ready yet?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1148

I was expecting this weeks ago?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1149

Why is it taking so long?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1150

And that showed you, didn't it, in your wellbeing role, there was concern and angst from Mr Crouch?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1151

Your evidence is that what that perhaps led to, was - what that led to was an oral conversation that you would have had with Mr Clarke. That's what you are seeking to inform the Commission?‑‑‑I did raise concerns with Mr Clarke, yes of these concerns.

PN1152

At that level, of that sort of questioning, and you've read his statement, the thrust of what he was saying, did you not think to put that into an email? Was it not of significant importance enough to you to put into an email?‑‑‑I just didn't think at the time to put it in an email. I went upstairs straight away, once I got off the phone with Luke.

PN1153

At which point?‑‑‑When I got off the phone with Luke.

PN1154

When? So, when the review was - well, at what stage did you get off the phone and go upstairs?‑‑‑I went straight away, like once I got off the phone, I rang Steve up.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1155

Yes, but when was this? Are we talking August, September?

PN1156

MR LOVELL: In response to a question, Commissioner, from - the witness has already said she can't recall precisely when this occurred.

PN1157

MR HARDY: All right, I'm happy for it not to be precise. Around - it took a six month period. Was it at the beginning of that period, in the middle of that period or towards the end of that period? When did you go and say - when do you say you finished a conversation with Mr Crouch and went upstairs?‑‑‑Straight afterwards. I had a conversation on the Friday, that afternoon that Luke had concerns with it, I saw Steve and let him know.

PN1158

Was that at the beginning of the period, was it at the middle of the period, was it at the end of that six month period, to the best of your recollection?‑‑‑Every second week. Luke used to ring with different things; I used to ring Steve straight away.

PN1159

So, you would go up to Mr Clarke, on your evidence to this Commission, is you went up to Mr Clarke every two weeks over a six month period to reflect the sorts of things that Mr Crouch was telling you?‑‑‑Correct, because he had concerns with it, yes. Not that I went upstairs, I rang him on the phone.

PN1160

Right, you either went upstairs or you rang him on the phone?‑‑‑Rang him on the phone.

PN1161

Yes, so every two - I can't - I'm not doing the maths in my head here, but every two weeks over six months, at what point were you going to - with this ongoing, at what point as a health and wellbeing person, were you going to put that into an email and say I've tried to elevate this for two weeks over six months. It's not completed yet, when will this be done? It's having a profound - or having a concern or having an impact on one of our trainees? When were you going to, do you think, elevate that to Mr Clarke?‑‑‑I did with my weekly - when I chatted with him.

PN1162

I'm talking about beyond a chat, because this was becoming way more serious for Mr Crouch, as you would know, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1163

It warranted more than a chat, didn't it?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1164

And you didn't do that, do you?‑‑‑Went on to get advice to move it up to the Operation and Training Head to, would be, and that's who I left it with; it was with them.

PN1165

And you say in your role as looking after someone's wellbeing, that verbal chats two weeks over a six month period where you see reviews not being completed, that's - - -

PN1166

MR LOVELL: I object Commissioner. This question has been asked of the witness and she has answered it.

PN1167

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll permit the question, thank you. I consider this to be an important subject.

PN1168

MR HARDY: Ms Crisara, over that period, knowing what we've established this morning, that it's important to these trainees, critically so, because there is no other organisation other than Airservices to undertake this training and get the qualifications and perform employment for. They could be stressed after four to six weeks. That sitting at home doing nothing and that checking in through chats, as you've described them, over two - every two weeks for a six month period and you regard that - as I understand your evidence you say that is not - that he deserved at least for you to have elevated that, is that correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1169

In the sense of a written elevation?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1170

And that was not done?‑‑‑It was verbally done.

PN1171

So, the written elevation was not done, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1172

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Crisara, can I maybe just understand your role a little, because I don't wish to proceed on a misapprehension. Your witness statement refers to you being the technical business support adviser?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN1173

Can you just outline to me please, in summary terms what that job entails?‑‑‑Of the deputy for support adviser?

PN1174

Well, the one that you refer to in your statement?‑‑‑

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1175

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might clarify, if you turn your attention to paragraph 4 of Ms Crisara's statement, she says at paragraph 4, that at that time, acting in the role of trainee coordinator. It might be if your enquiries are directed towards that one.

PN1176

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, indeed, thank you for that. When you were acting in the role of the trainee coordinator, just give me a potted version of the job description that that entailed?‑‑‑Well, there were the trainees to assist and support them where required.

PN1177

So, that was the whole focus of the position?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1178

Then I look at AC01, just let me obtain that. When I look at AC01, there's the 20 people who were referred to and there's then - they were all at different stages of the review process, I'm assuming. In many positions where these sort - well, I'll try to reframe that. It's not uncommon I'd suggest to you that there are roles of this type where there's a manager looking at a batch of activities and they have to report to their manager about what's going on. Now, the question I'm getting to is did you provide routine reporting to your management about those 20 review trainees?‑‑‑Yes, I did report to my manager.

PN1179

Okay, and just to be clear, who was your manager?‑‑‑Steven Clarke.

PN1180

Right, so, was what you were reporting to Clarke about, Mr Crouch, was that out of the ordinary?‑‑‑No, not really, no. All the other trainees had concerns as well, and I'd explain the situation.

PN1181

Were you providing a routine, fortnightly, or monthly report about the status of all those interactions you were having?‑‑‑Yes. It was weekly because I used to do the trainees up weekly and then when I had reviews with my manager on a weekly basis, I'd advise him of the situation.

PN1182

Was that a written report?‑‑‑No, just when we had our weekly chat.

PN1183

Mr Lovell, can I ask you to show the witness please, page 56 and 57 of the hearing book?

PN1184

MR LOVELL: Yes, so the witness has that in front of her in the hard copy form, Commissioner.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1185

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. I'd be interested please for you to particularly scan through paragraph 61. It's from Mr Crouch's statement, and if you could read through paragraph 61 which is a table of his interactions with you, and indeed with others, for that matter. Let me know when you've read through it?‑‑‑I have read that.

PN1186

Right, thank you. There's just one other matter I wish to check. They're not the only references to you in Mr Crouch's statement and I'm not suggesting that they are. But what does come through from that is that he was, by the looks of it, getting increasingly concerned and expressing things to you in an increasing level of anxiety. Would that be accurate?‑‑‑Yes, I'll say yes.

PN1187

Right, and your evidence is that you reported that to Mr Clarke, but not much else?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1188

All right. Would that seem particularly effective to you?‑‑‑Probably not now, no.

PN1189

Right. All right, thank you. Mr Hardy.

PN1190

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner. Could I ask you to turn to page 90 of the court book, please. That's a document titled Airservices Registered Training Organisation or RTO Operations Manual for Airservices Australia?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1191

This is a document - are you aware of this document?‑‑‑Yes, I am.

PN1192

It's a document that Airservices is bound by, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1193

If I could ask you please to turn to page - sorry, and it sets out various obligations that are placed on - amongst other things. One of the things this document does is places obligations on Airservices in respect of the matters that are dealt with in the manual?‑‑‑Hm-mm.

PN1194

Could I ask you to go to page 104 please? If you could look please at paragraph 3.9 Safety Management. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1195

Could you read that paragraph please?‑‑‑Airservices RTO, is - - -

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1196

I'm sorry, apologies, you don't have to read that out loud, I'm sorry. Just have a read of that statement, yes sorry, and I should have made that clear. Just have a read of that paragraph?‑‑‑Yes, I have read that.

PN1197

And the following paragraph which is 3.9.1 on the same page, Workplace Health and Safety WHS. Can you read that - those paragraphs that follow, please?‑‑‑I have read that.

PN1198

Thank you. In your role encompassing wellbeing and psychological aspects of your role, do you regard safety as including both physical and psychological aspects?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1199

From what we've just explored about the delay, about Mr Crouch's angst, about the ongoing circumstances surrounding the duration of his review, would you accept that the obligations that are placed on Airservices as an RTO, in relation to those paragraphs, in respect of Mr Crouch's wellbeing, may not have been met?‑‑‑Possibly.

PN1200

And that, for example, I think in hindsight, your evidence is you perhaps should have elevated things in writing to Mr Clarke, as an obligation. If I just take one example, under 3.9, the third line, 'we will work to eliminate the potential for occurrences that pose high risk to those who use our services, or who work in or visit our premises'. He was an employee, correct of Airservices, Mr Crouch was?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1201

Yes, and perhaps I hindsight, as you read that, working to eliminate would have required a more of an escalation than perhaps was done?‑‑‑Perhaps, yes.

PN1202

If I ask you to turn please to page 154 of that document, it's the same manual. It's a heading 8.5.3 The RTO Academic Appeals Procedure and Evidence Retention Requirements. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1203

It sets out a number of steps and if I could ask you to turn over two pages please, to 156, which is a continuation of those steps and look at number 13 please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1204

And 14 and 15. Could you have a look at those and let me know once you've read those - had a chance to read those through to yourself, please?‑‑‑

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1205

MR LOVELL: It might be, Mr Hardy, helpful if you just repeated the item numbers to which you referred.

PN1206

MR HARDY: Apologies, certainly. 13, 14 and 15, please. Pages 156 and 157?‑‑‑Yes, I've read that.

PN1207

You understood that part of the process and what was being communicated to Mr Crouch as he was going through this review and appeals process of his review following February 2021, was that there would be an opportunity for an independent review through EAP, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1208

And that was required under the manual?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1209

But not delivered, correct?‑‑‑I don't know if that was not delivered; I don't know.

PN1210

Thank you. Ms Crisara, could you please have a look at page 333 of the court book?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1211

In fairness, I should take you to 331, because that's - I've taken you to a part of an email chain. 331 is the last email in that chain on 22 February 2021. The first email on that chain is 334. So, let's just work through quickly. 334 on 19 February, you've sent an email to Mr Crouch, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1212

At 12:50, with documents that have been requested and that was relating to - on 19 February, that's the day after the first review report was provided to him, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1213

And you see in there, on that very same day?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1214

Within, I think, two to three hours, on page 333, he's written to you and says that he's been given - if you look at paragraph 2, 'I want to note a couple of things we've discussed, but I don't make any mistakes. I've been given five working days to review and respond to the review. I enquired about having this time frame extended and I was advised no such option exists.' You see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1215

If you turn it back one page to 332, you say on the 22 February, so the Monday morning after he'd emailed you that, you've given some responses to him in red, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1216

Your response to that question going back to 333, is that is correct. You have been given five working days until 5.00 pm on Thursday 25 February. An extension was not approved?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1217

Who did you ask that - who approved that extension? Was that Mr Clarke?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1218

The very man you'd been reporting to on your evidence every two weeks about Luke's angst, and ongoing concern about this delay, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1219

And he askes for an extension and that gentleman declines to approve it, correct?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1220

Thank you. Then on - if you then please turn to page 996 please.

PN1221

MR LOVELL: I might assist the witness that will be in the second volume.

PN1222

MR HARDY: Thank you Mr Lovell, indebted?‑‑‑996, yes.

PN1223

Do you recognise - have you seen that document before?‑‑‑I have yes.

PN1224

Would you accept that that is what we would refer as the very first - the initial training review report that set out the findings of that review that we were discussing that's dated 17 February and that was provided to Mr Crouch approximately the following day, on the 18th?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1225

You're aware that Mr Crouch on the 19 February asked for copies of de-identified information of his cohort to enable him to review this report, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1226

And that was declined?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1227

You're aware that Mr Crouch has since, through the commencement of these proceedings, obtained similar such information. Are you aware of that?‑‑‑What sort of information?

PN1228

Of the comparative information of the results of students in his cohort, that he was asking for from 19 February 2021?‑‑‑I remember him asking for that information, but I don't recall giving him those training - - -

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1229

No, correct, you didn't. What I'm saying is that through this dispute process and through the Commission, he now has access to that. Are you aware that he has access to that through this process or not? It doesn't matter either way?‑‑‑No.

PN1230

No, that's fine. Now in this report, if I can ask you please to turn to page 1005?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1231

That is a table that sets out phase two PE. Do you know what PE stands for? Progress Evaluation?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1232

One through to five?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1233

There's a comment under six that says 'Luke was placed under review prior to completing PE6'?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1234

If you turn to the court book on page 336 please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1235

One of the things that Mr Crouch asks for was, he says, this review, and you'll know - I can take you to it if you want, but does it align with your understanding that that first review recommended the termination of Mr Crouch's training?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1236

What he says in his request after reviewing that was that if you look the third line on his email to you on 23 February, again a couple of days after receiving this report, line three - sorry, line two 'I note the review document states I was placed under review before sitting PE6, however that is not correct. I recall sitting PE6 a day or two before I was placed under review'. If you turn over the page to 335, you respond to Luke, and he's asked for certain of his information. You say 'Please find attached PE1 to PE5. There is no PE6'?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.

PN1237

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what page was that?

PN1238

MR HARDY: Apologies, 335.

PN1239

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you.

PN1240

MR HARDY: But that information that you were providing to Mr Crouch on 23 February 2021, that was inaccurate, wasn't it?‑‑‑That's right.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1241

And that Mr Crouch had in fact completed PE6?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN1242

He then sends you, if you read above, your email on 23 February. He presses for a copy of that report, sorry that evaluation number six, which has been left out of the report, correct?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN1243

Which was the report that ultimately recommended his termination that has been the subject of many reviews up to where we sit today and that he wanted to have the opportunity to look at that, prior to submitting his request for review and supporting submissions, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1244

You're aware that that was then - you then, I understand, took steps to get that document for him?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN1245

And it took you a little bit of time to do so, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1246

Ultimately, if you go to page 1042 - - -

PN1247

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what number?

PN1248

MR HARDY: 1042, Commissioner, apologies. One thousand and forty-two?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1249

Would you recognise that document as being the same document we looked at, at 1005, only that we now have included within it, the results from PE6?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1250

You will see that in all aspects, other than two, PE6 was marked satisfactorily for each of those elements, other than element 1.2 and element 3.1, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1251

I then understand that, and correct me if this is wrong, but got then four extra days, once he'd received that information to complete his review, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1252

So, what I'd earlier spoken about as a six month period and an initial five day response time, after he picked up this error, was given that information, was then essentially - and obviously, there was time taken waiting for that, but he had then the six month review and essentially, nine days in total to respond to that review document?‑‑‑That's right.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1253

As part of getting that documentation to Mr Crouch, I'll ask you just as a matter of fairness, to look at page 347, to refresh your memory, if you need to, that you had to get some information from - - -

PN1254

MR LOVELL: Sorry, the witness might just need a moment to go to that page.

PN1255

MR HARDY: Sure, no problem. 347, please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1256

That you were waiting for Brad Dare to return to work to get PE6. Do you see that in your email to Mr Crouch on 24 February?‑‑‑I do, yes.

PN1257

Who's Mr Dare?‑‑‑One of our instructors.

PN1258

And is he still employed by Airservices?‑‑‑Yes, he is.

PN1259

You were aware that - did you have discussions with Mr Dare about Mr - getting PE6?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1260

And you're aware that Mr Dare had positive things to say about Mr Crouch's performance?‑‑‑No.

PN1261

All right. Now, in your statement at paragraph 14 and following, it's on page 570, Ms Crisara and I'll give you an opportunity just to turn to that page, 570?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1262

That is under the heading Debrief Meeting with Frank Bosnich and Luke Crouch, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1263

You attended that meeting in your evidence at paragraph 14, you say, on 7 April, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1264

That the purpose of that meeting was, as you account, to inform Mr Crouch of his outcome in the training review?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1265

In preparing this aspect of your statement and the debrief meeting before signing the statement, did you talk to Mr Bosnich about that meeting?‑‑‑When was that sorry? Can you say that again?

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1266

In preparing your account of that meeting, the debrief meeting?‑‑‑The debrief with Luke?

PN1267

No, with Mr Bosnich. Did you talk to Mr Bosnich about - you write in there some paragraphs about that meeting. In your preparation of those paragraphs, 14 through to 19, did you talk to Mr Bosnich about what had occurred at that meeting to put these notes together?

PN1268

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might just interject here. It might be helpful if Mr Hardy just directs the witness to the time at which we're talking about.

PN1269

MR HARDY: Yes, well I don't know she prepared the statement. In the preparation of this document, in getting your account of your debrief meeting with Mr Bosnich that occurred on 7 April 2021, about a year ago. You've signed your statement in March - I think that should be 2022, 11 March, it says 2021. But I'm assuming - when did you sign this statement? If you look at page 571, it says 11 March 2021. I take it that's incorrect?‑‑‑It should be 22.

PN1270

Yes. Now, this meeting you're talking about, was about a year before that, just over a year. 7 April 2021, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1271

In getting your thoughts and your evidence together, when preparing paragraphs 14 through to 19, where you were going to be recording things about that meeting that you attended with Mr Bosnich, my question is, in putting that together, did you talk to Mr Bosnich about what had occurred at that meeting?‑‑‑I still don't understand the question, I'm sorry. Is it during the conversations we had with Luke, or after Luke left the room?

PN1272

After, after. So, once the meeting is finished on 7 April, the world goes on?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1273

And on the 11 March 2022, you've signed a statement for these proceedings, correct, and in doing that, you've given evidence of a number of things. For example, you've said in paragraph 12 that you read the statement filed by Luke?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1274

Right, and yet you prepared yourself to give this statement?‑‑‑That's right.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1275

I'm asking you as part of that preparation, did you talk to Mr Bosnich about recording that meeting and what had transpired in that meeting on 7 April?‑‑‑There was no recording of it, no.

PN1276

Not recording, recalling. So, did you discuss with Mr Bosnich, or have a conversation with him, in your preparation of this statement about that debrief meeting?‑‑‑We had a conversation during it - I still don't understand, I'm sorry.

PN1277

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Crisara, can I try to reframe this? You've prepared a statement and your recollection of the meeting last year was set out at paragraphs 14 to 19?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1278

When you wrote those words, immediately prior to writing them, had you spoken to Mr Bosnich about your joint recollection?‑‑‑No.

PN1279

MR HARDY: And so, what was your recollection of that meeting based on, the year prior to that statement? How did you recall what had occurred at that meeting? Did you for example, have notes of the meeting?‑‑‑I just remembered what happened on that day.

PN1280

But did you remember just in your head, or did you have a note, a file note or did you have - was there anything else?‑‑‑I remembered in my head.

PN1281

Yes, all right, thank you. And your account of that in paragraphs 14 to 19, you've included to the best of your ability all of the relevant matters that you say occurred in that meeting that you think ought to have been brought to the Commission's attention, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1282

Did you take independent notes of the meeting when you were sitting in the meeting?‑‑‑No.

PN1283

How would you describe Mr Bosnich's conduct, or demeanour towards Mr Crouch in that meeting?‑‑‑Professional.

PN1284

Would you regard him as being forthright and firm?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1285

Would you regard him - but you know that Mr Crouch says that he regarded his conduct as being rude, disrespectful and hostile?‑‑‑No.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1286

You didn't evidence any rude, disrespectful or hostile conduct?‑‑‑No.

PN1287

From any participant at that meeting?‑‑‑No.

PN1288

Thank you. Do you know who Mr Bosnich reported to?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1289

I should say at that time?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

PN1290

And who was that?‑‑‑Steven Clarke.

PN1291

Do you know that the phase after Mr Clarke had then reviewed Mr Bosnich, he was the next in line after Mr Bosnich, was Mr Clarke, running a review of the training recommendation? Are you aware of that?‑‑‑Yes, I am.

PN1292

And then you're aware that after that, there comes a panel that was headed up by James Harrington, correct?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1293

Do you know at that time who Mr Harrington reported to?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1294

Who was that?‑‑‑Steven Clarke.

PN1295

Do you know that Mr Harrington was on a panel of three people?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1296

You're aware that Mr Harrington selected that panel?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1297

In those circumstances the review is done by Mr Bosnich who reports to Mr Clarke, the next review is done by Mr Clarke, the next review is done by Mr Harrington who reports to Mr Clarke, and two people that Mr Harrington chooses that look at reasonably or fairly, that might give rise to a situation of a conflict of interest by those conducting these reviews?‑‑‑Incorrect. Obviously incorrect, because the two independent people that James Harrington chose is from the operational plant, operational OTC's. They're the people from training.

PN1298

Right, but they weren't selected by anyone else at Airservices, other than Mr Harrington, were they?‑‑‑That's right, Mr Harrington chaired the board and then chose two people from operational training.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1299

Quite so, he was the sole selector of those two people, wasn't he?‑‑‑Yes, he was.

PN1300

And he reported to Mr Clarke?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1301

And you still see no conflict of interest?‑‑‑No, because I saw that two independent people from our operational were doing the review; James just chaired the review.

PN1302

When you say just, you're playing that role down. What is it - a chair of an appeal panel seems quite an important role to me, isn't it?‑‑‑I shouldn't have used the word just. He was on the board.

