[Peetwo]

A Xmas tale of Embuggerance - One for the Sleepy Hollow Chronicles.

An the 18 December an AAAT decision was handed down that had all the hallmarks of a classic Sociopathic witch hunt from the McComic Years. Trouble is this sordid embuggerance tale has reached its climax under the Oliver Skidmore Twist (AVM semi-retired ) watch, which mean's he now has 99.99% ownership of this bollocks..

Being a classic (& in some parts quite humorous) here is some quotes from the good 'learned gentleman', Senior Member Bernard J McCabe decision..  : Pantovic v CASA [b]2015] AATA 992 (18 December 2015)[/b]

{Note - Paragraph numbering is out of sequence}

18 December 2015

1. The central allegation against the applicant, Jason Pantovic, reads like a producer’s pitch to a movie studio. The scene is set: three friends at a barbeque in the country run out of beer. Police officers lurking on the back roads to town threaten to disrupt the resupply process. Relief is at hand: the leading character, Mr Pantovic, is a daring-do helicopter pilot. His helicopter is stored nearby. The three friends climb into the two-seat helicopter and lumber into the air, bound for a quintessential North Queensland hotel with wide verandahs. Mr Pantovic lands outside the hotel and one of the party swaggers inside to purchase a slab. But when the purchaser returns to the helicopter with the beer and Mr Pantovic attempts a take-off, the helicopter is unable to clear the nearby trees. It lands heavily after clipping the branches. The additional weight of the beer makes take-off from that location impossible. One of the passengers is offloaded and cadges a lift from the bemused publican to a nearby oval. The helicopter picks him up from there and, using the open space, manages to take off in the direction of the barbeque.
   
2. If that story is true – and the  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  (CASA) says it is – the applicant’s various licences and approvals should be cancelled at once because the story suggests the applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold them, and because he recklessly disregarded his duties under aviation law. The applicant acknowledged at the hearing he should be in deep trouble if the story were true. But he says it is not. He denies the flight occurred, and says that aspect of the case against him rests centrally on the account of witnesses who are demonstrably unreliable. He acknowledges the truth of some other allegations made against him, and disputes others, but he rejects the central allegation about the beer run in a helicopter. He says his licences and approvals should not be cancelled in all the circumstances, although he has offered undertakings that are intended to address his admitted conduct.
   
3. I am not satisfied the central allegation against Mr Pantovic is true, yet regulatory action against him is clearly appropriate in light of the other conduct I will discuss. While I would vary the decision to cancel his private helicopter pilot’s licence, I affirm the decision to cancel his approval to act as chief pilot. I explain my findings and reasons below.
   

 
A background to the star & co-star.. :

Mr Jason Pantovic

1. The applicant in these proceedings is an experienced helicopter pilot who lives on a property in Biboohra, near the North Queensland town of Mount Molloy. Mr Pantovic obtained his commercial helicopter pilot’s licence in 2001. His licence is endorsed to permit him to operate Hughes 269, Robinson R-22 and Robinson R-44 helicopters. (At the relevant time, he owned and operated an R-22 helicopter – registration VH-HTD – that was stored on his property, although he also flew other helicopters. VH-HTD was destroyed in an unrelated incident on 9 December 2012.) His licence also permits him to conduct low flying, mustering and sling load operations. Since 2008, he has been the chief pilot of Panmer Pty Ltd. Panmer is, in effect, a family business in which he has played a central role. It holds an air operations certificate (AOC) issued under the Act. Mr Pantovic explained in his statement that he operates helicopters pursuant to the Panmer operations manual (and, it might be interpolated, in accordance with the conditions of Panmer’s AOC): exhibit 33 at [5]-[8].
   
2. Mr Pantovic accuses CASA’s principal witness of witness tampering, but the applicant himself was not above attempting to secure questionable witness statements. (I refer in particular to the statutory declaration obtained from Mr Eric Bale in uncertain circumstances: exhibit 6). After hearing all of the evidence in this case, I was left with the uncomfortable impression of Mr Pantovic and Mr Allan Gibb engaging in a shifting and unedifying contest to line up and neutralise witnesses. Mr Pantovic at least had a legitimate and understandable interest in gathering evidence, whereas Mr Gibb had darker motives.
   
3. Mr Pantovic gave evidence at the hearing, and provided two statements, exhibits 33 and 34.
   
   

Mr Allan Gibb

1. Mr Gibb looms large in these proceedings. He was CASA’s informant and (initially, at least) its principal witness. He claimed to be present on a number of occasions when Mr Pantovic transgressed – most obviously during the flight to the Mount Molloy hotel, but also on at least one other flight. He provided some video that was shot on his phone which appears to depict Mr Pantovic consuming beer whilst at the controls of the helicopter and flying very fast at low altitude, amongst other things. Mr Gibb gave evidence on the first day of the hearing, and provided two statements: exhibits 8 and 9.
   