PN1303

Yes, and the appointment of those other two, had that been from the operational department? I could have accepted what you're saying, but when they are the two people that are selected solely by Mr Harrington, who report directly to Mr Clarke, do you still maintain that you do not see a conflict of interest in that situation?‑‑‑I don't see - this is my opinion, I don't see a conflict of interest, no. It wasn't directly Mr Harrington doing the reviews, it was two independent people doing the review.

PN1304

Right, do you see that there could be a perceived conflict of interest?‑‑‑Yes, I can see that.

PN1305

And do you see - could you see how Mr Crouch might, in that circumstance, see that being a process of continued review of this recommendation that his training be terminated, be infected with a bias against him?‑‑‑No, I don't see that, no.

PN1306

Could you see through the participants involved, how that might have given rise to at least a perception of bias against him?‑‑‑No, not at all.

PN1307

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I think this line of questioning calls for speculation by this witness as to Mr Crouch's point of view of this.

PN1308

MR HARDY: There's no further questions to raise in relation to that topic, thank you.

PN1309

Now, can I take you to page 571 of your statement, the conversation on 7 April?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1310

You say in that statement that you don't specifically recall having a telephone call with Luke after the meeting, correct?‑‑‑That's right, I don't recall.

PN1311

But you're not saying that it didn't occur?‑‑‑I just can't - I just don't recall having a conversation on that day.

PN1312

So, it may have occurred?‑‑‑I can't recall having a conversation on that day.

PN1313

I know you say that, so that means it may have occurred, correct?‑‑‑No, no.

PN1314

And you say you don't also, in the same way, you don't recall Luke raising concerns about Frank's conduct, but again, he may have, you just don't recall?‑‑‑I don't recall, no.

PN1315

And you're certainly are not saying that he didn't have a phone call with you?‑‑‑I just can't recall that conversation on the day.

PN1316

Thank you.

PN1317

THE COMMISSIONER: Parties, I'm sorry to do this to you, but I just need to adjourn for a slight moment. If we can adjourn just for five minutes please.

PN1318

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.46 AM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.46 AM]

RESUMED [11.51 AM]

<ANTOINETTE CRISARA, RECALLED [11.51 AM]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING [11.51 AM]

PN1319

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for the break, parties. So, Mr Hardy, if you can continue, please.

PN1320

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner. Ms Crisara could you please turn to page 571 of the court book please?‑‑‑Yes.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1321

Now, you say in paragraphs - if you could read 22 to 24, please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1322

You say in there that, in paragraph 23, the second line, your usual practice - this is about blipping duties. Could you explain to the Commission what blipping duties are?‑‑‑About simulated support officers, they're a pilot.

PN1323

They're a pilot?‑‑‑Acting pilots for training. Pilots for training.

PN1324

Yes, thank you. You say that the academy doesn't require trainees placed on review to perform - doesn't require all trainees placed on review to perform the duties, but it certainly requires some of those trainees, doesn't it?‑‑‑That's right, yes.

PN1325

Even while on review?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1326

And you say that those - the usual practice is to assign duties to most advanced trainees, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1327

And what you regard a most advanced trainee as being?‑‑‑Trainees that have probably completed phase 3, 4, 5. 3, 4, 5, that's right.

PN1328

But that isn't the only form of trainee that performs these sorts of duties, correct?‑‑‑Sorry, what was that?

PN1329

They are not the - the most advanced trainees as you've described them, aren't the only trainees who perform blipping duties?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1330

And in fact, junior trainees, like Mr Crouch, are you aware he had previously performed blipping duties. I'm not talking while on review; I'm talking about before that. That he would have performed blipping duties before that?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1331

I think you gave some evidence a while ago that you didn't believe Mr Crouch had requested to be perform blipping duties?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1332

Mr Crouch, his evidence is that he asked for that, and what he was told by you was that you would pass his request on. Does that ring a bell?‑‑‑No, it doesn't.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1333

Right. You say in your statement that when trainees are under review they can do - we've just discussed blipping duties, but you also say at 22, they can do other support roles?‑‑‑And support roles, yes.

PN1334

What might they be? What are the other support roles?‑‑‑Could be photocopying, could be some binding.

PN1335

And would that be to assist who? The trainers, or?‑‑‑Probably assist the admin staff.

PN1336

Yes, and who gets those support roles?‑‑‑Well, as far as I'm aware, we haven't assigned any of those support roles to any of the trainees under review, as far as I'm aware. It's only if we need the extra support, but at the time we didn't need extra support for those roles.

PN1337

But your evidence in 22, as I read it, is sometimes, when under review, they do those support roles. Are you now saying that actually, it hadn't happened when under review, they were performing other support roles?‑‑‑Sometimes we use them; sometimes we don't. At the time we didn't need anyone for support roles but sometimes we do.

PN1338

And at a time where your evidence is that you were understaffed due to COVID, why is it that Mr Crouch wasn't asked to perform either blipping duties or other support roles?‑‑‑We didn't have any support roles available. Blipping duties, I did not organise it either; that was done by someone else.

PN1339

And who would that someone else be?‑‑‑Simulator support team lead.

PN1340

Is there a person's name attached to that, that you're aware of?‑‑‑Yes, it's Rosemary Cassar, or was at the time. Rosemary Cassar.

PN1341

Rosemary Cassar, all right. Thank you. We spoke a minute ago and I'm not revisiting this in its detail, but we spoke a while ago in your evidence about the increasing level of angst that Mr Crouch was showing as part of the review process and you supported Mr Crouch in your role, didn't you, through the reviews and appeals that followed. You were in contact with him as those reviews that we spoke about from Steven Clarke and his direct team and people chosen by his direct team were performing. You were in contact with Mr Crouch, weren't you?‑‑‑That's right.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1342

And he was continuing to express to you, wasn't he, he concerns about how those reviews were being undertaken, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1343

And one of the things that you informed him of, was that there would be an opportunity for an independent review, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1344

And you informed him of that along the journey of his recommendation of termination being reviewed internally, and in addressing that concern, you said Mr Crouch, there'll be an independent review at the end of the line?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1345

But that never occurred?‑‑‑I can't recall.

PN1346

Well, the EAP review - - -?‑‑‑Oh the EAP review.

PN1347

No, you're right, that's okay. Let me ask it to you clearly, then. The EAP review was to be the external review, correct?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1348

And you understand that that was supposed to be undertaken by a company called Converge C-O-N-V-E-R-G-E?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1349

And that didn't occur, did it?‑‑‑As far as I'm aware, I think they had a couple of meetings and that's all I can recall. They had a couple of meetings, but the outcome of that, I'm not sure.

PN1350

All right, so you're just not aware as to whether or not there was an independent review undertaken by Converge? You just don't know?‑‑‑Not that I don't know, as far as I understand, the information was given to me, we had a couple of meetings with them and from there, I'm not sure of, after that.

PN1351

Yes, so you're not sure if they did a review or they didn't do a review?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1352

As part of your referral and mentioning of an independent review, if you could turn lastly to page 571 please of your statement, paragraph 19, you recall at that stage, this is the timeframe for you is 7 April, as part of this review that had been undertaken by Mr Bosnich. There were then two further processes, the Steve Clarke review, if I can call it that, and the James Harrington panel review, if I can call it that. Two stages prior to that, you record at 19, Mr Crouch at that stage on 7 April, being extremely upset and frustrated and being in total disbelief that his training was to be terminated, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1353

It's in that context that Mr Crouch was by - certainly by yourself, informed that there's an independent review, the EAP review coming at the end of the line?‑‑‑In that meeting?

PN1354

No, just as part of that process?‑‑‑That's right.

PN1355

Thank you. I don't have any further questions for Ms Crisara, Commissioner, thank you.

PN1356

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Lovell, any re-examination?

PN1357

MR LOVELL: No, Commissioner.

PN1358

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you Ms Crisara, thank you for giving your evidence. You're released and free to leave. So, thank you very much?‑‑‑Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [12.01 PM]

PN1359

THE COMMISSIONER: Then Mr Lovell, what I propose to do now is to take an early lunch if that would be suitable, and then we'll deal with Mr Bosnich's evidence.

PN1360

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I am very mindful, of course, of the Commission's processes. I might just provide you some relevant information, if you'd like. Mr Bosnich has had some commitments with respect to other trainees, including important conversations with trainees, perhaps, as you can imagine, given the evidence you've received in this proceeding. He was available to give evidence yesterday, he's made himself available again this morning to give evidence.

PN1361

On the strength, I guess, of Mr Hardy's comments yesterday, Mr Bosnich is here now and available to give his evidence. He does have another commitment sort of after lunch to meet with a trainee at the learning academy. I guess in view of that, it would be more convenient to Mr Bosnich to give his evidence now. If it is to be given after lunch, then he'll have to reschedule that commitment. Commissioner, of course, I'm respectful of your processes. It's ultimately a matter for you as to when Mr Bosnich's evidence is taken.

*** ANTOINETTE CRISARA XXN MR HARDY

PN1362

MR HARDY: And Commissioner, to assist with that, I might say that if I commence my cross-examination now, assuming Mr Lovell had nothing for Mr Bosnich in chief, he wouldn't be concluded by lunch, in any event, if lunch was at one. My cross-examination will be more than 50 minutes with Mr Bosnich. So, that meeting may need to be rescheduled in any event.

PN1363

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, when is Mr Bosnich's appointment?

PN1364

MR LOVELL: Well, Commissioner, his appointment I believe is at 2 o'clock, but it sounds as if he will need to reschedule that, come what may.

PN1365

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, good luck with the Tullamarine at this time of day.

PN1366

MR LOVELL: Yes.

PN1367

THE COMMISSIONER: It would be wise if he reschedules, but we will proceed with his evidence then.

PN1368

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, may I make one other housekeeping observation. Obviously, the Commission needs to receive the evidence that it does. This matter was originally listed for one day with today. In fact, I might excuse Ms Crisara, sorry.

PN1369

MS CRISARA: Thank you.

PN1370

MR LOVELL: I apologise, we're heading now to housekeeping.

PN1371

MS CRISARA: Thanks very much.

PN1372

MR LOVELL: Sorry, Commissioner, I thought that appropriate.

PN1373

THE COMMISSIONER: It's okay.

PN1374

MR LOVELL: The matter of course, was listed for yesterday with today on reserve. You've heard extensive evidence. I now apprehend that the cross-examination of Mr Bosnich may now extend into some time in the afternoon. I'm then also very concerned that we each have to make submissions and of course I'd prefer, although I haven't had an opportunity to address you on the range of construction issues including - among other things, Commissioner, in this matter. Is it your proposal to sit in order to complete the case?

PN1375

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, not especially. I was - - -

PN1376

MR LOVELL: Sorry, if I put that question so directly; I should frame it another way. I'm mindful of the amount of time this is taking and whether you have any preliminary views on how we would conclude the hearing of the matter. I apologise for the way I put that directly.

PN1377

THE COMMISSIONER: I have another appointment at 4:15, and that concerns a dispute where the parties are absolutely not agreed on anything and that's after I've given them a very extensive recommendation and they're still not agreed. They asked for an urgent listing and here we are, Wednesday at 4:15. I'm loathe to push that back further, but if I have to, I can. Now, it then turns to what's most convenient for you both in terms of submissions. We can either do that orally this afternoon, or we can allow the transcript to be provided and then you provide oral or written submissions after that's occurred.

PN1378

MR HARDY: That might be my preference Commissioner, if that were possible, to, in light of a number of the matters that have been raised during the course of the hearing to be given that opportunity. I'm not - I'm in your hands of course, whether you'd prefer oral or written, or a written with an oral supplemented as you require, but that might be the most efficient way, because I should flag at this stage, that I'm chairing a disciplinary hearing at 6 o'clock this event and probably going to require a little bit of time to prepare ahead of that the conclusion of today.

PN1379

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, so far as I'm concerned, I certainly would like the opportunity to address you orally. There are a range of construction and interpretation issues that I think are best done via that form.

PN1380

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, okay. Well, look I think we probably need to defer that question of how and when, until after we hear from Mr Bosnich, because then at least we'll know what time remains in the afternoon.

PN1381

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner, certainly.

PN1382

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN1383

MR LOVELL: So, in terms of adjourning now, when would you propose to resume, so I can then go and communicate with Mr Bosnich, so he can take any steps that he needs to in light of that.

PN1384

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm quite happy to continue with Mr Bosnich now. It's just that I generally prefer not to have witnesses break over lunch, if we can avoid it. But I'm happy to give him a few minutes to reschedule what he needs to reschedule and then we deal with the evidence. Or, I'm happy to start and then take the lunch at one. Now, just in terms of oral submissions, I would not be placed to give you substantial time until the first week of May.

PN1385

So, do you want to allow Mr Bosnich to come in shortly after he's made the requisite phone call?

PN1386

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner, so might I ask for a five minute adjournment and then of course we'll make arrangements that, we'll have a room for Mr Bosnich to sit in over the luncheon period and then of course, there'll be no contact with him over that period.

PN1387

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, look, I don't particularly need to eat myself, but I'm quite happy just to work through his evidence and then take the lunch break at such time as he concludes.

PN1388

MR LOVELL: Okay, that certainly - we certainly appreciate that.

PN1389

MR HARDY: Sorry, Commissioner, might we just have a short adjournment? I'm also mindful we didn't stop my examination for your morning tea break as well and I probably just need a short break if we could, just perhaps 15 minutes until 12:30, if that's convenient.

PN1390

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll break until 12:30. Right, thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.08 PM]

RESUMED [12.29 PM]

PN1391

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon again, parties. Thank you for that break. Mr Lovell, we now come to Mr Bosnich's evidence.

PN1392

MR HARDY: Commissioner, just before we do so, there is one matter that I wish to raise, and I'm wondering if Mr Bosnich might be excused just for this part of the conversation.

PN1393

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Short but sweet, Mr Bosnich. Maybe if you can just pop out for a moment, please.

PN1394

MR LOVELL: Mr Bosnich has left.

PN1395

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1396

MR HARDY: Thank you. Commissioner, there's a document that I'm proposing to put to Mr Bosnich during cross‑examination that's not contained within the Court Book. It's a document that I propose to send, given we are virtually convening this hearing, to your associate. It is not anything new by way of content from what contains within the brief, it's merely a question of form.

PN1397

What I mean by that is the document that I'm proposing to put to Mr Bosnich is a redline comparison between review report 1, which is in the brief, and review report 2. So it compares those two documents, and in mark-up shows the differences. I am of the view that rather than going page by page through each of those documents, this is a far more expeditious way of proceeding with my questions in relation to the differences.

PN1398

I would propose to send that across to your associate, but I just would like to make sure that that's - you're content with that, and that might be the most efficient way, copying Mr Lovell of course, and his associate, to get the document then also in front of the witness.

PN1399

THE COMMISSIONER: We can either do that through the email exchange that you've referred to, or alternatively I suppose you can share your screen. Both would work.

PN1400

MR HARDY: I'm open to either. I can do either of those.

PN1401

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, good. The question I guess is I'm not quite sure if the size of the screen in Ashurst is - would that be large enough, Mr Lovell, in the event that there was a screen sharing?

PN1402

MR LOVELL: It's a very large screen, Commissioner. I expect it will be.

PN1403

THE COMMISSIONER: It's MCG size, is it? Obviously nothing less.

PN1404

MR LOVELL: (Indistinct)

PN1405

MR HARDY: Why don't I send it to Mr Lovell and he can put it up, and we just see now if that works.

PN1406

MR LOVELL: If it's convenient - I realise we're impertinent, Commissioner, but if it's convenient to share the document now, I can give you my impression of whether it will be able to be reviewed by the witness.

PN1407

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure, okay. Let's give it a go.

PN1408

MR LOVELL: It would be helpful - I hadn't had notice of this document - it would be helpful if a copy could be provided in due course in any event.

PN1409

MR HARDY: It's coming across to you now in any event, Mr Lovell. It's a document that has been very recently prepared.

PN1410

THE COMMISSIONER: While you're doing that, I just need to ask my associate a question. You will notice that there has been a change during the break.

PN1411

Lauren, do you have access to the chambers inbox at the moment?

PN1412

THE ASSOCIATE: Unfortunately it has not come through, but I did have a previous conversation with Mr Hardy and I did advise him of my Commission email if anything needs to come through for me to share, as a sort of work-around.

PN1413

MR HARDY: Commissioner, I don't - unfortunately I don't have that email address to hand, I'm sorry.

PN1414

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you send it directly to me, and I will make sure that Lauren has a copy of it as well. If you send it to the chambers.wilson.c inbox, then I can see that on my screen here and I will provide that immediately to Lauren.

PN1415

Lauren, is yours - when you refer to your Commission email address, I'm assuming that's your named address, is it? Yes, all right. We will make sure that gets to your shortly. Thank you.

PN1416

MR HARDY: Apologies. It's not a particularly large document, but it has sent my computer into a blue spinning wheel. Hopefully it resolves itself in a moment. Sorry, Commissioner, my computer is not responding. I'm wondering if it's appropriate to just to take a short adjournment, and I will notify your associate as soon as it has rectified itself.

PN1417

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will do that. Thank you.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.35 PM]

RESUMED [12.48 PM]

PN1418

THE COMMISSIONER: Afternoon again. My understanding is that the document has been provided to all concerned, and indeed we have a copy of it here as well.

PN1419

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1420

THE COMMISSIONER: Welcome, Mr Bosnich.

PN1421

THE ASSOCIATE: Mr Bosnich, please state your full name and address.

PN1422

MR BOSNICH: Frank Bosnich, (address supplied).

<FRANK BOSNICH, SWORN [12.49 PM]

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LOVELL [12.49 PM]

PN1423

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Bosnich. Mr Lovell will take you through your evidence.

PN1424

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1425

Mr Bosnich, do you have a copy of your statement dated 11 March 2022 before you?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1426

And that statement contains paragraphs 1 to 37 inclusive?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1427

And it contains one attachment, referred to as FB01?‑‑‑Is that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1428

Yes, Mr Bosnich, in the way that the Court Book has been prepared, FB01 can actually be found at page 598?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1429

Is that statement, including the attachment, true and correct in all material respects?‑‑‑Yes, it is.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XN MR LOVELL

PN1430

I tender the statement of Frank Bosnich.

PN1431

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. The witness statement of Frank Bosnich with one attachment will be marked as exhibit R5.

EXHIBIT #R5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF FRANK BOSNICH DATED 11/03/2022

PN1432

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner. I propose to address some questions to Mr Bosnich in examination-in-chief to address the matter you raised with me this morning.

PN1433

Mr Bosnich, you were involved in what's known as the second training review of the applicant Mr Crouch. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1434

What was your role in that second training review?‑‑‑To review the final document that was presented to me.

PN1435

Were there other officers of Airservices Australia that had involvement in the conduct of the second training review?‑‑‑There was other employees that are involved in the creation of the document, yes.

PN1436

Who was that in the case of the second training review?‑‑‑In the case of the second it was one of my senior instructors, Sarah Synott.

PN1437

And how many training reviews would you say that you've been involved in?‑‑‑With initial training, approximately 15 with the operational environment, because that's my background; training reviews are slightly different, but between 10 and 12 training reviews in the operational environment as well.

PN1438

Thank you. Could you explain for the Commission's benefit what is involved in the preparation and conduct of a training review?‑‑‑So overall the training review is a summary, an in-depth summary of a trainee's performance during their time in a particular training phase. In this case it's initial training, so the instructor typically that's tasked to do that will go through all of the results, go through theory results, theory exam results; a trainee's practical assessments and practical performance; they will interview the trainee; they will collate some of the leave; and check the scheduling to ensure that all of the curriculum has been delivered; and then present a summary - sorry, the final report to the ATC training lead for review and recommendation.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XN MR LOVELL

PN1439

I just want to clarify in the case of Mr Crouch's training review, who would have been responsible for undertaking the tasks you've just referred to? I will start perhaps with the review of all of the results?‑‑‑The review of the results: the collation of the results would have been one of the instructors tasked with that, or an air traffic controller - sorry, an air traffic supervisor - competency and assessment supervisor; the review of the results is undertaken by the ATC training lead.

PN1440

Can you describe for the Commission's benefit, Mr Bosnich, what the purpose of a training review process is?‑‑‑As I stated, to collate the trainee's performance, typically, practical performance over the duration of their training, and to present it in a form that then we can make a determination on what would be best path forward.

PN1441

What are the possible paths forward as a result of a training review?‑‑‑In the initial training environment you could be an extension of training; could be training support in some form; it could be what we call continuation, which is also referred to sometimes as re-coursing; or the recommendation to suspend, terminate training.

PN1442

To the extent you're aware, what circumstances led to Mr Crouch being placed on training review in this instance?‑‑‑It was the failure to complete a theory assessment after the second attempt.

PN1443

What did you then consider in your capacity as the person responsible for reviewing the second training review to be the key matters, if you like, arising from the review of Mr Crouch's training?‑‑‑My role is to review the training, to review Luke's results, to look at his interview submission, and quite often that then also involves me in a training review meeting, asking some questions to seek a little bit more clarification on some of the information presented, and then also to provide an outcome or a recommended - it's a recommended outcome.

PN1444

In respect of Mr Crouch's second training review in particular, what were, in your sort of opinion, the key reasons for the recommended outcome of termination of training employment?‑‑‑The failure to meet the required standard in a theory assessment after the second test was - second or a supplementary test.

PN1445

Were there any other matters?‑‑‑The theory was the main component. To be able to complete the diploma or to progress through the phase and even go to practical assessment, you must have all of the theory components, learning outcomes completed successfully.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XN MR LOVELL

PN1446

And if that's the case, in circumstances where a trainee such as Mr Crouch has failed a theoretical unit, what's the point, in your view, of going through the process, is the outcome will be or is likely to be that the termination of training because of that failure?‑‑‑The training review, as I said, looks at everything, and it may be that there may have been - there may be extenuating circumstances, there may be a systemic issue; you know, in the case where we have simulations sometimes you may have a simulator issue, something that may impact on the actual trainee's ability to complete a milestone.

PN1447

But, Mr Bosnich, in a case of - where the failure is to meet a theoretical assessment milestone, here twice failing the separation standards unit, what are the types of extenuating circumstances that could possibly exist to be considered as part of the review?‑‑‑For a theory?

PN1448

Yes?‑‑‑Extenuating circumstances typically for theory and for practical would be something fairly significant in a person's life. So, you know, we may be talking bereavement, serious illness of a family member, those sorts of things that can distract from their task at hand.

PN1449

So just to be clear on that, is it those types of extenuating circumstances that might be considered as part of a review and might inform your view about what the ultimate outcome - the ultimate outcome to be recommended should be?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN1450

Commissioner, I don't have any further questions for this witness at this time.

PN1451

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Lovell.

PN1452

Mr Bosnich, Mr Hardy will ask you questions in the way of cross‑examination. Since we're dealing with this through video means, you just need to be a little bit careful in terms of just waiting for the question to be fully asked before you start answering it. Sometimes there's a delay between someone speaking and you hearing, and vice versa. It's also important to make sure that you don't speak over each other, simply because we need to generate a transcript from this, and it becomes incredibly difficult to do that in the event that there is people speaking over each other involving video evidence. If you don't understand anything that Mr Hardy asks you, then by all means just say that back to him and he will repeat the question. Thank you.

PN1453

Mr Hardy.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XN MR LOVELL

PN1454

MR HARDY: Commissioner, just so I'm guided on a timeframe, is there an indicative time that you would like to rise for the luncheon adjournment, just something to keep on the radar.

PN1455

THE COMMISSIONER: Not so far as I'm concerned, no.

PN1456

MR LOVELL: Could I just clarify, Commissioner, my understanding of where we've reached earlier is that we were going to seek to complete the evidence.

PN1457

THE COMMISSIONER: That's my understanding as well.

PN1458

MR LOVELL: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1459

MR HARDY: Commissioner, it's just that prior to lunch my - luncheon adjournment, my questions that I have of Mr Bosnich wouldn't be concluded, and so I'm just wondering whether then before I commence the examination, whether that is the appropriate time, so he's not ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1460

THE COMMISSIONER: So far as I'm concerned, you've got until 4 o'clock. We can take a short break within that period, but I wasn't planning to take a lunch break as such. But if you want to do that, you will need to ask me that specifically.

PN1461

MR HARDY: Yes, Commissioner, I would respectfully request a lunch break. It doesn't need to be a lengthy one, just to go and grab a sandwich.

PN1462

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. It's presently about 10 past 1. If we break until 1.40.

PN1463

MR HARDY: That's suitable. Very suitable. Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [1.00 PM]

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [1.00 PM]

RESUMED [1.02 PM]

PN1464

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, parties. Mr Hardy, it's now for cross‑examination.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XN MR LOVELL

PN1465

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

<FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED [1.02 PM]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY [1.02 PM]

PN1466

MR HARDY: Mr Bosnich, you're currently employed in the position of high density service delivery line leader. Correct?‑‑‑That's correct, yes.

PN1467

And as I understand your evidence, you moved into the position of acting air traffic control ATC training lead in March 2021. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1468

That appointment, was that made as a consequence of Mr Crouch seeking a review of the first training report?‑‑‑No.

PN1469

That was the first role that you had had within the college. Correct?‑‑‑Within the college, that is correct.

PN1470

You had never, before March 2021, worked within the training college of Airservices. Correct?‑‑‑No.

PN1471

And you would therefore have no direct knowledge of the operation of the college, would you?‑‑‑That's not correct. I have a thorough understanding of the college because it's located on the Melbourne air traffic control compound.

PN1472

But you've ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ and has been for a number of years.

PN1473

Apologies, I interrupted you. I'm sorry, it's slight delay in getting your answer across the audio. I apologise, Mr Bosnich. Do you want to just complete your answer?‑‑‑The college has been for a number of years located on the Melbourne air traffic control compound in an adjacent building. I have a number of staff members that directly report to me in my operational environment that are instructors in the college, and air traffic controllers. So I have a good understanding of the workings of the college.

PN1474

But you don't work within that building, do you?‑‑‑The college is spread across three buildings.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1475

You don't work within the college - before March 2021 you didn't work within the college, did you?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1476

And so you didn't have and you couldn't have a direct knowledge of the operations of that college - a direct - so your direct reports might be able to, and be able to tell you things, but you yourself directly could not and did not have a direct understanding of the operations of that college. Correct?‑‑‑Prior to March 2021?

PN1477

Correct?‑‑‑Correct, because I was not working in the college.

PN1478

Correct. You held operational roles. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1479

Air traffic controller, as an example?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1480

Check controller, as an example?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1481

Room supervisor and shift supervisor. Correct?‑‑‑Yes, I've been an air traffic controller, I've been a group training specialist, I've been a shift manager, I've been a check and assessment supervisor, I have been a systems supervisor, and an operational manager, I've been a training manager in the operational environment, and an en route manager over my 33 years.

PN1482

Correct. And none of that, before March 2021, was in the college. Correct?‑‑‑No, but the training manager role has a direct relation to that role to training.

PN1483

All right. You will appreciate that we received some evidence - you may not appreciate, but we received some evidence yesterday that these are very distinct areas, training college and operations, in the context of how various people were selected onto an appeals panel. And evidence was put before the Commission that operations is quite different to training. Would you accept that - the training college?‑‑‑In the function, yes. One is dealing with training, the other is dealing with operational matters.

PN1484

And so by not working within the college you also didn't have a direct - you had no direct knowledge before March 2021, and I'm talking about direct knowledge, about the structure and content of the college's training courses that they were delivering, did you?‑‑‑I had an understanding of the air traffic control diploma prior to my starting in the college in March 2021 ‑ ‑ ‑

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1485

How did you get that understanding?‑‑‑Through my 33 years of working as an air traffic controller and as a training assessment supervisor and as a group training specialist.

PN1486

Yes, but insofar as they specifically relate to the day to day runnings and conduct of the college, of which we've established you were not a part of, you could not have had and did not have direct knowledge of those things, did you?

PN1487

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. I think that question has been put to the witness and he has answered it.

PN1488

MR HARDY: I don't think he has, with respect. I press the question.

PN1489

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe if the question can be reframed so it's quite clear.

PN1490

MR HARDY: Mr Bosnich, what I'm trying to establish is that you had - it is undoubted that you performed a lot of operational roles in your 33 years of experience. I read your evidence about the types of roles that those included, and you've given evidence now about what that all included in an operational sense, and I've got no doubt that in an operational context you know about the policies, the procedures, et cetera. You've got a direct handle on those things because that is the division that you work in. What I'm putting to you is that you've told us that before March 2021 you did not work within the training college, and so therefore you could not have had a direct knowledge and understanding of the specific structure and content of training courses, as an example, at the college over that period. Is that correct?‑‑‑My understanding of the college is at a strategic level prior to March 2021. From a tactical perspective that's not the case.

PN1491

And the day to day policies and procedures of the college, you wouldn't have a direct working knowledge or need to be involved in those things before March 2021, would you?‑‑‑Prior to me taking up the role, no; but once I take up the role, that is my responsibility to brief myself on the policies and procedures of the business unit I'm working for.

PN1492

Which you started to do at the immediate time, and from that, for the first time, in considering Mr Crouch's review. Correct?‑‑‑Prior to.

PN1493

So you started around the time of Mr Crouch's review of his first training review. Correct?‑‑‑Correct, but it wasn't the first task I was given.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1494

I see. Was it one of the first tasks that you were given?‑‑‑No.

PN1495

Did you review anybody else on commencing in March 2021 before you delivered your second - your training review document which was delivered in March 2021?‑‑‑Review a trainee's performance, no. There are other tasks an ATC training lead has to do.

PN1496

I'm not asking you about those, I'm asking you about the review. You reviewed Mr Crouch. He was your first cab off the rank in that month of March because you delivered - you were appointed in March and your review report, as I read it, is delivered in March. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1497

Who appointed you into this role?‑‑‑Mr Clarke.

PN1498

Is that Steven Clarke?‑‑‑Yes, Mr Steven Clarke.

PN1499

Thank you. And when being appointed into your role, what did he say to you about your duties?

PN1500

THE COMMISSIONER: Might be a bit broad.

PN1501

MR HARDY: Apologies. I withdraw that.

PN1502

When Mr Clarke appointed you into your role within the college for the first time in March 2021, what were you told you needed to do in that role?

PN1503

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I think that question suffers the same issue as the first.

PN1504

MR HARDY: Well, what did he do - my question is simply: for the first time he gets appointed in March 2021 as an ATC training lead. My question is: what were you told to do as an ATC training lead?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1505

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, Mr Hardy, I've been employed in 10 or 15 positions over my career; I've probably employed more than a hundred people reporting to me over that period. You give enormously comprehensive instructions to people, and you're given enormously comprehensive instructions. I'm sure the same would go in your partnership. If you want to narrow it down, feel free, but I'm not sure I can do much with: what was the directions you were given? If you want to pull it down to: what was said to you about reviews; that might take me somewhere.

PN1506

MR HARDY: Certainly, Commissioner. I will ask that question next.

PN1507

I just want to know did you get issued with a position description, Mr Bosnich, for your role of ATC training lead?‑‑‑Yes, there is a position description.

PN1508

Thank you. I call for that document.

PN1509

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any objection to that, Mr Lovell?

PN1510

MR LOVELL: No, Commissioner. It's not a document that I have to hand, though.

PN1511

THE COMMISSIONER: Of course. We will deal with the scheduling of it towards the end.

PN1512

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1513

Part of your role, as I understand it, was to review training reviews. Correct?‑‑‑That's one small part of the role, yes.

PN1514

And in relation to that one small part of the role, what were you asked to do?‑‑‑To review the training review.

PN1515

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that's not awfully helpful, Mr Bosnich. Help me out, please?‑‑‑So to review the training review and to make a recommendation on the trainees' progress from there.

PN1516

Okay. Tell me more: timeframe, context, purpose?‑‑‑The timeframe, Commissioner, for the training review or the outcome?

PN1517

Mr Bosnich, I've been hearing evidence on this matter for a day and a half, okay, and I'm kind of - if I sound testy, it's probably because I am. Okay. Now, you're here as a witness to help me out in my decision?‑‑‑Yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1518

Simply saying you were commissioned to review the training review takes me nowhere. It's not helpful. So if you want me to characterise you in that manner, feel free; but if you want to give me some assistance about what that meant, then this is your opportunity?‑‑‑Absolutely happy to, I would just like some guidance as to what you would prefer me to focus on. The training review could take a - it's hard to define the time for the collation of the training review because it would depend on the length of time the trainee had been involved in the training process. As I'm sure you're probably aware, the training goes through a number of phases: there's theory that runs for about six weeks; there's HMI, which is getting to learn how to operate the tools, the machine itself, that runs for another 30 days; then they move into phase 2 of the training program, that runs for - well, at the time ran for about 19 weeks; then we move into phase 3, 4, 5, and potential 5 or 6, depending on where the controller will be placed in the operational field. So if the training review is commenced early on in the trainee's journey it will be much smaller document, require less time to gather the required evidence because there's less results to review. So it will be presented to the ATC training lead a lot quicker than a document that requires the collation of five or six phases of theoretical exam results, practical assessment results, progress evaluations, periodic trackings; all of that collation is manually done by an individual. From there the decision is pretty quick: I read through the document; may ask for some clarifying documentation to be provided, specific assessments that have been referenced in the training review document; sometimes there could be a discussion with an instructor on a particular topic that was raised; and then a decision is formulated. And that, Commissioner, could be no - it would be no more than a week once I've got the document.

PN1519

Thank you. Mr Hardy.

PN1520

MR HARDY: And you said that these reviews should be quick at certain parts of the course. If we take Mr Crouch's scenario, we know he was reviewed in phase 2. Correct?‑‑‑He was, that is correct.

PN1521

And phase 2 of - as far as the course phases go - 6. Correct?‑‑‑There is six phases, but a trainee does five of the six phases, because phases 5 and 6 are dependent on where they are going in the operational environment.

PN1522

So by referring to your evidence a moment ago, if you are at phase 2 you expect a far quicker review than if you're in phase 5 or 6, as I understood it?‑‑‑That would be the expectation, but my expectation is the person presenting the report does it in a timely manner, but also ensures that it's thoroughly presented.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1523

And from your experience at phase 2, how long should that take?‑‑‑That would depend on what was collated in the discussion with the trainee, because there's an interview process, and that may require further investigation if there was issues raised in the trainee interview. So it's hard to define the length of time that it would take.

PN1524

Is there an approximate range?‑‑‑I'm not really in a position to be able to define approximate range because it depends on the resources available, the access to the data, the number of people that need to be potentially interviewed. You would expect it to be completed in a reasonable timeframe.

PN1525

And I'm just trying to understand with some level of specificity what that means, what 'reasonable time frames' mean. If I'm a trainee, I'm at phase 2, I'm about to be - I'm told I'm on training review: go home, sit on your hands, do not work; and one of the potential options as a result could be termination; and you tell me 'there will be a reasonable time frame', what am I supposed to - what could that mean for me?‑‑‑(No audible reply)

PN1526

Are you talking four weeks, are you talking a month, two months, are you talking six months, are you talking a year?‑‑‑It would depend on the circumstances at the time. in this case we were in the middle of a pandemic, so that would have impacted on most businesses ability to perform their day to day operations.

PN1527

And so factoring that into account, what would you say?‑‑‑I'm not sure, because again it would depend on the circumstances at the time.

PN1528

All right?‑‑‑And I wasn't present when the initial training review was initiated, so I can't speak to those circumstances.

PN1529

And once there is then that review completed and a person like yourself is called in, as you were, to review Mr Crouch, his circumstances on his training review report, how long does that process take? Should that take around the same time? You stepped out all the steps that you expect somebody to do when they undertake that role. Do you expect the time to be the same, similar, longer, shorter? What's the general expectation there?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, could you repeat the question.

PN1530

Certainly. Certainly. We were talking a moment ago about a training review process that culminates in a training review report, and we know that Mr Crouch had one of those prepared and it was issued and dated around 17 or 18 February 2021. Correct?‑‑‑The initial document, correct, version 1.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1531

And once that document is then the subject of a review, which I understand you were then appointed to do, how long should that review take? All those steps that you outlined to Mr Lovell - to the Commission this morning about what that review involves, it sounds like there's a great amount of overlap on some of those sorts of things you've mentioned. Is it the same timeframe, is it a shorter timeframe or a longer timeframe generally?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, I'm still not following the question. Are you referring to the review that's conducted by the ATC training lead of the final document?

PN1532

Yes?‑‑‑Once the document is delivered, and that again is subject to workload, I would suggest that you would be looking at between one to two weeks maximum. Sometimes you have multiple training reviews on and you've got to put them in order of priority.

PN1533

So you can have multiple training reviews on at any one time?‑‑‑Unfortunately sometimes, yes.

PN1534

And so they are not, for example, commenced and concluded; you finish one, then you pick up the next, and you start the next in sort of order of sequence; you say there could be multiple, or a couple, or more than one on the go at any one time?‑‑‑On occasion there has been. In my time that I was there there was multiple training reviews. It's not the norm, though, to have training reviews. Most of the trainees sail through and complete the diploma.

PN1535

So in your training reviews in that process in the college, that, as you said earlier, I think, commenced with Mr Crouch. Correct?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, repeat that question again.

PN1536

The training reviews that you conducted and were involved in within the college from March 2021 began with Mr Crouch, I think you said earlier?‑‑‑Mr Crouch's training review was the first one, yes.

PN1537

And you gave some evidence to the Commission that you've then done 15 of those. Correct?‑‑‑In the initial - sorry, in the academy ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1538

Yes, forget the operate ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ the college?

PN1539

‑ ‑ ‑ forget the operations at the moment, I'm just talking about ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑Yes, there are around about 15.

PN1540

- - - that followed?‑‑‑No, that was including Mr Crouch.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1541

Yes, but it would have followed Mr Crouch where Mr Crouch was the first ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑Yes, that is correct. That is correct.

PN1542

- - - and so it is not put to the Commission that the Commissioner should take that you've had experience before Mr Crouch of 14 or 15 training reviews. In fact he was your first in the training college?‑‑‑First in the training college, but the 13th in the line of operational training reviews that I had conducted prior to, and they are very similar. The data is the same, the review, the collation of the data is the same; the difference being that there's an extended period of training in the operational environment that is added onto the training review, and it looks at slightly different factors, but still comes up with similar sorts of ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1543

Mr Bosnich, might I interrupt you ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ information.

PN1544

I didn't ask you anything to do with the operations department, and I made that clear. Can you listen to my questions, please, and just answer what I'm asking you. In your role in the training college that commenced in March 2021 you reported to Steven Clarke, you told us. How long were you in the training college for? When did you leave that role?‑‑‑The ATC training lead role?

PN1545

Yes?‑‑‑I was there till January this year.

PN1546

Is it at that point that you moved into your current position of higher density service delivery lead, line leader?‑‑‑I moved back to my position.

PN1547

Yes. So my question is: did you move into that role when you left your time at the college in January of this year?‑‑‑I moved back to my former role of high density line leader.

PN1548

Sorry, in your - can I ask you to look at page - I'm having real difficulty with you answering my questions. Can you look at page 572, please ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1549

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, with respect, the witness has just given the answer. It's consistent with paragraph 1 of the statement where he describes his current position as high density service delivery line leader. He simply corrected Mr Hardy by saying that that was the position that he held before the position in the training college, and it's the position to which he has returned in January of 2022. Commissioner, I don't understand why we're lingering on this point.

PN1550

MR HARDY: I'm trying to understand whether there's any role between - sorry.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1551

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bosnich, there are three ways to answer a question: yes, no, I don't know; or a fourth way, I suppose, which is the long way round, and you've been choosing the long way round. I can understand that Mr Hardy gets a bit frustrated as a result.

PN1552

But, Mr Hardy, please keep the frustration under control, please. If you can continue, please.

PN1553

Mr Bosnich: yes, no, I don't know; might be the best way forward. All right?‑‑‑Yes, Commissioner.

PN1554

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1555

Mr Bosnich, in the role of ATC training lead we've established there were training reviews conducted, and they are routinely conducted when trainees have been assessed as not yet satisfactorily, correct, in terms of their performance in the training course. Correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1556

And that includes during what I think you describe in your statement at paragraph 6 as being a formative assessment, which I take to be theoretical. Is that correct?‑‑‑A formative assessment could be theoretical, it could also be a practical assessment.

PN1557

Okay, so it could be the formative assessment, and it could be a review of that on theoretical or practical. Correct?‑‑‑A training review, yes, correct.

PN1558

And could also be summative in both theoretical and practical. Correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1559

And training reviews might also be undertaken where there hadn't been adequate progress of a trainee. Correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1560

Like if for example a trainee got sick and missed some assessments, and they would then be reviewed about how to best proceed with this person, with this trainee. Correct?‑‑‑No.

PN1561

A training review is not undertaken in that circumstance. Is that your evidence?‑‑‑Training review of the - sorry, can you repeat the question, Mr Hardy.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1562

Certainly. I think your answer to my question, which you answered in the affirmative, was whether there could also be training reviews done when there hadn't been adequate progress during the course by a trainee. I think you said the answer was yes, that could occur?‑‑‑That is correct, because adequate progress would be not meeting a milestone, whether it be theoretical or practical assessment.

PN1563

And that could arise a number of ways: they can sit an exam and fail it. Correct?‑‑‑Correct, yes.

PN1564

They can be assessed practically and be told that they're not yet satisfactory. Correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1565

Or they could be missing a part of the course work for extenuating circumstances, for example they're sick?‑‑‑That would not typically initiate a training review in a formal sense. That would be a discussion with the individual to understand why they were absent. These conversations generally go on, they're not just suddenly brought out of the blue.