2. The applicant attacked Mr Gibb’s credibility. Mr Pantovic says Mr Gibb is motivated by malice. It turns out Mr Pantovic had an affair with Mr Gibb’s former partner in May 2013, and Mr Gibb found out: exhibit 33 at [16]-[17]. The applicant said Mr Gibb peddled stories to CASA in order to even the score. As the evidence unfolded, it became clear Mr Pantovic was right about Mr Gibb’s motivation.
   
3. Mr Gibb agreed in cross-examination he was very angry when he learned of the affair. He agreed he vandalised Mr Pantovic’s home in July 2013 and made threats on the applicant’s life. Mr Pantovic called the police after that incident and Mr Gibb was subsequently charged with burglary. Mr Pantovic said he decided to withdraw the charges in August 2013 although he did obtain a restraining order: exhibit 33 at [22]-[25]. Mr Gibb agreed in cross-examination that he told the applicant he would talk to the police and make Mr Pantovic pay for what happened between the applicant and Mr Gibb’s former partner. When asked about his approaches to CASA, Mr Gibb agreed he wanted revenge. He acknowledged he wanted to make the applicant suffer, although he also claimed in his statement (exhibit 8 at [38]-[39]) that he made the threats in order to secure a confession from the applicant because “I wanted the full story”: transcript at p 53. When Mr Emmett, counsel for the applicant, suggested to Mr Gibb in cross-examination that he had made up the whole story, Mr Gibb responded flatly: “I told him if he rang the police on me that I would go to CASA”: transcript at p 78.
   
4. [Redacted paragraph]
   
5. [Redacted paragraph]
   
6. [Redacted paragraph]
   
7. [Redacted paragraph]
   
8. [Redacted paragraph]
   
9. [Redacted paragraph]
   
10. [Redacted paragraph
    

The cast of constabulary & their nefarious roles:

The CASA investigators

1. There were a number of CASA officers involved in the investigation into Mr Pantovic. Mr Stallard, for example, looked into the maintenance records and other information available in relation to the damaged rotor blades of the helicopter. He provided a statement (exhibit 19) and gave evidence at the hearing. His evidence was unremarkable. The evidence of some other investigators was more problematic.
   
2. CASA investigators knew the story was suspicious from the beginning. Mr Nick Coulson, a CASA officer, rang alarm bells early on in the investigation when he said in an email dated 29 August 2013 (exhibit 14) “...I find it difficult to believe the story with respect to there having been three grown men in the cockpit of an R22”. While Mr Coulson went on to accept it might have been possible, he asked: “So I am just wondering if they are having a lend of us?”
   
3. As well he might: the nature of the allegations and the way they were offered up to CASA should have prompted a measure of scepticism. But CASA investigators were quick – too quick – to embrace Mr Gibb, and they tended to interpret the rest of the evidence with Mr Gibb’s evidence firmly in mind. It was a classic example of ‘confirmation bias’.
   
4. Mr Leif Nystrom said he first became involved in the matter when he was tasked by the manager of investigations to take statements from, amongst others, Mr Gibb. Mr Nystrom insisted in his oral evidence that he was not carrying out an investigation as such. He said he was merely “working on a tasking” assigned to him by others: transcript at p 117; see also transcript at pp 95, 111-112, and 116-118. But other evidence suggested he was conducting an investigation, even if it was not an investigation under Part IIIA of the Act. He called it an ‘investigation’ in correspondence with another CASA officer: exhibit 16. Mr Nystrom’s insistence that he was merely completing tasks rather carrying out an investigation created the impression he was trying to minimise his role, and perhaps excuse his approach. Given how things turned out, that is not altogether unsurprising.
   
5. Mr Nystrom allowed Mr Gibb to organise Mr Graham Gear to provide evidence without warning either of them not to discuss their evidence: transcript at pp 109-110. The running sheets attached to Mr Nystrom’s statement (exhibit 13), which record his investigative activities, confirm he was aware Mr Gear and Mr Gibb were talking about their evidence, and that Mr Gear had read Mr Gibb’s statement. The running sheets also confirm Mr Gibb expressed a view about the likelihood of the hotel publican giving evidence against a client: one could draw an inference that Mr Gibb had already raised that question with Mr Scott Peters, the publican. (Mr Peters subsequently agreed to give evidence, albeit reluctantly.) Mr Nystrom also agreed he provided Ms Andersen, a potential witness, with copies of draft statements for Mr Gibb: transcript at pp 110-111. (Mr Nystrom said he was provided with an email address for Mr Gibb that was used by Ms Andersen.) Those statements named Ms Andersen, yet Mr Nystrom did not recall warning the two to keep their evidence separate. He conceded as much in the following exchange with Mr Emmett during cross examination:
   

Mr Emmett: Didn’t you say, “Look, it’s best not to talk about the substance of the evidence” knowing that they were both potential witnesses and that they were otherwise likely to talk about it together on a daily basis?
Mr Nystrom: I think it is likely that I did not brief Mr Gibb along those lines.