PN1566

And the training review, as you understand them, they have four options available at the end of them, don't they?‑‑‑(No audible reply)

PN1567

I will step you through them if it assists. Option 1 ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑ - - - with the course.

PN1568

‑ ‑ ‑ continuing training, that's the first option?

PN1569

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, there was just a slight disruption to Mr Hardy's question. The witness didn't hear it ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1570

MR HARDY: Apologies. Apologies. I will restate the question.

PN1571

Mr Bosnich, there are four options available at the end of a training review. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1572

Continue training, that's one of them. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1573

Further training support intervention, correct, is the second ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑Correct.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1574

The third, re-coursing. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1575

And the fourth, termination of training. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1576

When putting a trainee like Mr Crouch on review; and when reviewing, as you did, a review paper - training review paper, it's entirely discretionary on Airservices and those conducting the review as to which option is ultimately selected. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1577

There is nothing that, for example, compels you to put anybody in a - you're not compelled in any set of circumstances to re-course somebody. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1578

And similarly you're not compelled to recommend a termination in any given circumstance There's nothing that compels you to do that. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1579

What you have to do as a reviewer is assess all the facts and circumstances as they've been collated and presented, and exercise a discretion and say which of those, as a reviewer or an approver, you believe as being the most appropriate recommendation. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1580

Would it align with your understanding from the reviews that you've undertaken that there could be as many as 50 per cent of trainees over the past - get my time period correct - between the period of 2015 to 2022, so the past approximately seven years, approximately 50 per cent of trainees who are put on review are re-coursed?‑‑‑I can't speak to prior to March 2021.

PN1581

What about from March 2021?‑‑‑Number of trainees re-coursed; was that the question, Mr Hardy, sorry?

PN1582

Yes, approximately - what I'm putting to you is that from data available, as I read that data, it is apparent that it could be as high as 50 - slightly over 50 per cent of those who have been put under review over a seven-year period, so I'm not talking just - I'm talking an extended period which includes your period, it's up to now, 2022 - have, as one of those four options, received option 3, in other words, re-coursing?‑‑‑Without actually looking at the data myself specifically, I have to take your word for that.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1583

All right, but there's nothing that is in your knowledge that would make you say immediately that what I put to you is just: no, there's no way that that's possible, is there - from your experience and understanding and involvement, obviously. I'm not - I'm asking you to comment on?‑‑‑On the percentage of people that were re-coursed; is that the question, Mr Hardy?

PN1584

Yes, yes?‑‑‑Based on what you're suggesting, then I would assume that that would be factually correct.

PN1585

And your understanding of Airservices being bound by RTO manuals, are you aware of that?‑‑‑RTO, that's correct, we're an enterprise RTO, yes.

PN1586

And are you aware that there's an RTO manual, for example, that sets out rules and regulations?‑‑‑I'm aware that there are specific standards that an RTO complies with, yes.

PN1587

And those standards must be complied with?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1588

In terms of the training review of Mr Crouch, could I ask you please to turn to page 996 of the Court Book. That is a document titled 'RTO 5168 ANS initial training training review of Luke Crouch' and it runs for some - 996 up until 1009. You've read that report, I'm assuming?‑‑‑Version 1?

PN1589

Yes?‑‑‑No, I've read version 2, because that was the document that was presented to me.

PN1590

So in terms of the document that sits at 996, you were the approver of version 2; and in doing so you are saying you didn't look at version 1, the report you were supposed to be reviewing?‑‑‑So version 2 included some amendments that were at the request of Mr Crouch.

PN1591

MR LOVELL: Let's just make sure we're talking about ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1592

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you answer the question, please.

PN1593

MR LOVELL: ‑ ‑ ‑ the same document with that ‑ ‑ ‑

PN1594

THE COMMISSIONER: Excuse me, parties. Mr Bosnich, could you answer the question. The question was a precise one, which was whether you had read the first review?‑‑‑No, Commissioner. And I answered, I said no, I had not read the first version.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1595

MR HARDY: Right. And you say you've read the second version. Can you turn to page 1033, please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1596

Is that what you regard as the - have a look at the document, please. But is that what you regard as the second version?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1597

What was that document, as far as your understanding, what was that to contain?‑‑‑All of the information that was presented in version 1, with a couple of additions, and amendments to some dates.

PN1598

Did you satisfy yourself in any way that what was contained in version 1 appeared in version 2?‑‑‑Did I satisfy myself?

PN1599

Yes?‑‑‑I never referenced both documents, I referenced version 2.

PN1600

That's not responsive to my question.

PN1601

THE COMMISSIONER: You might need to elaborate on the question a little bit.

PN1602

MR HARDY: Yes, certainly, Commissioner.

PN1603

My question is: the document that we've described at 1033 as being document version 2, that essentially recorded the review of Mr Hunt's approved findings of the version 1 report, as I understand it. Correct?‑‑‑I can't answer to that because I'm not Mr Hunt and I don't know what decisions were made.

PN1604

Mr Bosnich, Mr Hunt issued a report on 17 February 2021. Correct?‑‑‑Mr Hardy, I'm not sure because I'm not Mr Hunt. I don't know whether he issued that document or it was in draft form.

PN1605

Please look ‑ ‑ ‑ ?‑‑‑So I will have to take your word on it and say yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1606

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bosnich, can I just ask you this, because I did raise it this morning, at the start of proceedings. What I'm not sure about is the process that Airservices has to conduct these reviews, so can I ask you about your first involvement? You moved into the position in March, there was a discussion at some point, or an instruction at some point, that you needed to conduct a training review, which then became the second version of the report. What was the scope of what you were expected to do?‑‑‑In the ATC training lead role, Commissioner?

PN1607

In whatever role you held in March?‑‑‑Sure. So the organisation was going through a restructuring of various roles, outside of the operational environment. One of those was restructuring from the initial training manager role, which was what Mr Hunt sat in, into the current structure that we have in place. My role and the expectations for me were to move across from the operational environment to align the operational and the initial training environments and to conduct all of the tasks and functions and duties required by the ATC training lead, and that included training reviews.

PN1608

I think I might have confused you. If you look at page 1033, this is the second report or the second version, so it's got your name on it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1609

Someone or some thing required you to generate this, so what was that someone or some thing?‑‑‑That would have been either the initial training manager or the prior structure included on route delivery and tower deliver managers that sat under Mr Hunt. They would have been the manager that would have initiated the training review.

PN1610

When you say 'initiated' what does that mean?‑‑‑That would have been instructing Mr Crouch that he was going to be placed under training review, or instructing the trainee that they're going to be placed under training review and then commencing the preparation of this document.

PN1611

Can I come at this another way, I'm not quite - I don't think we're talking about the same things. In your environment I'm sure you would hold a delegation for expenditure or for approval of leave?‑‑‑That is correct, yes.

PN1612

So do you hold a delegation in respect of the generation of these reports?‑‑‑That is correct. In the ACT training lead role, yes.

PN1613

So someone, when they want to take sick leave, they send you a request for sick leave, and you're the delegate and you approve it, or you refuse it. Now, I'm asking the same thing in respect of this report. Someone would have said to you, 'Hey, Mr Bosnich, we need this report, needs to be done by whenever, it needs to cover some other issues', so I'm asking about those connections. So who or what said, 'Hey Bosnich, you need to do this report'?‑‑‑This report was commenced prior to me starting in the role. So it was initiated by the previous management structure.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1614

Do you know the person who commenced the review, which was then turned over to your desk?‑‑‑That was, my understanding, the delivery manager.

PN1615

Who is?‑‑‑It would have been Mr Boyd.

PN1616

Okay. So you took over some work that had been commenced and you finished it?‑‑‑Yes, Commissioner.

PN1617

All right. So that's the first part of the question I wanted to ask, which is, how did you come to have this on your desk. The second part of the question then is the scope of it, the rules and policies and procedures which say, 'When you do this, you have to do it to a certain standard and you need to consider certain things but not other things'. Is there such a policy and procedure?‑‑‑There's a - not a detailed policy or procedure, there's a draft document that we use to formulate training reviews.

PN1618

Do you know the name of that draft document?‑‑‑Yes, it's the training review document. It's a draft of what's presented before us. It's a control document.

PN1619

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I thought you were talking about a policy or procedure but then you said it's the document ultimately presented to you?‑‑‑So the initial training - initial training manual details the process for the training review, I think that may be what you're referring to, Commissioner, sorry.

PN1620

I don't know. So can I ask Mr Lovell to show you annexures SC07?

PN1621

MR LOVELL: Yes, so that's at page 826 of the court book.

PN1622

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the document you're referring to?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1623

Thank you. I just wanted to understand those things, because that was, for me at least, my understanding of the questions being asked of you, by Mr Hardy, and the answers that you were giving. But that helps my clarification needs.

PN1624

So, Mr Hardy?

PN1625

MR HARDY: Thank you.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1626

Just in relation to those answers you've given to the Commissioner, can you please turn to the document that is at page 996? Have you got that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1627

The left-hand column is a document prepared by Jessica Walton, do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1628

Conducted by Emma Schafer, do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1629

And approved by Stewart Hunt, yes?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1630

If you look at the background, on page 998 of that document, can you read the first paragraph, please?‑‑‑

PN1631

Luke Crouch is an ab initio trainer - - -

PN1632

Apologies, just to yourself. You don't need to read it out loud, Mr Bosnich, sorry?

PN1633

MR LOVELL: I believe the witness has finished reading.

PN1634

MR HARDY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Lovell.

PN1635

If you turn to page 1007 and on to 1008, there are 13 findings, do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1636

If you turn over the page, 1009, there's a recommendation, at part 10?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1637

It's recommended that Luke's training be terminated as he has not been able to demonstrate the required level of performance?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1638

Anything in that document that leads you to believe that that isn't a final document?‑‑‑In the way it's presented, other than the digital signatures on it, no.

PN1639

So the digital signatures make you believe it's a draft, is that what you're saying, when you say 'other than those'?‑‑‑Typically a training review is prepared, it will have these areas filled in and then will have digital signatures to it, once it's accepted.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1640

All right. Could I ask you now to turn to page 1033, please?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1641

This is a report that is conducted, on the left-hand side, in a similar way, by Sarah Synott and approved by yourself, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1642

Similarly, let's go to the background section, on page 1035, please? You will see that that says:

PN1643

Luke was an ab initio trainee who commenced his training as a member of ATC 152, on 11 November '19. A training review was conducted in February 2021 that recommended his training be terminated. The appeals process has identified that, due to an administrative error, PE6 was not considered in training review version 1 and your operational training head has requested this document to be prepared to include consideration of those matters in PE6.

PN1644

Correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1645

That clearly talks about training review version 1?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1646

And if you turn to page 592 please, of the court book? This is the statement of your manager, Mr Clarke. At paragraph 64 is headed 'First training review' and he gives evidence, at 64 and 65, that it was conducted by Schafer, approved by Hunt, and there was a review finding. He annexes the report that we looked at first, on page 996. He then says that:

PN1647

There was a request by Mr Crouch, following that report, to review the recommendation.

PN1648

Do you see that, at 66?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1649

And that:

PN1650

Mr Crouch had made lengthy submissions, setting out various concerns and complaints.

PN1651

?‑‑‑Can you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1652

And that what then follows, if you read down to 68, is a heading of a second training review, which Mr Clarke says was conducted by Ms Synott and approved by yourself?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1653

So your evidence, a little bit earlier, to the Commissioner about you picking up and continuing running, essentially, an initial process, isn't quite correct, is it?‑‑‑Well, yes, the initial process was to initiate the training review.

PN1654

Mr Crouch was placed in training review on 17 or 18 August 2020 and that culminated, as you can read, the page that should still be in front of you, on page 592, with what is called the first training review and we've looked at the first training review document. Your involvement appears at paragraph 68, under a second training review, which was:

PN1655

To review the recommendation, following lengthy submissions made by Mr Crouch, of concerns and complaints about the review process and recommendations.

PN1656

It appears that that doesn't accord with what you understand you were to do, is that correct?‑‑‑So the second training review is actually version 2, not - there's a slight difference. There was no second training review, version 2 of the first document.

PN1657

So what is - so you see, under 68, can you read 68, please, including its heading?‑‑‑'Second training review'.

PN1658

So you're saying there is no second training review?‑‑‑The second training review that's been referred to here is version 2 of the document, which goes back, collates all of the information that was previously gathered in version 1 and adds in whatever corrections needed or amendments needed to be made and presents the training review document, in this case which is version 2, which is the one I received. The training review - second training review process - sorry, training review, that doesn't exist. It's a document.

PN1659

So the evidence that Mr Clarke gives, about a second training review, according to you, doesn't exist?‑‑‑In the sense that you're referring to. The way it's been referred to here is that it is a training review document.

PN1660

Mr Bosnich, the words of 68 say, 'A second training review was conducted' by Sarah - - -

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1661

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. This proposition has already been put to the witness. He's provided his answer.

PN1662

MR HARDY: Well, I press the question.

PN1663

THE COMMISSIONER: I accept the - sorry, I'll start that again. I accept that it's been asked and answered. You can put different questions to the witness, Mr Hardy, about the circumstance.

PN1664

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1665

Mr Bosnich, can I ask you, please, to turn to page 574 of your statement, sorry, of the court book, which is your statement and to look at paragraph 17?

PN1666

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what page number?

PN1667

MR HARDY: Apologies, Commissioner, it's page 574.

PN1668

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1669

MR HARDY: And I'm asking the witness to look at paragraph 17 on that page?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1670

You say you reviewed a number of original source documents, do you see that?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1671

And one of those source documents was training review version 1, as is reference in that report, is it not?‑‑‑No, I have not read training version 1.

PN1672

So when you write about it, on page 1035 - well, not you, but when you approve what's written about it and it references training review version 1, what did you think that meant? Can you turn to page 1035, please, first paragraph?‑‑‑Yes. It meant the version 2 was correcting the administrative error that was made in version 1.

PN1673

So is version 1 not an original source document, Mr Bosnich?‑‑‑The original source documents I was referring to were the practical assessments that underpinned the data that was provided in version 2.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1674

So your evidence to the Commission is you reviewed and approved a report that refers to a training review version 1, which you - references it, which you did not look at or read at all?‑‑‑No, because the statement - the paragraph refers to why there was a version 2 and section 3 refers to the documentation that was used in the collation and presentation of the document, version 2 of the document.

PN1675

Well, if you look at part 3 of that same page, 'The personnel who are involved in this report', there are two names in there, Sarah Synott, the ATC instructor, moderate by - sorry, three names - moderated by Antoinette Crisara, the training coordinator, and approved by yourself?‑‑‑That's correct.

PN1676

Those are different personnel to who appear, for example, on page 998. Can you turn to that document, please?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN1677

So that document, the information that seems to suggest to the reader that the personnel involved in compiling that document were Walton, Schafer, Antoinette and Stewart Hunt?‑‑‑Of version 1, correct.

PN1678

An entirely different group that then appear in the personnel involved on page 1035, in version 2, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1679

And I need the answer to the earlier question please, which was that in the 'Background' it references training review version 1, in the 'Background' section, and that this was going to be an amendment of that. Is your evidence to the Commission that you approved this without having any regard whatsoever to training review version 1?

PN1680

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, objection. It's been asked and answered, that the witness has confirmed that he did not review version 1.

PN1681

MR HARDY: For my part, I'm not clear on that.

PN1682

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll uphold the objection.

PN1683

Mr Bosnich, could you leave the room, please?

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.04 PM]

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1684

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lovell, can I take you to paragraphs 47 and 48 of your submissions?

PN1685

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner, if you just give me one moment. Yes, Commissioner?

PN1686

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you need to take instructions? At the least, this witness's evidence is contrary to those paragraphs.

PN1687

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I'm certainly content to seek a short adjournment for that purpose. I guess I might say that, in view of the efficient of the proceedings this afternoon, I'm not sure how long Mr Hardy proposes to continue cross‑examination, but with a view to ensuring that evidence is received today, an efficient course might be to continue with the evidence.

PN1688

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, this might be one of those Seinfeld moments, where we're debating something which means nothing.

PN1689

MR LOVELL: Yes, quite possibly, Commissioner, because I'm very conscious you haven't heard from me yet at all, in respect of the preliminary matters, which would render almost all of the evidence you've heard over the last day and a half irrelevant.

PN1690

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the issues associated with whether there's one training review, two or 20. Mr Bosnich clearly has a different view as to what he was doing. But if I have jurisdiction then, leaving aside the Seinfeldesque nature of it, the - I want to know, frankly, from Airservices Australia, what is relied upon.

PN1691

Now, the questions which I heard Mr Hardy to be asking were on the basis that Mr Bosnich conducted a second training review. Now, he's just simply saying he didn't. That's what you may need to get instructions on.

PN1692

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1693

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I'm giving you that opportunity, if you want it. It's up to you and your client, it's not up to me, but it seems to me that it may be the sort of thing you need to get instructions on.

PN1694

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner. Might I request a brief adjournment for that purpose, please?

PN1695

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr Harding, do you have anything to say, before we adjourn?

PN1696

MR HARDY: No, Commissioner.

PN1697

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So the Commission will stand adjourned fore 15 minutes.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [2.06 PM]

RESUMED [2.08 PM]

PN1698

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon again. I think we're on the record. So does anyone need to say anything following that discussion previously?

PN1699

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner, I do propose to say something.

PN1700

I thought it might be helpful if I briefly outline what I understand to be the state of the evidence on these matters, and it might be then that we can address how any issues perhaps, or concerns about the state of the evidence might be addressed.

PN1701

Commissioner, in a nutshell, and I'll be very brief on this, the applicant, Mr Crouch, was placed on training review, under the RTO handbook and the ATC manual, to which you've been taken earlier. Tat results in a training review process being undertaken. In this instance it was undertaken by Ms Schafer and approved by Mr Hunt and culminated, as I think Mr Hardy put it, in the first training review report, delivered in February of 2021.

PN1702

That report is delivered to the applicant, and the applicant, consistent with the procedures, has an opportunity to raise issues or concerns and request that the recommendation in the training review, which in that first training review was termination of training. He has an opportunity to request that that recommendation be reviewed. He did that. That request for review of the recommendation went to Mr Clarke, in his capacity as the operational training head.

PN1703

As is clear, I think, from the evidence, the applicant raised various issues with the first training review report. Mr Clarke has given evidence, and this is reflected at paragraph 67 of his statement, that he reviewed the first training review report and accepted, in particular, one of the issues raised by the applicant about his completeness, that it didn't include progress evaluation 6, and that was the subject of testimony yesterday.

PN1704

Having identified that, Mr Clarke's evidence was that he requested that the training review be redone by two separate controllers, to separate Airservices officers, not involved in the first review, and it was Ms Synott who was vested with responsibility for undertaking the second review and preparing the report, and Mr Bosnich, who was requested to approve that report.

PN1705

That occurred within a quite timely manner, Commissioner, and that's because Ms Synott had before her all of the source document, or most I should say, already gathered as part of the earlier training review process. They were before her, she prepared her report. Mr Bosnich gave evidence before that he reviewed Ms Synott's work product and considered the original source documents and came to a view as to what the appropriate outcome should be.

PN1706

So when we say there's a second training review process that is, as I understand it, what Mr Clarke is referring to. I don't think that's inconsistent, if I might say, with what Mr Bosnich has said about his understanding of his role or what he did. So, in that sense, that's my understanding of the state of the evidence before you, Commissioner.

PN1707

I might add that I think some of the confusion might arise here from a suggestion that Mr Bosnich's role was to review all of the issues that the applicant had raised in his request to Mr Clarke, for review of the recommendation from the first training review process. That wasn't Mr Bosnich's role. Mr Clarke's evidence speak to that. Mr Bosnich's role was to approve the second training review report, in the terms that I've described it.

PN1708

What then ensured, of course, is that the applicant, Mr Crouch, made a further request for review of the recommendation arising from the second training review report and it was Mr Clarke's responsibility to undertake the review - the review arising from that request for review of the recommendation and, indeed, he did that.

PN1709

I'm not sure, Commissioner, if that's of assistance, if you like, in clarifying where I understand the evidence has taken us, to this point.

PN1710

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe. That nomenclature is, though, very strongly resisted by Mr Bosnich. He wasn't conducting a second training review, he merely issued version 2.

PN1711

MR LOVELL: Yes. And, Commissioner, I think it can be perhaps appreciated that this a somewhat unusual circumstance and might not be how the process sort of normally flows, because, essentially, as I apprehend what's happened, is that Mr Clarke has identified a particular issue and said, 'Hold on, the first training review isn't complete, it has this obvious omission, PE6 and the results from that. That needs to be addressed before there's any utility in me looking further', and that is what has triggered the process which ultimately Mr Bosnich is responsible for conducting and approving. So I imagine the issue with nomenclature might arise from that, perhaps curious, feature of the process before us.

PN1712

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what was that point?

PN1713

MR LOVELL: I said, Commissioner, that the issue around nomenclature here might have a reason because of that particular curious aspect of this particular process.

PN1714

MR HARDY: Commissioner, if I may?

PN1715

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, before you do. No, Mr Hardy, please proceed.

PN1716

MR HARDY: What I was going to say, Mr Clarke's evidence, at 67, on page 592, the last sentence of that paragraph, this is after he's reviewed Mr Crouch's submissions about - lengthy submissions, et cetera, and concerns and complaints, which he talks about at paragraph 66, relating to the training review and recommendation given, he concludes paragraph 67 by saying:

PN1717

On this basis I requested that a new training review be completed.

PN1718

Which included consideration of PE6. I hadn't yet gone to any questions yet about the detail of Mr Crouch's specific complaints, so I'm not sure that confusion needed to arise. We're stuck at the beginning point, at the moment, with Mr Bosnich, about that. I should also point that certainly paragraph 50(c), on page 566 of the respondent's submissions, talks about four separate reviews being conducted. And I should also, for completeness, note, Commissioner, that Mr Bosnich himself wrote to Mr Crouch, on 7 April, and that's contained at page 474, following his review, and he says:

PN1719

With regard to your previous training review and PE6 being missed -

PN1720

He acknowledges a previous training review:

PN1721

I'm writing to advise of the finding of training review 2.

PN1722

That's a letter authored by Mr Bosnich. I haven't taken him to that yet, it's 474, signed by him on page 475.

PN1723

I don't say anything further. I just wanted to, for completeness, draw your attention to those particular references, Commissioner.

PN1724

MR LOVELL: And my concern, Commissioner, in light of that, is this is an issue of nomenclature, of language, and not of substance, but maybe I'm missing something.

PN1725

THE COMMISSIONER: I think your point is - please, I'm not going to let you continue ad infinitum.

PN1726

Gentlemen, the situation here is that I pointed out something that was concerning me, that there's - the evidence, as it stands at the moment, Mr Lovell, is open for findings of inconsistency between your witnesses, that's why I drew this to your attention.

PN1727

Now, what you do with it is the more important issue.

PN1728

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1729

THE COMMISSIONER: If you don't wish to make a correction to either Mr Clarke or Mr Bosnich's evidence, that's for you and for those who instruct you.

PN1730

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1731

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will now proceed with Mr Bosnich. I would hope - the purpose of my intervention before was in the hope that there would be a means to truncate the differences, but on the basis of what's just been said by both of you, that seems unlikely. So Mr Hardy will have the opportunity to cross-examine as he wishes.

PN1732

So if you can bring Mr Bosnich back, please.

PN1733

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner, if you can just give me a moment.

<FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED [2.18 PM]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING [2.18 PM]

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1734

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your time, Mr Bosnich. I wanted to raise an issue with the lawyers, which I've gone through and which will lead to some consideration by them, obviously, of the issues that I've raised, but shortly cross‑examination will continue with Mr Hardy.

PN1735

If I do that, I should just indicate to the parties that I've moved my 4.15 conference, I thought it advisable to do that, so I'm no longer constrained by the conference which was otherwise scheduled for late this afternoon. How far into the evening we go will depend upon both of you.

PN1736

So, Mr Hardy?

PN1737

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1738

Mr Bosnich, in this adjournment that we've had have you had a conversation with any other person?‑‑‑No.

PN1739

Thank you. Can I ask you to accept, Mr Bosnich, that at the time you received, for approval, the report that is contained at 1033 of the court book, you were reviewing the first review of Mr Crouch and approving the findings of that second review. Can you accept that?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, can you repeat the question?

PN1740

Sure. At the time that you were participating in the process that culminated in the document at 1033, turn to 1033 so I'm not just talking numbers to you. Have you got 1033?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1741

At the time you were in that process that is described in the 'Background', and set out thereafter, you were undertaking training review number 2 and you were reviewing the previous training review that had been undertaken by Mr Hunt, do you accept that?‑‑‑I was reviewing what was contained in version 2.

PN1742

Can I show you, please, page 474?

PN1743

MR LOVELL: I'm just directing the witness to the first folder.

PN1744

MR HARDY: Thank you. Do you see that? No, not yet.

PN1745

THE WITNESS: Sorry, Mr Hardy, can you say the document number again?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1746

MR HARDY: Certainly, 474 and it goes on to page 475?‑‑‑Yes, I've got the document.

PN1747

Do you recognise that document?‑‑‑It will be the final outcome document, I believe, that would have been given to Mr Crouch, yes.

PN1748

Did you author it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1749

So page 475, is that your signature on it?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1750

Can I take you to the first paragraph, please? You're writing to Mr Crouch, on 7 April, which I ask you just to accept for a moment. It's after you've published the report that was issued on 29 March 2021, contained at document 1033 of the court book, and you say, in your first paragraph, and I've used these words in my prior questions with you:

PN1751

With regards to your previous training review -

PN1752

Do you see those words?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1753

and PE6 being missed, I am writing to advise you of the finding of training review 2.

PN1754

?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1755

And I've asked you, a moment ago, were you doing training review 2 and were you reviewing the previous training review and your emphatic answer was, 'No'?‑‑‑Because the - the whole process, in my eyes, is one review, training review 1, training review 2, resulting in a version 2 of the document.

PN1756

Where does it say that, in your letter?‑‑‑That - well, it doesn't say that in the letter.

PN1757

And you know that this review, that you were asked to do, came about because Mr Crouch had taken his allotted nine days to review the Hunt report, which had taken six months to prepare. He was unhappy with a number of - took issue with a number of aspects of that report and asked for it to be reviewed and reconsidered, you're aware of that, aren't you?‑‑‑He was asked for the document to be amended.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1758

Did you see - can I take you, please, to document 1010, please? Have you got that document in front of you, Mr Bosnich?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1759

That's the document that Mr Crouch wrote to Mr Clarke, copying in Ms Crisara, who was, I understand, involved in your review, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1760

And Mr Crouch was your boss, or your supervisor or manager, whatever title you had for him, at that time?‑‑‑Mr Clarke was, not Mr Crouch.

PN1761

Mr Clarke, apologies. Apologies, Mr Clarke. And what he asks, if you see paragraph 3:

PN1762

I kindly request the recommendation be reviewed.

PN1763

?‑‑‑Yes, it does say that.

PN1764

(Indistinct) Airservices to review the recommendation contained within the Hunt report, do you accept that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1765

What you've told him, by your letter, on page 474, is that the previous training review, this is in your terms and your words, that that previous training review has been reviewed and you've got a finding of training review 2, correct?‑‑‑If that's the way you want to interpret it, yes. That's the way that document is written.

PN1766

How else can I interpret that?‑‑‑Training review 2 is part of - is an extension of training review 1.

PN1767

Mr Bosnich, can you read the full sentence please?‑‑‑Yes, I've read the sentence.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1768

It talks about the previous training review, not an extension of it, not a pick up and let me now run with it, not a I'm now stepping in and carrying on where someone else left off. Faced with Mr Crouch's complaints, Airservices has represented to him, through your letter and your signature, that the previous training review has been reviewed, in accordance with his request and in accordance with RTO requirements, and that there's been a training review 2. Your evidence to this Commission is that is not what occurred?‑‑‑If you are looking at them as two separate parts, that is not what occurred. It was one process. So if you want to say that training review 2 occurred as part of the ongoing process of the first review then, yes, it occurred, which resulted in version 2 of the document being presented to me.

PN1769

Can I ask you to please turn to page 566 of the court book?‑‑‑Five hundred and sixty-six was it? I have that page, Mr Hardy.

PN1770

Can I ask you to read - this is, I should tell you, Airservices submissions to the Commission about a range of things, at paragraph 50 is addressing why Airservices believe that termination of training is a proportionate response. One of those reasons that it gives, in paragraph (c), can you see paragraph 50(c), halfway down the page?‑‑‑Yes, I can see that.

PN1771

That says, 'Four separate reviews were conducted'?‑‑‑That is the opinion of Mr Clarke.

PN1772

That is not, that is the submissions of Airservices Australia, to this Commission?‑‑‑Yes. So he sees it as four separate reviews, I would see it as - as potentially three. But if that's what Airservices have presented, then it was four separate reviews.

PN1773

And what your letter presented showed four separate - led to, at least by the time you were involved, a second separate review. The letter makes no mention of a continued first review, correct?‑‑‑No, that is correct.

PN1774

Thank you. Can I ask you, please, to go back to page 996, which is the first report that was prepared by - approved by Mr Hunt, and can I ask you please to turn to page 1005 within that report?‑‑‑I have that page, Mr Hardy, yes.

PN1775

And you can see there, page 2 PE6 column, the comment is:

PN1776

Luke was placed under review prior to completing PE6.

PN1777

Do you see that?‑‑‑Sorry? Yes.

PN1778

That was incorrect, correct?‑‑‑Yes, based on version 2 that was incorrect. That is correct.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1779

Well, not based on version 2, but based - at the time this was authored, as at 17 February 2021, that was incorrect, was it not?‑‑‑That was an administrative error, correct.

PN1780

If one looks at line item under the - if you go to the far left-hand side of that table, 'Field', 'Executing control actions', do you see that, it's the second field?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1781

The first one of those is 2.1, 'Maintaining separation', do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1782

That by the time we got to phase 2 PE6, so we'd completed five on this document, Mr Crouch, cumulatively, on that, as at 22 July 2020, was not yet successful, correct?‑‑‑No.

PN1783

And 'maintaining separation' - - -?‑‑‑Not yet - sorry, can I correct you. It's not yet satisfactory.

PN1784

Thank you. And 'maintaining separation' was the - that was the practical component of the relevant exam you've spoken to the Commission about, and Airservices has spoken to the Commission about, that Mr Crouch had failed initially and then subsequently failed by just over a per cent below the 70 per cent pass mark, correct?‑‑‑Can you repeat that question, Mr Hardy?

PN1785

The 'maintaining separation' elements of the 'Executing control actions field' that can be found on page 1005, that is the practical component, is it not, of the exam that Mr Crouch failed, and resat and failed a second time, by just on a percentage point, 'ASA119 area separation standards', correct?‑‑‑That is incorrect.

PN1786

All right?‑‑‑It's a progress evaluation. The practical assessment is the final phase assessment. There is a difference. These are - these are progress evaluations of a controller operating autonomously, without instructor input.

PN1787

And the 'maintaining separation' component, are you saying that bears no correlation to ASA119, which is the area separation standards theoretical component, is that what you're saying?‑‑‑No, that's not what I'm saying.

PN1788

Okay. So you are then agreeing with my first proposition, I'm assuming, which is that there is a correlation between that exam, theoretically, as ASA - - -?‑‑‑That's not what you put to me, Mr Hardy.

PN1789

Sorry, you're interrupting me.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1790

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, on this point it's up to Mr Hardy how he asks his questions but, perhaps, the straightforward question here might be to ask is there a correlation?

PN1791

MR HARDY: Is there a correlation between 'ASA119 area separation standards (theoretical)' and 'maintaining separation (practical)'?‑‑‑There would be a correlation in that one is applying parts of the theory that are learnt.

PN1792

Yes, thank you?‑‑‑Parts of the theory, not all of the theory.

PN1793

Thank you. So if I ask you then to turn to, please, page 1042, and this is your report that you approved?‑‑‑Yes, I have that, Mr Hardy.

PN1794

PE6 is included in there?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1795

The practical component, that I've just spoken with you about, 'maintaining separation', now, on a cumulative basis, assessed in August 2020, adopting the practical requirements of the textbook, or the theory, is satisfactory, correct?‑‑‑Incorrect. Because it's not a cumulative - it's not an accumulative process.

PN1796

So when you get - - -?‑‑‑Phase 6 was deemed satisfactory, but it's not accumulative.

PN1797

But by PE6, on this record, in relation to element 2.1, 'Maintaining separation', he was deemed, at that stage, on 12 August, Mr Crouch was deemed to have satisfactorily completed that element, correct?‑‑‑He was deemed satisfactory for the completion of the elements associated with that PE.

PN1798

Yes?‑‑‑Which may or may not be the same as the previous five.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1799

What do you mean by that?‑‑‑There are approximately 35 standards, without me having my manual to refer to, and the application of those standards and the principles of those standards, and we don't - we don't expect a trainee to come in and, on PE1, be able to apply every single one of those. So there is an element where we work on a particular group of standards, they get assessed against them, and then we move on to the next set. The theory component of the exam references the person's knowledge across all of the chapters in a manual of Air Traffic Standards. That is a requirement to complete, prior to going to the final assessment of your practical component. Because, under RTO standards, it would be unfair or unreasonable to bring a student to a final check when they have failed a theory component of that phase. It would invalidate that final check because they have not completed the theory to the satisfactory standard. So the check would be deemed invalid.

PN1800

At the - - -?‑‑‑It comes all back to the theory component, that was attempted twice and failed twice. That measures the entire section of that book and Mr Crouch's knowledge and his ability to apply it. These are snapshots.

PN1801

Of how he's applying that knowledge?‑‑‑Parts of that knowledge.

PN1802

Yes. And my question to you was, at 12/08/2020 he was satisfactorily performing the 'maintaining separation' element of executing control actions. He got an 'S', correct?‑‑‑He did. And I went back to read the report to understand the difference between PE5 and PE6, they were supplementary documents that I references.

PN1803

My only question is - - -?‑‑‑And I read the instructor's comments to understand, as I formed part of my decision.

PN1804

I'm not asking you about any of that, I'm just asking you a very straightforward thing, which is, on 12 August the assessment of Mr Crouch, applying 'maintaining separation', which comes from the theoretical aspects that he learns, under 'Area separation standards ASA119' was deemed satisfactory, that's all I'm asking you to agree with, as stated in this document, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1805

Thank you. And that was undertaken, Mr Bosnich, at or around the same time as his theoretical exam, which he failed by 1 point - - -?‑‑‑1.8, I believe.

PN1806

Yes, I think 1.7 per cent, below 2 per cent, taken on the same time. So the information that's before on review is that in relation to that second attempt, at an incredibly small margin of failure rate, with a practical PE6 pass in the element of 'managing separation', correct?‑‑‑Sorry, was that a statement or a question?

PN1807

It's a statement that I'm asking you to agree with me on?‑‑‑Sorry, can you repeat it, Mr Hardy?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1808

That at the time of that - there was two things that were going on at the time Mr Crouch was put on review, at 14 August 2020. The things immediately prior to that was a marginal failure, by 1.7 per cent, of a course theoretical component with a pass mark of 70, and at the same time, and on that day or the following day, a successful completion of PE6 in maintaining separation, 2.1. Correct?‑‑‑Correct. He failed to meet the benchmark in the theory, the regulatory benchmark.

PN1809

That is not what I'm asking you. I know that's what you are wanting me to focus on. I asked you two things and I want to make sure I'm understanding you're agreeing with me on both things. The first is, at the time of review Mr Crouch had, by the smallest of margins, 1.7 per cent, failed a supplementary on air separation standards, but on that same day or within a day of that - - -

PN1810

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I apologise to intervene but if two statements are being put to the witness, perhaps there's an opportunity to put each statement and ask the witness to (indistinct) each.

PN1811

MR HARDY: At that time he had failed the course ASA119 area separation standards exam, just before going on review, by about 1.7 per cent. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1812

He had also at or around that same time, gone on and successfully completed maintaining separation in the practical component of PE6. Correct?‑‑‑The progress evaluation, correct.

PN1813

Thank you. Can I ask you to go to page 1,010 again, please, one-o-one-o. It's Mr Crouch's letter to Mr Clarke, 3 March 2021?‑‑‑I have that.

PN1814

That document runs on from page 110 and concludes on page 132, about 22 pages in length. Did you – have you seen this document before?‑‑‑No, because I would be not entitled to see it.

PN1815

All right?‑‑‑Because it could potentially influence the review of what you've referred to and has been referred to in our documents as training review 2. But this would be the – Mr Crouch's response to training review 1, if that's what we want to refer to it, and then he would have a similar opportunity to respond to version 2.

PN1816

If you were doing review 2 why would you not have regard to the matters that Mr Crouch has raised in review of the first report?‑‑‑Because he would have – be provided with a second opportunity to raise those in the version 2 that we have been referring to or training review 2.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1817

Yes, we know that and we know that he did do that and it went to Mr Clarke and he considered it and he did it at his next review. That was review 3 and he appealed that and there was review 4. How is it that you can do a review without knowing what it is that Mr Crouch is concerned about and requesting a review of?‑‑‑Because I'm reviewing his training performance, not Mr Crouch's concerns regarding his training performance.

PN1818

But you were, for example, looking at the fact that PE6 hadn't been included in the prior review, correct?‑‑‑Sorry, can you restate that question?

PN1819

Part of your review was to now factor in, for example, the fact that Mr Crouch had picked up and brought to Air Services' attention a very important element which was not included in his review that had recommended his termination, that showed, amongst other things, that he passed successfully a number of components in PE6. You had to look at that in your review, correct?‑‑‑In version 2 I looked at the entire document. That was one small component of it, and it's not a pass or fail in a progress evaluation. It is satisfactory or not yet satisfactory.

PN1820

Yes, it was satisfactory?‑‑‑And again it came back to the fact that he was unable to obtain the regulatory standard that is required in a theoretical component of the diploma.

PN1821

Were you aware that in between the two exams that you're talking about for the theoretical diploma, Mr Crouch should have received training support from Air Services?‑‑‑The theory exams, there would be – there was a training support agreement.

PN1822

That's the document but I'm talking about at a practical level he was required to be given assistance and support in a practical sense by Air Services, correct?‑‑‑That's correct. That's captured in the document what practical support was provided under the training support agreement.

PN1823

Mr Crouch complained quite vigorously about the lack of support between test 1 and test 2 on that theoretical component. Do you know that?‑‑‑He referenced that he did not feel that he was provided with adequate support.

PN1824

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that a yes?‑‑‑Mr Hardy, can you repeat the question?

PN1825

It was my question. Was that a yes?‑‑‑To Mr Hardy's question?

PN1826

Correct?‑‑‑Yes, in Luke's opinion he felt that he wasn't provided adequate support.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1827

I'm giving you the opportunity to say no because I'm reading you to say yes. Am I correct?‑‑‑I then asked could Mr Hardy please repeat the question.

PN1828

Right. Put it again, please. It was along the lines of were you aware that Mr Crouch was complaining vigorously about the lack of support?‑‑‑The answer to that would be no.

PN1829

You were not aware of those things?‑‑‑No, because that all occurred prior to me starting in my role.

PN1830

Thank you.

PN1831

MR HARDY: In undertaking, if you can indulge me, Mr Bosnich, to call it review 2, your evidence is that when signing off on that report you were not aware that Mr Crouch had concerns about the practical training support that had been provided to him in respect of the exam which he ultimately marginally failed? You were not aware of that, was that right?‑‑‑I was not aware of Mr Crouch's or Luke's concerns. I reviewed the training support that was provided and it was the same that has been provided to other students that were unsuccessful in the theoretical component of separation standards.

PN1832

Which students?‑‑‑Previous students. I can't – I'm not - - -

PN1833

This was your first review?‑‑‑It was my first review as an initial training manager but part of my process, part of my responsibility in undertaking the training review is to have a discussion with the instructors to understand what support was provided to Mr Crouch and whether that aligned with what the expectations of the organisation are and also whether that was consistent with other students prior. And my instructors assured me, and they took me through the training that was given to him, which included a sit-down with him to review the questions, a workbook to work through which pretty much if you work through it you cover off most of the topical questions that you'd be asked for, and a one-to-one with the instructor later on to review the training – any questions that he had on the workbook which is typical of what support is provided.

PN1834

So which people did you say you had those discussions with?‑‑‑My instructors.

PN1835

Who are they?‑‑‑Phase two instructors.

PN1836

Who are they? Do they have names?‑‑‑Sarah Synott.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1837

Yes?‑‑‑Ms Kylie Boyd.

PN1838

Yes?‑‑‑They were the two lead instructors for that period, for that phase.

PN1839

You spoke to them about the training support that had been provided to Mr Crouch, you say?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1840

Where do I find that in your report?‑‑‑Which report?

PN1841

The report you approved. The only report that I've been talking about as being your report for the entirety of this examination?‑‑‑You don't.

PN1842

You don't?‑‑‑Because it's not part of our – it's not part of the training review. That's an extension of the questions that a training review would generate for the person doing the review. I would sit down and go through it and have a conversation with the instructors and say, 'Right, take me through what support was provided.' Take me – or I'll sit down and have a look at a progress evaluation or a practical assessment and I'll say, 'Take me through what was written, the wording in this practical assessment.' That's not captured in there otherwise this document will be the size of the documents that we've got on this table here.

PN1843

I'll ask you to look at page 1043, please?‑‑‑Go ahead.

PN1844

This is your document that you approved. Can you read the first bullet point, please?‑‑‑Yes:

PN1845

Luke stated he did not receive specific training in theory.

PN1846

Yes, the report you authored is expressly contrary to what you've just told the Commissioner, which is you had no idea that he was not – that he was – and you can read further.

PN1847

He said it was not contextualised until much later in the course.

PN1848

He then says that he believes that – he talks about his instructor being very good. He talks about where he did get:

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1849

Does not feel he got much direction for the separation standards exam.

PN1850

Do you see that?‑‑‑4.3, yes, I do.

PN1851

You approved this report?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1852

You recommended the termination of his training off the back of it?‑‑‑Based on when I questioned my instructors with a general statement like, 'stated he did not receive specific training in theory'. Theory has multiple subjects and he received all of the training that every other student on that course received. The theory was delivered to him in its entirety.

PN1853

How do you know that?‑‑‑Because it was prac'd when – and what was made – what needed to be made up when he was missing, was made up.

PN1854

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't understand that?‑‑‑Or he was caught up, sorry. The schedule tracks all of the theory, all of the practical assessments that need to be programmed and the trainees progress through, if a trainee is absent they will then be given what we call a catch-up and that will include any practical or theory components that need to be caught up. So for him to say he did not receive specific training in theory is factually incorrect because there is six weeks of theory training at the beginning of the diploma.

PN1855

MR HARDY: Did you check that with him?‑‑‑To check his – to check what? That he received the theory?

PN1856

No, did you check his concerns that he was raising in your review?‑‑‑That would have taken place in the – the delivery of the training review is a recommendation. He then has the ability to be able to provide additional information that is not captured in the submission. He's already stated he did not receive specific training in the theory, he was delivered all of the theory components. If he felt that that was not correct he would have been able to submit that in his appeal to the training – of the training review outcome.

PN1857

That doesn't answer my question?‑‑‑I believe it does.

PN1858

Mr Bosnich, my question was whether you checked any of this with Mr Crouch. It's a yes or a no?‑‑‑Checked every bullet point with Mr Crouch, is that what you're referring to?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1859

Well, I'm asking you if you've checked the matters that are raised under the section 5, interviews and submissions, you are authoring and approving this report, have you checked, let's start with any of them. Did you check any of them with Mr Crouch?‑‑‑Sir, that is what my instructors would do when they interview him and gather Mr Crouch's response.

PN1860

When you say that, you mean the person who's named on the report with you, as being Sarah Synott?‑‑‑I'm not – to my understanding the interview was not conducted by Sarah.

PN1861

Well, your personnel on your report that you've issued on page 3 says it was conducted – on page 1035 of the court book, conducted by Sarah, moderated by Antoinette and approved by yourself and - - -?‑‑‑Page? Sorry, page? Is it document number? Item number? 1043 says an interview with Luke was held by Emma Schafer and Simone McCall.

PN1862

Yes so then my question to you is in checking these things by the two people who are involved in this process, three people – yourself, Sarah Synott and Antoinette Crisara, what was done to satisfy yourselves of any of these points, if anything?‑‑‑These points?

PN1863

Yes?‑‑‑So I had a conversation with the instructors. I had a conversation with – at the time we had a check and standardisation officer or, as it's referred to here, competency and standardisation specialist on route, Emma Schafer, with regards to the interview, but that's – they're the people that I spoke to about the training review, if I had a question about it that I wanted to seek more clarity on and a better understanding.

PN1864

This section that we are looking at is called interview and submissions, correct? Interviews and submissions?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1865

Is there any reason why the matters that you've just spoken about didn't find their way into the report that you approved, given that you say that you did them?‑‑‑Because the interview and submissions is the trainee's interview, not interviews that I conduct. I don't conduct interviews with my instructors. I have conversations with them.

PN1866

Where do you record those conversations as a reviewer of someone who might lose their job, never to be able to pursue their career in air traffic control? Where do you record those conversations?‑‑‑The actual conversation or - - -

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1867

The content of it?‑‑‑The content of it would be captured in the review if I thought it needed to be added because I get a draft version.

PN1868

You've got a draft version of this report at 1033?‑‑‑That is correct. It comes to me as a draft until I accept it or approve it in this case.

PN1869

I call for the draft. How many drafts were there?‑‑‑There is – this is the draft. It comes to me as a draft until I approve it and accept it as a document and then it becomes the final document.

PN1870

This document, as I see it at page 1033, that's the document in the very first identical form to how it was first provided to you? Is that what you're saying?‑‑‑I believe so.

PN1871

This is the document that was presented to you as a draft and without any input from yourself at all this document is finalised. You've not authored, changed any word. Nothing of this document has changed. Is that your evidence? That is the approver – there's been not one change in this document by you?‑‑‑My recollection is I did not change the document. There are occasions when a training review has come to me and there is something that is either – I pick up a date is incorrect or a section is missing and I will say – I will send it back to be corrected. I can't speak to whether that happened to this document or not. I do actually read them thoroughly and pick up if there is things that are incorrect or missing. Or I'd like to think I read them thoroughly.

PN1872

Once you've read them how do you check them and assess them before approval? For example, how did you check with Mr Crouch what is recorded at paragraph 5 on page 1043? How did you check any of those points?‑‑‑I take that as factually what Luke said.

PN1873

So if he says that he didn't get much direction for his separation standards exam, what do you do with that information?‑‑‑I would ask the instructors.

PN1874

Did you do that?‑‑‑I asked the instructors what occurred, what training was delivered. The training that was delivered to Luke was the same theory that was delivered to all the other students and Luke in addition got the training workbook, sit down with the instructors. Now, whether instructor said, 'Just read (indistinct) 10', that's Luke's opinion and I can't speak to that. I have to take him on that's what he said.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1875

Did you check it?‑‑‑That would be during the training review meeting, I'd give the document to Luke and I'd take him through it.

PN1876

But by that meeting are you talking about a meeting that would follow you issuing this report to him and your letter which confirms the recommendation to terminate training?‑‑‑No, so the letter comes at a later date.

PN1877

Right but it picks up the recommendation that you've got at the end of this report?‑‑‑Now, there may be something in my meeting with Luke that he would raise or a trainee, I should not – that may necessitate an amendment to the training review. If somebody said to me they had a reason for not performing at a specific level was because a family member had died or something and they had not divulged that information, then we would go back and redo the training review. It's at that point when I sit down with the trainee, I've read through the document, I've looked at the areas of concern, where they have not been able to meet the competency standard, what support was provided. I've sat down with my instructors and queried them if there's something that I need further clarification on. I then make a decision which is a recommendation, not a final outcome, and I present that to the trainee and that is – I take them through the document and explain how I'm going about coming to the decision – sorry, the recommendation. And it's in that point the trainee has the right to be able to say, you know, you didn't consider this or there was significant circumstances that affected my ability to do that. And that may or – it may necessitate a review or it may be that that is what you would – I'd talk the trainee through it and say that's what you need to put into your follow-up response to the training review or appeal, if that's the word you want to put to it.

PN1878

What are the names of those instructors again?‑‑‑For phase two?

PN1879

That you spoke to, yes?‑‑‑Sarah Synott and Kylie Boyd were the instructors.

PN1880

Are you aware that neither of those two delivered the separation standards theory training?‑‑‑I was aware but they were the ones – well, the instructor that I spoke to – sorry, that delivered the training, my understanding, was another instructor I was talking to that had been not at work for any significant period of time.

PN1881

Who was that?‑‑‑That was Mr Chris Watson.

PN1882

You had no discussion with Mr Watson?‑‑‑I had discussions with Mr Watson in regards to a lot of matters.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1883

I'm talking specifically, Mr Bosnich, about discussions concerning Mr Crouch in relation to the review that you were undertaking that led to the report being published effective 29 March 2021 and, in particular, the separation standards theory exam failures which you've placed a very high regard of importance on. Did you or did you not in your review talk to Mr Watson?‑‑‑With regards to the - - -

PN1884

Mr Crouch?‑‑‑Crouch. I can't – I cannot recall, to be honest. There was a number of instructors; Derek Russell was another one. They were all involved in the training of that phase and it was all around building an understanding of where my trainee was at. Ultimately my goal is to get every trainee a diploma. I want to see them come out the other end. Now, sometimes we can get there, sometimes we can't, with all the support we can provide.

PN1885

The trainers that you didn't talk to were the ones that were concerned about the very theory exam that Mr Crouch had failed, the separation standards. Yes, you might have spoken to others about other things but the very nub of this issue you didn't talk to the relevant trainer, instructor?‑‑‑I can't answer if I did because there was a significant personal issue that I was dealing with, with that instructor.

PN1886

Okay and your - - -?‑‑‑Which was far more - - -

PN1887

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. The witness has already said he can't recall whether - - -

PN1888

MR HARDY: Right. Your report, and if you go to page - - -

PN1889

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, hold on, please.

PN1890

MR HARDY: Apologies, sorry.

PN1891

THE COMMISSIONER: There's actually no question been asked at the moment but, Mr Bosnich, what do you mean by that last statement? Were you simply not speaking to him at the time?‑‑‑The instructor?

PN1892

The instructor?‑‑‑The instructor was non-operational for a period of time and I was dealing with - - -

PN1893

That was 2021?‑‑‑ - - - him because he was dealing with a significant personal matter that - - -

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1894

I just want to understand what that means. This is in March 2021?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1895

He was not at work, is that what you're saying?‑‑‑That is correct, Commissioner.

PN1896

You were unable to make contact with him?‑‑‑No, no, I was in contact with him but he was at home because he was dealing with a significant personal issue. So I wasn't speaking to him in the workplace but I was also talking to him with regard to his – like, you know, like, his health and wellbeing.

PN1897

I do understand why there might be sensitivity there but I just want to get to the bottom of this. Mr Crouch is dealing with a significant personal difficulty himself, he's being threatened with dismissal. Now, the issue with Watson, Mr Watson, was so serious that you felt you could not speak to him about this?‑‑‑Not that I felt that I couldn't speak to him about it, I can't recall the conversations I – because we had very long conversations about a lot of things. So I could not answer yes or no because we talked about a lot of topics - - -

PN1898

Thank you?‑‑‑ - - - at great detail.

PN1899

MR HARDY: Including work topics at that time?‑‑‑There was a conversation about work, yes. He's one of my employees and I have a responsibility to look after his health and wellbeing and that also includes talking about work.

PN1900

Was he on leave from work in the month of March?‑‑‑He was on leave, that is correct.

PN1901

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hardy, do you have many questions to go?

PN1902

MR HARDY: Not that many, Commissioner, but a couple, yes.

PN1903

THE COMMISSIONER: I might just take a brief break if I could, please.

PN1904

MR HARDY: Yes, Commissioner.

PN1905

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll just adjourn for five minutes, thank you.

PN1906

MR HARDY: Thank you.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.13 PM]

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.13 PM]

RESUMED [3.23 PM]

<FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED [3.23 PM]

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING [3.23 PM]

PN1907

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon again, parties. Thank you for that short break which is appreciated. So, Mr Hardy, if you can continue, please.

PN1908

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1909

Mr Bosnich, before this last short adjournment you were talking and giving some evidence to the Commissioner about your review meeting with Mr Crouch, correct? Do you remember that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1910

Your evidence, as I understood it, was that that process is one where you would produce or discuss and get some input from Mr Crouch concerning and before finalising your review, correct?‑‑‑Incorrect. The process is I deliver the training review and take them through the document and explain how I came to the recommendation.

PN1911

Yes?‑‑‑That would also involve asking Luke some questions if there was things that I wanted to clarify. I'd take him through – or the trainee through the entire document and explain how we come to the recommendation. Then after that we'd talk about the process moving forward and it's at that point - - -

PN1912

Which is what?‑‑‑The process moving forward?

PN1913

Yes?‑‑‑Is typically that the trainee can accept the review in its entirety.

PN1914

Yes?‑‑‑Or they can appeal the review.

PN1915

Yes?‑‑‑And that's - - -

PN1916

So in that - apologies?‑‑‑Sorry, you go ahead.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1917

So in that meeting that's not a meeting that you would be discussing with Mr Crouch matters that you wanted his input on for your review, correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1918

The purpose of that meeting was to deliver your findings and recommendations that his training be terminated?‑‑‑Typically that is correct.

PN1919

Well, not typically, I'm talking about for Mr Crouch?‑‑‑For Mr Crouch, correct.

PN1920

You turned up to your meeting with him having concluded your review, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1921

To deliver your findings and your recommendation of termination?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1922

At that meeting you handed him a letter that you'd signed to confirm your findings?‑‑‑I believe the letter was handed to Luke by Ms Crisara.

PN1923

On the day of your meeting?‑‑‑Well, that I can't recall.

PN1924

If you look at page 474, please?‑‑‑474, yes.

PN1925

That's a letter we've gone to before that you authored, correct?‑‑‑Yes, that's correct.

PN1926

Setting out your recommendation of termination and it's dated 7 April 2022, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1927

Can you turn to page 576, please, and look at paragraph 29?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, can you say that number again?

PN1928

Certainly. It's 576, paragraph 29?‑‑‑576.

PN1929

Do you see that?‑‑‑Paragraph 29, yes.

PN1930

You had a one-hour meeting you say with Mr Crouch on the same day, 7 April, the same date as your letter, correct?‑‑‑A scheduled one-hour meeting, correct.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1931

On 7 April, correct?‑‑‑If that's the date, yes. I don't recall the exact day but if that's what's stated there then that's correct.

PN1932

That is the same day as the letter is issued. Just that I'm – you were unable to – does that refresh your memory?‑‑‑Yes, it does.

PN1933

Yes?‑‑‑Yes. Again, I don't remember handing Luke or Mr Crouch the letter; that was probably done by Antoinette.

PN1934

If you go on in that paragraph, at the meeting you advised him of your outcome and talked him through the report, correct?‑‑‑That is correct.

PN1935

That was the first discussion about the content of the report that you'd had with Mr Crouch in relation to your review, correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1936

You had not, before making your finding and before concluding, as a matter of fairness met and spoken to Mr Crouch, had you?‑‑‑The process is that I don't meet with the trainee.

PN1937

It's a yes or no answer?‑‑‑So I'm following process.

PN1938

I'm not asking you whether you're following process. I'm asking you something which you should be able to answer to the Commissioner with a yes or no answer, which is that before this meeting and during your review you did not meet with Mr Crouch, as a matter of procedural fairness to take anything into account from him, correct?‑‑‑I did not meet with Mr Crouch.

PN1939

Thank you and yet your decision is to terminate his training, recommend the termination of his training, correct?‑‑‑Correct, based on his performance.

PN1940

The step that follows that – I appreciate it's a different – you don't necessarily participate in that process but that then usually results, if I'm understanding, in a process that leads to termination of employment. Correct?‑‑‑Incorrect. It doesn't lead to termination. He's then provided with procedural fairness to appeal the training review recommendation.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1941

He has an option available to him to review or to appeal the recommendation. If he does not decide to follow that recommendation, that course to appeal the recommendation, his employment terminates, correct?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, can you just repeat that because I got a little bit lost in the way you phrased the question.

PN1942

If the training terminates, let's say this was your recommendation, and Mr Crouch does not appeal your decision, the consequence of that is a process that leads to termination of employment if he elects not to appeal that?‑‑‑Yes, in most cases, yes. I can't speak to what happens afterwards.

PN1943

Could I show the witness, please, the document that I emailed through to the Commissioner's associate earlier today, please?

PN1944

MR LOVELL: If it would assist the witness, that's the (indistinct) documents.

PN1945

MR HARDY: It doesn't have a page number on it, Mr Bosnich. It's a separate document that's not in the court book because I sent it through this morning.

PN1946

MR LOVELL: I can confirm, Commissioner, that Mr Bosnich has that document.

PN1947

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1948

MR HARDY: Thank you, Mr Lovell.

PN1949

MR LOVELL: It might be convenient in questions for the page numbers at the bottom right-hand corner of the page to be used.

PN1950

MR HARDY: Certainly, yes, and they go from page 1 to 14. Do you see that there, bottom right, Mr Bosnich?‑‑‑Yes, Mr Hardy.

PN1951

Let me tell you first what this document comprises. This document is a mark-up or a compare or a red-line as it's sometimes called, of version 1 which is review 1 prepared by Walton, Schafer and Hunt, as against the document that you approved on 29 March 2021 which has been called I think colloquially review 2.

PN1952

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, before Mr Hardy addresses a question to that, it might be worth clarifying with the witness then that this is a document that Mr Hardy has produced, it's not an Air Services' record.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1953

MR HARDY: Yes, absolutely. This is a document and it's done, Mr Bosnich, it's been prepared by Mr Crouch for the purposes of showing the supposed differences between the first review and second review without having to take you line by line putting two documents next to one another. It's been prepared by our side to speed up that process. You wouldn't have seen this document before because it was only prepared last night and I'm hoping you could take a moment just to look through that document?‑‑‑Mr Hardy, is there any particular part of the document you'd like me to – I've had a quick look. I've had a look through it.

PN1954

Thank you. What I want you to then from that look that you've had, you'd accept that what this report does it essentially replicates review 1. Other than correcting a couple of typographical errors but then dealing with only substantively the inclusion of progress evaluation 6?‑‑‑I could take your word for it, yes.

PN1955

Well, don't take my word for it, please. You did this review. Have a look and tell me - - -?‑‑‑I did review 1, not – 2 sorry, not 1. So I'm assuming this is what review 1 looks like.

PN1956

The author of this review report, is that Sarah Synott and the ATC instructor? Is that you believed authored this document?‑‑‑No, you said you did.

PN1957

No, the document that you approved?‑‑‑Version 2?

PN1958

Yes, let's go to that?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, I'm a little bit confused because I'm looking at one document and you're asking me to talk about another document.

PN1959

Apologies for any confusion I might have caused. If you might turn to page 1033, please? Are you there?‑‑‑I am.

PN1960

That's your report that you approved following your review and it is said on that page to have been conducted by Sarah Synott. My question to you is when I read that as a lay reader without necessarily having done the comparison, am I to take from that that his document was authored by Sarah and it was approved by you?‑‑‑1033, yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1961

When you look at the comparison that I've just produced to you, you can see that the only thing that might have – I think your words earlier was that you don't recall lifting a pen to this document, so the only thing that's been put in there by Ms Sarah Synott are those limited mark-ups with one aspect of PE6, firstly – well, there's one other aspect I'll take you to in a minute but everything else is not authored by her at all. Do you accept that?‑‑‑Sorry, can you repeat that because I'm a little bit lost.

PN1962

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hardy, perhaps you could back up and explain in a bit more granularity what the document is that you've provided here and how it's been put together.

PN1963

MR HARDY: Certainly, Commissioner, if that will assist. Mr Bosnich, the document that has been handed to you that does not contain any page numbers on it like the rest of the court book that I've provided today, is a document that compares – if you turn in the court book to 996, can you call that document up, please?‑‑‑What number was it?

PN1964

996.

PN1965

MR LOVELL: I might assist. So Mr Hardy is asking you to bring up 996 in the court book, the first training review report?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1966

If I might, I think it's the existence of three different documents that the witness is being take to that might cause some of the confusion.

PN1967

MR HARDY: Thank you. Have you got that document there, Mr Bosnich, 996?‑‑‑Yes, Mr Hardy, I've got it.

PN1968

That is the base document that we have used to then compare the document that sits at page 1033, being the report you approved. Does that make sense?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1969

The red-line document produced shows the differences or the changes that have been made to the document at 996 being the first report. That first report is said to have been authored by Walton, Schafer and Hunt, correct?‑‑‑Authored by - - -

PN1970

Walton and Schafer and approved by Hunt?‑‑‑That's correct. Prepared by as opposed to – Mr Hunt did not author it.

PN1971

No, he approved it?‑‑‑Yes but you did say authored by all three of them, so I just want to make sure that we're - - -

PN1972

Yes, sorry, nothing turned on that. It's just the names. This was a document that was prepared by Walton, conducted by Schafer and approved by Hunt. That's probably the most correct way to say it, on the face of the document, thank you. Your document is said to be conducted by Sarah Synott and approved by yourself. Do you see that?‑‑‑That is correct.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1973

When I look at this review report, other than the limited aspect of including PE6, this report doesn't look like it was prepared by Sarah Synott at all. In fact, if you look at part 3 of my mark-up which sits at page 3 of 14, she's scratched out the words that it was prepared by Walton, conducted by Schaffer and approved by Hunt; and said that it's done by her and approved by you. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1974

According to Mr Clarke, if you look at page 592, please, on paragraph 67, page 592?‑‑‑Yes.

PN1975

At paragraph 67 at the end of that, Mr Clarke, your manager, says:

PN1976

I requested that a new training review be completed.

PN1977

This document, as I look at it – and that was then to follow what he calls your second training review. This document, as I read it with the mark-ups in it, that doesn't show a new training review undertaken by Ms Synott at all, does it?‑‑‑I'm sorry, can you restate the question?

PN1978

I don't want to put a false number on it but a significantly high proportion, I'd put it at about 90 per cent of this document is not authored by Ms Synott at all, despite what the cover of your document says and despite who the personnel who are said to have been involved in preparing this are, if you read your report as a stand-alone document?‑‑‑So I can't speak to that because the majority of the information contained within the two documents would be identical because we are sourcing the same documentation. We are sourcing the past, the training reports, the training support agreements, the periodic tracking reports, the daily forms, the progress evaluations, the weekly tracking reports. So the documents should be very similar.

PN1979

What it makes plain is that if you look at the section we've looked at before, which is section 5, the interview and submissions, there was nothing – this is on page – well, the bottom right says 11 of 14 but it's scratched out, yes?‑‑‑Of which document, Mr Hardy?

PN1980

The comparison document?‑‑‑The – right, yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1981

There is nothing in there in terms of who you or your people who are preparing this, Ms Synott, there's nothing additional that's added into this from review 1 in relation to interviews and submissions, despite this being required to be a new review as directed by Mr Clarke, is there?‑‑‑Sorry, I'm - - -

PN1982

MR LOVELL: I might (indistinct) and please let me know if you think Mr Bosnich needs to leave the room. If it would – I'm not sure how long this line of questioning might extend but if it assisted, given the efficient conduct of the matter, Air Services would be prepared to accept this document being tendered as an exhibit for the applicant and accept that it reflects the entirety of the differences between the training review report version 2 and the training review report version 1. I'm not sure, Commissioner, if that would assist.

PN1983

THE COMMISSIONER: Would it assist, Mr Hardy?

PN1984

MR HARDY: Yes, in terms of that it takes it to that point and what I would suggest, looking at this document, is that what Mr Crouch had been told that was being happening was a new review, and that what the document that gets sent - - -

PN1985

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I'm sorry to cut across Mr Hardy but it appears that those matters are properly then matters for submission.

PN1986

MR HARDY: Well, no, I'm going to put a proposition to Mr Bosnich about his review that I will be making a submission about.

PN1987

THE COMMISSIONER: Just one moment. I think you should put the proposition, Mr Hardy.

PN1988

MR HARDY: Mr Bosnich - - -

PN1989

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry and but, Mr Bosnich, I need to give you some advice. You need to listen carefully to the question. In a moment I'll give some instructions to Mr Hardy about how he frames the question. To the best of your ability you need to answer yes or no and you need to understand that your answer will be something that I need to form some views about. Now, Mr Hardy, you are in the habit of asking very lengthy, convoluted questions. Don't do that on this occasion. Please make it, if you need to, put a successful of very simple questions that deal with it. All right?

PN1990

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN1991

Mr Bosnich, when one looks at the marked up document it's apparent that review 2 was nothing more than a sham. Do you agree?‑‑‑No.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN1992

That what it contained was the information from review 1?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1993

A significant amount of information from review 1. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1994

With no attribution to the authors of review 1?‑‑‑Is that a question?

PN1995

It's a statement that I'm asking you to agree with?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1996

Merely referenced into it the fact of the omission of PE6 in what was missing from the first review. Correct? And a couple of other tidy up bits and pieces. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN1997

It was not a new review?‑‑‑That's incorrect.

PN1998

You read that document that shows the mark-up, 90 per cent of that, without being specific about it in my calculation, approximately, is review 1?‑‑‑Because it is the collation of Luke's performance during the course which would be the same.

PN1999

Well, it's far more than that?‑‑‑A considerable amount of it would be the same because we are referencing his progress through the course.

PN2000

What was requested was a new review?‑‑‑So there is a training review document that - - -

PN2001

THE COMMISSIONER: Could you answer the question, please, Mr Bosnich? The question is, what was asked for was a new review. Is that correct?‑‑‑Sorry, Commissioner, can you just state that question again because I - - -

PN2002

Mr Bosnich, I'll ask Mr Hardy to put the question again which invites a yes or no answer.

PN2003

MR HARDY: What was instructed was for, as we've seen in the evidence in the proceedings already, was for a new review?‑‑‑Correct.

PN2004

This document with the very limited changes in it, does not demonstrate a new review, does it?‑‑‑A new review is a process, not a document.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2005

That doesn't answer my question but I'll move on. The second aspect I want to take you to is in the heading, 'Options' please, which is on the last page of the document.

PN2006

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you move to that, please, Mr Hardy, Mr Bosnich you were asked questions earlier on about whether you had read version one and you were very clear in your evidence that you had not read it. Remember that evidence?‑‑‑I do. Yes, Commissioner.

PN2007

All right. In reading this document, the marked-up change by change document, it invites the conclusion that you may not have read that version one that Sarah Synott did would that be correct?‑‑‑I can't speak to that because I don't know what Sarah- - -

PN2008

But if I formed that conclusion would you resist me forming that conclusion?‑‑‑Sorry, I'm struggling to understand what you're actually asking, Commissioner.

PN2009

I don't think you are at all. I think you understand precisely what I'm putting to you. Now, I'll ask it again which is you may not have read it but would you say I am wrong if I formed the view that Sarah Synott had read version one?‑‑‑If you formed the view quite possibly, that is correct. I don't know what Sarah did.

PN2010

Right, thank you, Mr Hardy.

PN2011

MR HARDY: Did you ask her what she did?‑‑‑No. I read the training review.

PN2012

How on earth do you say you approve a document authored by another person when you haven't asked them how they compiled that document and say that that is not a sham?‑‑‑The document follows a template. The template contains all of these sections that are required to be filled in. The author or the preparer would go through each of those sections and collate the data.

PN2013

THE COMMISSIONER: Will you provide me with that template, please?

PN2014

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I can assist with that. There is a reference to it in the court book itself. It's expressly referenced in the procedure but if you bear with me one moment I can pinpoint the reference.

PN2015

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2016

MR LOVELL: And we can arrange for a copy of that template to be supplied.

PN2017

THE COMMISSIONER: That would be appreciated, thank you.

PN2018

MR LOVELL: Would it assist the Commission if I gave you the pinpoint reference for that template now?

PN2019

THE COMMISSIONER: Indeed. Thank you, Mr Lovell.

PN2020

MR LOVELL: My apologies. I am just - my own court book took this moment to - thank you, Ms Wade - has assisted me. Yes, at page 19 of the court book.

PN2021

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN2022

MR LOVELL: Which is part of the initial training manual you will see, Commissioner, that the section 11.2 is actually an internal hyperlink referring to the training review template. I don't think the hyperlinked material has been produced. I think this is an annexure to Mr Crouch's statement in fact, but we can arrange for a copy of that template 0354 to be produced.

PN2023

THE COMMISSIONER: That would be appreciated, thank you. Thank you, Mr Hardy.

PN2024

MR HARDY: So you are the approver of this important review that has recommended the termination of Mr Crouch's training and you ask - you do not discuss with the author before you approve it and issue a letter recommending termination how she compiled it. Mr Bosnich, I put it to you that that is extraordinary, that one might seek to approve a document in that way. Do you agree?‑‑‑No, because I know a training template - training review template exists - and I know what would be involved in collating the data.

PN2025

Mr Bosnich, this was your first review. Mr Bosnich, can I take you to page 576 of your statement to this Commission, please? At paragraph 26 you say you weighed up all of the information available and applied professional judgment and made a holistic qualitative assessment about the most appropriate outcome. Where, in the document - and when I talk about the 'document' that is the mark-up of any little change that might have been made to review one, would I see any evidence of that? Please point me to it?‑‑‑Sorry. Can you point me to the section on page 576 that you're referring to?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2026

Right at the top. Twenty-six - the very first line?‑‑‑And your question, Mr Hardy? Sorry?

PN2027

Is that reference to the comparison document that was authored by two other people and approved by Mr Hunt, when one looks at the input that you and those that were working with you on this had where do I find how you weighed up and applied professional judgment and made holistic qualitative assessments about the most appropriate outcome in your review record?‑‑‑In the options and the recommendations.

PN2028

And in the recommendations that starts 'backwards' moving to it, that's unchanged and that is a document - it is recommended Luke's training be terminated. That is as written in the Hunt report. No change?‑‑‑Correct. Because my finding was the same based on the evidence that was presented there was no need to change recommendations.

PN2029

That wasn't my question. My question is what is your - when you weighed up the information available to you and applied your professional judgment and you make an holistic qualitative decision what is your input into this document? To show that? This is Mr Hunt's words or those that authored it for him?‑‑‑Correct. And I read through the document and used my professional judgment to review all of the information that was presented and came to the same recommendation.

PN2030

And you say at option two, you've changed Mr Hunt's view, to say 'Fair and reasonable support has been provided. And that, accordingly, additional transport is not recommended.' What did you do to form that view and make that change by reference to the body of the marked-up document?‑‑‑Looked at the training support agreement details and determined whether that was delivered to Luke which was in line with what we do as part of the training support.

PN2031

And if you'd done that - if you'd done that how could you find that whether it was delivered to Luke without speaking to Luke and without speaking to that person who was delivering it - Mr Watson. How did that happen?‑‑‑By talking to the instructors concerned.

PN2032

Who did not deliver and weren't involved in this training that you've said have provided reasonable support?‑‑‑And I asked them what was delivered.

PN2033

And they didn't deliver it?‑‑‑But they can - there is files and records of what was delivered to him. You don't need to be the instructor to answer that question.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2034

Well, has this - - -?‑‑‑As an RTO we're required to keep all of that documentation.

PN2035

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lovell, you had an interjection?

PN2036

MR LOVELL: I'll withdraw, Commissioner. The witness has answered the question now.

PN2037

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN2038

MR HARDY: I put it to you that when you were making such a serious recommendation as you had made you are compelled to do that as a matter of fairness. Do you agree with me?‑‑‑As a matter of fairness, yes.

PN2039

And can I take you please to page 14 of the court book? Page 14 is an extract of clause 50 which comes out of the - an enterprise agreement. That is known as the Air Services Australia Air Traffic Control and Supporting Air Traffic Services Enterprise Agreement, 2020 to 2023. Have you seen that clause before?‑‑‑At clause 50? Yes.

PN2040

Yes. When undertaking your review did you have regard to clause 50 or any aspects of clause 50 in the processes that you were undertaking?‑‑‑So many of the aspects of the certified agreement do not apply to initiate trainee.

PN2041

Mr Bosnich, yes or no? Did you have regard to the principles contained in section 50, particularly if you want me to go through them, 50 - 50.1, 50.2 on procedural fairness which it puts no higher than any other normal expected principle of procedural fairness offered as a matter of course. Did you have regard to those two provisions?‑‑‑Procedural fairness and formal process as documented by the initial training, yes.

PN2042

No. Did you have - listen very carefully. Did you have specific regard to section 50.1 of the Enterprise Agreement when undertaking your review?‑‑‑Specifically section 50.1?

PN2043

That's my question?‑‑‑It would not be in my forefront of my mind.

PN2044

Did you have regard to section 50.2 on procedural fairness?‑‑‑yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2045

You had regard to section 50.2 of the Enterprise Agreement when undertaking your review, did you?‑‑‑I had regard to procedural fairness for the trainees.

PN2046

No. That's not my question?‑‑‑When you would have to by the certified agreement or by the initial training manual.

PN2047

No. My question is very specific. Did you have regard to the particular provisions contained within section 50.2 headed, 'Procedural Fairness' when undertaking your review? Yes or no?‑‑‑Sorry, I'm reading 50.2.

PN2048

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, it might assist, as I apprehend the question it's not directed at whether the witness had regard to the substance of those provisions. It's whether he considered them at all. And if that's the question that's put that might assist.

PN2049

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think (indistinct) for that change.

PN2050

MR HARDY: No. I press my question. And I could put it another way, that having regard to Part 4 of the compared document under 'Evidence considered', and your report generally there is no reference to anything to do with 50.1 or 50.2 or anything of the like. Do you accept that?‑‑‑Specifically to those clauses, no.

PN2051

And when you turn please to page three or 14 of that compare document there's a heading, 'Evidence considered', and it runs, because of the mark-up unfortunately, over three pages. And what this suggests to me is that other than the work that was done by the Hunt team, if I can call them that on review one, on the ANS initial training records and interviews and submissions from training review meeting with Emma Schaeffer and Simone McCarroll, which we understand was undertaken on 10 September 2020, there was no other evidence considered by yourself in your review? Correct?‑‑‑There was the progress assessments that I reviewed. So there was supporting documents that I read that were contained and captured in this document.

PN2052

But in terms of the evidence considered section of your report that you approved you are telling the author of that document and this Commission, given the documents before it, that the only things that were considered was what Mr Hunt considered. There's nothing in here about discussions with anybody else that you might have now sought to try and tell the Commission that you had?‑‑‑No. It's not stated in the document. It's what I do when I read the document. I go through those supporting documents and re-read them.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2053

And under the interview or submissions there's one thing about Emma Schaeffer and Simone but there's nothing that you did, and there's no other document you had regard to under the 'Evidence considered' section is there? This is all what Mr Hunt and his team did. Correct?‑‑‑No, that's incorrect because I read the training review and the supporting documentation.

PN2054

Which training review?‑‑‑The one that's been presented as version two.

PN2055

Which contained within it the basis of the evidence considered for its findings and recommendations?

PN2056

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, if I may interject? Mr Hardy has put these propositions to the witness. The witness has given his answer to them. I object to this line of questioning on that basis.

PN2057

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Hardy, the point's been made. I understand the proposition which is essentially this has been a report prepared by someone else and picked up by Ms Synott and then put to Mr Bosnich and it's been ultimately accepted by him. Now, look quite frankly, if Mr Bosnich wants to take accountability for the report then so be it. I am not sure there's much utility in going through how he got to that point. The greater question is the accountability for it.

PN2058

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner. And that it was presented to Mr Crouch as being a response to a very detailed set of submissions that he wrote in relation to the first review as a representation from Air Services about how this second review was done. And my submission is it was, at its highest, a sham.

PN2059

THE COMMISSIONER: And you can put that. You put that question to the witness. What I don't think you've put is that - the one you've just alluded to which is that there's a misrepresentation to your client.

PN2060

MR HARDY: Yes. And that's where my questions were heading to on that in that as well.

PN2061

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well - - -

PN2062

MR HARDY: Yes.

PN2063

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - I'd suggest you put those swiftly.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2064

MR HARDY: Yes.

PN2065

THE COMMISSIONER: And in detail.

PN2066

MR HARDY: Thank you. Mr Bosnich, I was asking you questions about what it is that this document - the compare document shows that you took account of by way of evidence that was considered at Part 4 when you have made findings that are contained within part - now seven - and a recommendation option or various options at Part 8 and a recommendation at Part 9. Mr Crouch was expecting this to be a review of the first training report Air Services. Evidence from Mr Clarke is that he ordered a new review in light of that as one of the processes under your RTO manual. Your document that you signed off on was provided to Mr Crouch as being the review document addressing purportedly addressing the concerns he'd raised. Do you understand that that is what occurred?

PN2067

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I object to that. That's asking the witness to confirm by my account six of the (indistinct) together.

PN2068

MR HARDY: Are you aware that your report was provided to Mr Crouch, Mr Bosnich? Your report of your second review?‑‑‑Yes. Yes.

PN2069

And it was provided to him by Air Services as the document of the process it had undertaken by way of how Mr Clarke describes it - a new review of review one. Do you understand and accept that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN2070

Yes. Thank you. And what I want to put to you is that on receipt of this, and on the provision of this to Mr Crouch, in response to his very detailed letter that he wrote to Air Services on the 3 March 2021 at page 354 of the court book it was misleading to provide this to Mr Crouch as being a satisfactory step of the mandated review process. Do you accept that?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, what number was that again that you referred to?

PN2071

In terms of Mr Crouch's letter?‑‑‑Is it 354?

PN2072

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, it was.

PN2073

MR HARDY: Yes, thank you, Commissioner - 354. It's at - - -

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2074

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might ask that Mr Hardy reputs the proposition that he's asking the witness to agree to.

PN2075

MR HARDY: Well, the witness - sorry, I've not heard any - - -

PN2076

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, what's next to it?

PN2077

MR HARDY: Yes. Mr Bosnich, you've asked me to turn to this page. Let's look at this page. 354. This is a document on the 3 March that Mr Crouch sends to Mr Clarke, your boss, complaining or seeking a review of the recommendation that his training be terminated. It's a document that runs from page 354 to page 376 - 22 pages of information that he was dissatisfied with the Hunt report.

PN2078

We have seen through this comparison the minute change in that and lack of any form of consideration or input from yourself into that report. Now what my proposition is in light of that, that when Mr Crouch receives that as an Air Services published document to say, 'We thank you for your concerns. Under your right of appeal we have done the process. Here's the document.' It's misleading to Mr Crouch to say that a new review was done. Do you accept that?‑‑‑Mr Crouch requested the recommendation be reviewed.

PN2079

THE COMMISSIONER: Answer the question please, sir?‑‑‑Which is what I did.

PN2080

I'll bring you back to the question. Did you not hear the question?‑‑‑Sorry, Mr Hardy, can you repeat the question because I conducted the review - - -

PN2081

The question, Mr Bosnich, was whether what was said to Mr Crouch was misleading?‑‑‑By Mr Clarke - - -

PN2082

By anyone in Air Services.

PN2083

MR HARDY: By anyone from Air Services as a representation that he'd undertaken a new review?‑‑‑I can't speak to that. I can only tell you that I conducted a review which would be considered a new review.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2084

Which is contrary to what you told this Commission at the beginning of your evidence today, is it not?‑‑‑Well, it's a continuation. A renew - it to me, though, it was one and the same because it's a version. It's the second version of the document. Now if it was wanted to be considered as a different version - sorry, a different review, or an independent review that I reviewed the documentation of Luke's performance over the course of his duration of training and made a recommendation.

PN2085

Your evidence to the Commission today was that you didn't regard it as a new review. Correct?‑‑‑In my eyes it wasn't. It's the continuation of the existing review but it could be seen to be a separate review.

PN2086

Well, if I'm taking your thinking for a minute. If that's then presented to Mr Crouch as the outcome of a new review you must agree with me, mustn't you, that that would be misleading on your thinking? Because you don't see it as a new review. You see it as a continuation. It must be misleading, correct?‑‑‑It's version two. So I don't believe it's misleading but I'm not a legal expert.

PN2087

You don't need to be a legal expert?‑‑‑I'm an air traffic controller.

PN2088

Yes. You don't need to be a legal expert to understand such a simple proposition, Mr Bosnich, with the greatest of respect.

PN2089

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I might ask that Mr Hardy withdraw that last comment.

PN2090

THE COMMISSIONER: That might be appropriate, Mr Hardy.

PN2091

MR HARDY: Yes, I withdraw that comment.

PN2092

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I return, Mr Bosnich, to the letter that was just being spoken about? The 3 March 2021, at page 354?‑‑‑Yes, Commissioner.

PN2093

Your evidence that I heard earlier this afternoon was that you when you were preparing this version two report you had not seen that letter?‑‑‑That is correct because it is a right to confidentiality to whatever his response to version one.

PN2094

Right?‑‑‑The new one was - - -

PN2095

Okay. So when was the first time that you did see this letter?‑‑‑I could not answer that with certainty.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2096

Have you seen it before today?‑‑‑I don't recall the letter. There may have been. Luke may have forwarded it to me at some point after the meeting with him. I'm not sure. It was 12 months ago so I couldn't answer that with certainty. I don't recall with - the letter - but 12 months is a long time.

PN2097

In this letter there's no doubt, I think, that Mr Crouch expands that some significant view to Mr Clarke about a very large number of concerns. Are you saying that this letter was never taken into account in these reviews?

PN2098

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I suspect Mr Bosnich can only speak to whether he had seen the letter and whether he took it into account. I'm not sure that he will be able to speak to whether anyone else has.

PN2099

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let's find out.

PN2100

MR LOVELL: Of course.

PN2101

THE WITNESS: So I - sorry, Commissioner, can you please repeat the question that you asked me?

PN2102

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you saying that this letter was never responded to by Air Services in the reviews which took place?‑‑‑It would have been responded to in part of the review process but not as part of the training review document. Because the failure management system, Appendix Q outlines the process.

PN2103

Right?‑‑‑And this would be Part 2 of that process. So what occurred - - -

PN2104

And where would I find - - -?‑‑‑Sorry?

PN2105

Where would I find - you've put this proposition to me at least twice this afternoon. Where would I find in your documents support for the proposition that this is something you, as a review officer, should not take into account for reasons of privacy?‑‑‑Well, it would not be - it's not stated in our documentation but normally I would not see this letter as part of the review. That would come after I have delivered my recommendation. That would go to my superior to review the training review and Mr Crouch's evidence as put forward here and then make a considered decision based on all of the evidence put to them. And generally that also involves having a discussion with myself, probably a discussion with the trainee and that's how they would make a final determination. But it would be - it would be unfair to, as part of the review process, to give me that document.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2106

And where would I find support in your documents for that proposition?‑‑‑In that detailed response? In that detail?

PN2107

No. You're putting the proposition that it would be unfair to take this into account and I am asking you where I could find that in the material which is before me?‑‑‑I couldn't reference within our documentation.

PN2108

Right?‑‑‑But it would not be a normal part of process.

PN2109

Right, thank you?‑‑‑Our process is quite clear on how we follow a training review and the avenues of response that a trainee has.

PN2110

Well, that's why I'm asking you the question because it's not clear to me that proposition?‑‑‑What's that?

PN2111

You're putting that to me very strongly. So I want to give you that opportunity?‑‑‑So I would follow Appendix Q of the initial training manual.

PN2112

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, I can assist. That document's available at court book 267.

PN2113

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you.

PN2114

MR LOVELL: It might be helpful if you go to court book 267.

PN2115

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you. Right, thank you. Now, Mr Hardy, are there any further questions?

PN2116

MR HARDY: If I might - yes, Commissioner. If I might ask the witness to go to page 14 please?

PN2117

MR LOVELL: Mr Hardy, I am not sure that we caught the page reference?

PN2118

MR HARDY: Pardon - 14?‑‑‑Of the court documents, Mr Hardy?

PN2119

Yes?‑‑‑Not the draft document? Okay.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2120

Yes. The training review is a part of addressing, as I understand your evidence, under performance of an employee like Mr Crouch. Correct?‑‑‑It's a review of the person's training addressing the under performances done through a training support agreement.

PN2121

No. The review is to assess. You told us earlier, Mr Bosnich, that you get placed on these reviews, for example, when you have not passed an exam. You have underperformed. Can you agree with that proposition please?‑‑‑Yes, Mr Hardy.

PN2122

And if you look at page 14, 50.2, 'The principles of Air Services'. Look at Part C. Sorry, start with Part A. 'Air Services promptly advises employees of its concerns', which it certainly did in that review document by Hunt. It's supposed to provide enough - the question on 'promptly' though - six months - he certainly didn't meet that but it advised Mr Crouch of its concerns. 'Providing enough time to respond.' Again, there's stuff to say on that because he has nine days as against six months but leave that to the side. Give him an opportunity at Part C to respond to concerns raised by Air Services and to genuinely consider that response. And that Air Services will be unbiased in considering the employee's views and will genuinely consider matters put by the employee.

PN2123

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. And sorry to interject once more but is there a question.

PN2124

MR HARDY: It's coming, yes. None of those steps - nothing in there says that you can't take Mr Crouch's views into account at all, does it?‑‑‑No, but much of the certified agreement does not apply to air traffic control trainees and that's stated in their letter of offer.

PN2125

Where does it say that?‑‑‑In their letter of offer.

PN2126

THE COMMISSIONER: Let's not - okay, you mean a different letter of offer, do you? You mean the one - - -

PN2127

MR HARDY: Which letter of offer do you mean, Mr - - -?‑‑‑ I believe it's in the appendix of the certified agreement as well.

PN2128

And that, in fact, what you are required to do is to genuinely consider responses in a performance management of under performance is it not?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2129

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, objection again. That the witness has given a response that he doesn't under relevant sections of the enterprise agreement to apply. That opinion can't if a contemporaneous opinion have any bearing on the proper construction of those provisions.

PN2130

THE COMMISSIONER: No. But then he said it's also stated in the letter of offer which I took to be a reference to the contract of employment letter of offer which I am now desperately searching for.

PN2131

MR HARDY: I can give you that reference, Commissioner. Seventy-two.

PN2132

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you.

PN2133

MR HARDY: And I think the relevant paragraph is the second from the last, which is - 'You are employed under the particular Act and the Services Enterprise Agreement currently applies to your employment.'

PN2134

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, which page is that on?

PN2135

MR HARDY: Seventy-two, Commissioner.

PN2136

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Still on 72, right. All right. I understand.

PN2137

MR HARDY: Mr Bosnich, can you point the Commission to the aspect of that letter of offer that you referred to as containing the exclusion that those principles of procedural fairness are not afforded to employees like Mr Crouch? Or to Mr Crouch, because this is his letter?‑‑‑I haven't seen Mr Crouch's letter and it may be different to the current letters we have got. So I would have to have a read through the entirety to actually compare it to what - and I know the existing letters of offer speak to the fact that the certified agreement conditions do not apply. Now I would have to read through this entire document to find whether this is the same or it's different, because this letter of offer would have been issued to Luke way before March - - -

PN2138

Yes - - -?‑‑‑- - - 2021.

PN2139

Can you take it from me - - -

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2140

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps if I can circle back to the objection which was raised by Mr Lovell? I wanted to check that particular paragraph which I have now done. What I will say if it's of assistance to any of you. It may not be. But I understand the application of the agreement is the contest space. I am not expecting the witnesses to particularly agree or not to the contest which is going on. So I don't think that will take us anywhere. So, look, I understand the point that you're making, Mr Hardy, but I'm not sure that there's much further to be done in the way of questioning on the subject.

PN2141

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN2142

MR HARDY: Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner. It was that they were raised as one possible finding that you may make is that this agreement and those provisions did apply. And the evidence and submissions that I would then seek to make to you is that if that is the case the witness, I think, may have already confirmed that he didn't have specific regard to those provisions. And that is the basis upon which I was asking those questions, Commissioner.

PN2143

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand.

PN2144

MR HARDY: Yes. Yes. In your consideration before making a decision about Mr Crouch's ongoing training did you consider the results - - -

PN2145

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, just before Mr Hardy proceeds to the next question I am just mindful that we're now sort of outside the business hours and - - -

PN2146

THE COMMISSIONER: We are.

PN2147

MR HARDY: Commissioner, I can say that this subject to - confirming that this is my last series of questions which I don't anticipate going for longer than five minutes.

PN2148

THE COMMISSIONER: That assist Mr Lovell?

PN2149

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN2150

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Thank you.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2151

MR HARDY: Mr Bosnich, in your review, I don't see it anywhere in the documents but I would ask you to confirm you did not take into account the comparative results of those that were being part of Mr Crouch's course A to C, 152 at the relevant time, did you?

PN2152

MR LOVELL: Objection, Commissioner. That question has already been put and answered.

PN2153

MR HARDY: Not to this witness. It was put to another witness and answered certainly, Mr Lovell, but not to this witness.

PN2154

MR LOVELL: My apologies. I withdraw that.

PN2155

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll let the question be put please.

PN2156

MR HARDY: Thank you, Mr Bosnich?‑‑‑When you refer to the comparative results are you referring to they're represented in the training review as in the ATC average of the course?

PN2157

No. I'm talking about the individual scores of those that were in the cohort of Mr Crouch, in ATC 152? And that you didn't have regard to their comparative analysis, did you?‑‑‑As represented by the scores in the training review?

PN2158

No. The individual scores of the individual students that were participating in the same course as Mr Crouch, to see how he was going, compared to his peers?‑‑‑I have reviewed the results for the trainees on his course at the time that Mr Crouch was in the course. And from my recollection there was only one person that failed three exams - theory exams - and that was Mr Crouch. So I did review them against other results to see if there was a systemic issue.

PN2159

Where do you say that in your report?‑‑‑It's not defined in the report.

PN2160

It's a pretty important consideration, isn't it?‑‑‑And it's been captured in my recommendation.

PN2161

And you also didn't, from taking that report, consider the comparative results of others who had been recoursed as against Mr Crouch, did you?‑‑‑A recourse from course 152?

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2162

No, recoursed by the organisation?‑‑‑If they were a part of course 152 then, yes, they would have been considered. But I didn't look at other courses.

PN2163

No. In considering whether one option available to you was whether he could be recoursed to see how his results stacked up to those who had that decision made in their favour. I'm putting to you that you didn't look at any of those results of those other students that had been recoursed. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.

PN2164

And neither did you look at any of the individual results for any of the other students or analysed those from his current course? Correct?‑‑‑Course 152. That's incorrect. I looked at the results that the course the individuals scored to see if there was a systemic issue which there was not.

PN2165

And that your - I think your evidence, though, is that that didn't make its way into the report as part of what you did. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct. It's not contained in the report. My actions are not contained in the report.

PN2166

Yes. Commissioner, if you mind? Give me one moment, please, just to check that I have nothing else to raise. Thank you. One final matter if I may? On your meeting of the 7 April 2021 with Mr Crouch, do you accept that Mr Crouch regarded your conduct as being hostile towards him?‑‑‑No, Mr Hardy. I don't accept that.

PN2167

And that the manner in which he was not in any way happy with the way he was treated at that meeting by yourself. Do you know that that's what he says?‑‑‑That is Mr Crouch's opinion. Unfortunately, when you deliver an outcome that is not favourable, it's not a pleasant experience to deliver it. And, unfortunately, it's just as - I would imagine, unpleasant to receive that feedback.

PN2168

Particularly where, when reading it, it's you say the meeting was to read through that report, one might see nothing other than a few minor changes to the report, but otherwise it being, essentially, a copy/paste of Hunt?‑‑‑Because it's a summary of Mr Crouch's performance. So it would be very similar. So I can - - -

PN2169

I see. But there was a pre-determined decision that you had in your mind, wasn't there, Mr Bosnich that you were to at all times recommend the termination given one thing being his results on that exam. Correct?‑‑‑No. That's not correct. There's no predetermined decision. The man - the trainee failed the theory component - significant theory component twice.

*** FRANK BOSNICH XXN MR HARDY

PN2170

And you wanted to terminate on that basis alone? Correct?‑‑‑He has - the trainee has failed to meet the regulatory standard that is set. And based on that - - -

PN2171

Mr Bosnich, just answer my question. You wanted to terminate him because of that. Yes?‑‑‑I didn't want to terminate him. That was the decision that was reached. I don't want to terminate anybody. I don't actually like the term 'termination'.

PN2172

You wanted to recommend that termination because of the result you saw?‑‑‑I did not want. I came to the decision to recommend termination. I don't want to do - I want to see every trainee get through.

PN2173

You came to that decision?‑‑‑And I have stated that earlier.

PN2174

You came to that decision because of that raw score result.

PN2175

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, objection. The question has been put. It's been answered.

PN2176

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, could ask Mr Hardy. You've satisfied your duty in that respect.

PN2177

MR HARDY: No further questions, Commissioner, thank you.

PN2178

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Thank you. Now, Mr Lovell? Any re-examination?

PN2179

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, very briefly.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LOVELL [4.40 PM]

PN2180

MR LOVELL: Mr Bosnich, may I take you back to a document you have been taken to a few times, at 354 of the book, in the first folders. That document is a letter from Mr Crouch to Mr Clarke of 3 March 2021. Do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

PN2181

Do you understand that letter to be seeking a review of the recommendation of examination of training arising from the first training review report?‑‑‑My understanding of that paragraphs that I have read because I haven't - is that he's requesting the recommendation be reviewed. The recommendation.

*** FRANK BOSNICH RXN MR LOVELL

PN2182

At the time before the 7 April when you met with Mr Crouch to deliver the outcome of your training review had you seen this document?‑‑‑No. Not to my knowledge.

PN2183

Did you understand any part of your role to be reviewing the matters raised in this document?‑‑‑No.

PN2184

What did you understand your role to be in respect of Mr Crouch?‑‑‑To review the training review and make a recommendation on the trainee's training.

PN2185

May I take you to Appendix Q to the training manual. I will just bring up a pin point reference of that. Apologies, Commissioner. There's a few versions of Appendix Q in the book. One can be found at 825, if I can take the witness there?

PN2186

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN2187

MR LOVELL: Mr Bosnich, do you have that in front of you?‑‑‑Yes, I do.

PN2188

So if we go down to the sixth dot point if recommendation for termination is made?‑‑‑So, yes.

PN2189

Yes. It says there, 'Trainee is informed of the finding in meeting with ATC training lead and trainee coordinator.' Do you see that?‑‑‑Correct.

PN2190

In respect of Mr Crouch's second review, who acted in the capacity of ATC training lead?‑‑‑Myself.

PN2191

And who acted in the capacity of trainee coordinator?‑‑‑ Antoinette. Ms Antoinette Crisara.

PN2192

Do you see the next dot point in the process? The operational training head is informed of the decision. Who was that in this case?‑‑‑Mr Steve Clarke.

PN2193

And in the next dot point you see, 'The trainee may request a review of the decision.' Do you understand the applicant in this case will request at the review of the recommendation from your second training review recommending termination of employment?‑‑‑I believe that occurred, yes.

*** FRANK BOSNICH RXN MR LOVELL

PN2194

Thank you, Mr Bosnich. I don't have any further questions on that matter. You will recall that Mr Hardy asked and took you to the provisions of the Enterprise Agreement and, in particular, clause 50 of the ATC EA. I don't know that it will be necessary for you to bring that forward. Did you understand clause 50 of the ATC EA to apply to the applicant's circumstances or apply to the conduct of the second training review?‑‑‑No.

PN2195

Just one moment, Commissioner.

PN2196

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN2197

MR LOVELL: I have no further questions for this witness, Commission.

PN2198

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you, Mr Bosnich for your patience this afternoon and for answering the questions. So that is appreciated. Now you're released as a witness and free to leave.

PN2199

Now, what we need to do now, Mr Lovell and Mr Hardy, is to talk about the resumption of the matter. I am expecting, Mr Lovell, that that's the conclusion of your evidential case?

PN2200

MR LOVELL: It is, Commissioner.

PN2201

THE COMMISSIONER: All right?‑‑‑Thank you, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.44 PM]

PN2202

THE COMMISSIONER: Just one moment, parties. I just wish to frame some views.

PN2203

MR LOVELL: Thank you, Commissioner. And that might provide Mr Bosnich with a chance to pack up and leave.

PN2204

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Indeed, thank you. Look, I wish to raise now that a couple of things which I think are important and which have come to light over the course of today's evidence. I understand what Mr Bosnich has to say about the letter dated 3 March 2021 at page 354. If I accept that evidence then I am left with a gap in the evidence and that gap is that the letter has been sent to Mr Clarke and I don't know what's been done with it. It could be something. It could be nothing, but I don't know.

*** FRANK BOSNICH RXN MR LOVELL

PN2205

It's an important letter from the perspective of the applicant. I think, frankly, Air Services does have the responsibility to explain what it did do with that letter and if the answer is 'nothing', then the answer is nothing. But I'd invite Air Services Australia to consider that aspect.

PN2206

I am also concerned about the differences between the witnesses, Mr Clarke and Mr Bosnich, about what at one level could be the nomenclature debate. The first and second reviews. But at another level because of the letter of 3 March 2021 could be an important thing, especially in light of the potential that Mr Hardy has alluded to for putting submissions about the applicant being misrepresented on those subjects.

PN2207

In my experience of these types of matters disputes under section 739, these kind of gaps in the evidence are unusual. They might be more usual within unfair dismissal matters, which are obviously highly evidential but it's less common with section 739 matters. I am not aware of whether Air Services Australia is bound by the Commonwealth Model Litigant Rules but if they are then it seems to me that this is something that needs to be considered by them in respect of a suitable explanation to the Commission about these issues.

PN2208

Whether it does anything about the subject is up to it. Beyond those matters I would not be doing my duty if I did not say to the parties that it might be appropriate for you to engage in some conciliation about the outcome of this matter.

PN2209

I certainly understand the respondent's view that the clause 50 simply does not apply to it. That, obviously, ultimately is where you would construct and would need to be determined after hearing all of the submissions, as well as the evidence. But nonetheless it seems to me that beyond that legal construct there are issues of importance that Air Services Australia should consider. If that leads to the request of any type then, obviously, that's for the parties to approach the Commission and make the appropriate request and obviously if there is the purpose in conciliation, then that would be facilitated obviously.

PN2210

So, look that's what I wish to say at this time. Anything further you wish to say about those matters you can say in the course of submissions at such time as they are scheduled.

PN2211

There have been three documents which have been referred to and the respondent is requested to provide. My Chambers will confirm to you, tomorrow, the nature of those documents which I will just go through in a moment and I propose to give the respondent seven days from today - I'm sorry from tomorrow, to provide those documents to myself and to Mr Hardy.

PN2212

The first document is an updated Exhibit AC01 which is found in my version, at least, at page 597 of the hearing book. The updating is to include the completion dates, if any, of the other 19 students.

PN2213

The second document that was called for was the position description for the ATC training lead as presently occupied by Mr Bosnich. I'm sorry, that's incorrect. I think he has now moved back - as was occuped by Mr Bosnich.

PN2214

And then the third document is the template of the review report about which we had a conversation.

PN2215

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN2216

THE COMMISSIONER: So, Mr Lovell, would it be appropriate to provide those within seven days?

PN2217

MR LOVELL: Yes, Commissioner.

PN2218

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. Now, what I propose to do is to relist the matter for submissions and I can do that - excuse me - on Wednesday 4 May, if that would be suitable to you?

PN2219

MR LOVELL: That's convenient to the respondent, Commissioner.

PN2220

MR HARDY: Yes, Commissioner, I have a commitment in the morning. My afternoon is certainly free. I could certainly make arrangements to see if that could be moved, unless there was an approximate next date that isn't too far away from the 4th.

PN2221

THE COMMISSIONER: How would Friday 6th be?

PN2222

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, unfortunately I do have an existing commitment. I wouldn't be able to move on that date.

PN2223

THE COMMISSIONER: Tuesday, 3rd?

PN2224

MR LOVELL: That suits the respondent, Commissioner.

PN2225

MR HARDY: I'm in a hearing all day that day unfortunately.

PN2226

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I maybe - so I am just trying to find alternate dates. Can you maybe give me a picture of any clear days that either of you might have in the week of the 9th?

PN2227

MR HARDY: I'm clear on 9th. I'm clear on the 10th and I'm clear on the 11th, 12th I'm in a hearing, 13th I'm clear.

PN2228

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Lovell?

PN2229

MR LOVELL: Commissioner, the 9th to 11th, inclusive, we could accommodate it. I can move things as needed.

PN2230

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Can you give me a day or two perhaps? I'm listed on appeal benches in that week, but the practise is not that we list them for the full five days. I need to make some enquiries with the appropriate Chambers just to see what I am rostered for. But once I get a clear picture on that then I'll come back to you.

PN2231

MR LOVELL: Thank you.

PN2232

THE COMMISSIONER: What I will try to do is to - and my first preference which I will say to the vice President will be Monday 9th as in keep that free for this particular matter.

PN2233

MR LOVELL: Thank you.

PN2234

THE COMMISSIONER: And I'm sure that they'll be able to accommodate that. So if you give me a day or two, I'll make the appropriate enquiries and then confirm that to you. So if that flies then that would be Monday 9 May at 10.00 am.

PN2235

The directions that I would give then in respect of that is that - well, no I should ask you a question. It depends on the practitioner. Do either of you - would either of you anticipate filing written submissions or would you just be making oral submissions?

PN2236

MR HARDY: Commissioner, I would be anticipating filing written submissions.

PN2237

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And Mr Lovell? I can guess by that body language. Look, I won't make - - -

PN2238

MR LOVELL: Sorry, Commissioner. It's late in the day. I hadn't anticipated that we might. Well, these will be addressed, in my opinion, by oral submissions - - -

PN2239

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN2240

MR LOVELL: - - -are made quite comprehensive. But to make directions for Mr Hardy to file written submissions I will consider what, if anything, further.

PN2241

THE COMMISSIONER: Look, I won't make directions. I'll leave it. I'll let order find it's own level.

PN2242

MR LOVELL: Okay, thank you, Commissioner.

PN2243

THE COMMISSIONER: And then we'll see where the matter goes from there. All right. Well, look the transcripts should be available definitely by the end of next week and then, as I said, we'll aim to listing this on the 9th. If there's any problem with that then, obviously, we'll come back to you and seek the appropriate guidance.

PN2244

All right. Well, thank you very much and we'll now adjourn.

PN2245

MR HARDY: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN2246

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you.

PN2247

MR HARDY: And thank you to you and your Associate for the extended hearing time today, thank you.

PN2248

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [4.56 PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

ANTOINETTE CRISARA, AFFIRMED............................................................ PN951

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LOVELL................................................ PN951

EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANTOINETTE CRISARA WITH ONE ATTACHMENT DATED 11/03/2022.................................................................. PN959

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY....................................................... PN999

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN1318

ANTOINETTE CRISARA, RECALLED......................................................... PN1318

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING......................... PN1318

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN1358

FRANK BOSNICH, SWORN............................................................................. PN1422

EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LOVELL.............................................. PN1422

EXHIBIT #R5 WITNESS STATEMENT OF FRANK BOSNICH DATED 11/03/2022............................................................................................................................... PN1431

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN1463

FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED...................................................................... PN1465

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY..................................................... PN1465

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN1683

FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED...................................................................... PN1733

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING......................... PN1733

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN1906

FRANK BOSNICH, RECALLED...................................................................... PN1906

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HARDY, CONTINUING......................... PN1906

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LOVELL........................................................... PN2179

THE WITNESS WITHDREW........................................................................... PN2201