1. Mr Emmett also asked Mr Nystrom about an early comment from Mr Gibb (recorded in the running sheet attached to Mr Nystrom’s statement at exhibit 13) in which he claimed he was seated in the helicopter on the flight to Mount Molloy “with his knees up around his ears”. The email from Mr Coulson, from which I have already quoted, suggested that would not be possible: Mr Coulson, a test pilot, said the only way the third individual could fit in the helicopter was if he had his legs hanging out the door (exhibit 14). Yet Mr Nystrom said in cross-examination that he did not put that discrepancy to Mr Gibb. Mr Nystrom’s explanation for his failure to do so is worth noting. In cross-examination, he said:
   

I haven’t flown in a Robinson R22. I’m an investigator, I take on board any information that I receive. Mr Coulson made those comments as an expert pilot. Those comments are there for you to digest and deem if it’s appropriate. I have no views on the matter.

1. I am troubled by that view of the investigator’s role. Investigators are not cyphers who passively receive and collate information from witnesses – particularly witnesses who self-select, or who are selected by an outsider with an axe to grind – without exercising any judgment as to the veracity of what they are told. But it is not an accurate description of Mr Nystrom’s role in any event. He did not simply “take on board any information that [he received]”. There appeared to be an element of selectivity in his approach to the evidence. For example, Mr Nystrom did not approach another potential witness, Mr Allan Scott. Mr Scott was a friend of Mr Pantovic. Mr Gibb told Mr Nystrom that Mr Scott was unlikely to give evidence, and Mr Nystrom took his enquiries no further. When Mr Emmett asked in cross-examination why Mr Nystrom did not approach Mr Scott, who might help Mr Pantovic, but approached other witnesses who were suggested by Mr Gibb, Mr Nystrom again insisted it was not his investigation: transcript at p 118.
   
2. I have difficulty accepting Mr Nystrom’s argument that he could not be expected to exercise judgment or take responsibility for the investigative strategy because he was not conducting an investigation. But even if he was not in a position to direct the investigation, it is unclear who within CASA was responsible.
   
3. Mr Haslam also participated in the investigation, albeit after it had progressed somewhat. He provided a written statement dated 30 October 2014 (exhibit 20) and gave evidence at the hearing. He explained in his oral evidence that he was the investigator attached to CASA’s Cairns regional office but he was on leave when the Gibb allegations came to light. He said Mr Nystrom, who is based in Canberra, was tasked to provide “investigative assistance”. When Mr Haslam returned from leave, he was also tasked to provide assistance. Mr Haslam initially appeared keen to downplay his own role: he said he was assigned tasks by the head of the investigations branch (there were several persons acting in that role over time, it seems) at the request of the regional manager who wanted to obtain additional evidence for the purposes of these proceedings: transcript at p 138. In cross-examination, he agreed he worked “very closely in relation to this investigation” and pursued his own lines of inquiry: transcript at p 145.
   
4. Mr Haslam was invited to comment on whether he was satisfied the flights in question all occurred. Curiously, he declined to do so. He said he had not formed a view. He explained he was not present so he was not in a position to talk about whether the flights occurred as alleged. That is puzzling. When pressed to explain himself, he said (transcript at p 146):
   

All I can say that this is what has been reported to us, and on that basis then if they did occur, then this is CASA’s position.

1. I am not sure what that means. It certainly seems odd that an investigator has no view about the integrity of the evidence he provided to the Tribunal. As it happens, Mr Haslam subsequently gave a different view of his role when he said in cross-examination (transcript at p 158):
   

We get gut feelings, all sorts of things, all the time, and we act on those gut feelings.

1. Mr Haslam conceded he had some concerns from an early stage about the reliability of some of the witnesses – Mr Gibb in particular, and Ms Andersen. He said he was aware of the animus between Mr Gibb and Mr Pantovic. When Mr Emmett asked in cross-examination whether that knowledge informed his approach to his dealings with Mr Gibb, he downplayed the level of contact he had with Mr Gibb. He said he only spoke with Mr Gibb about twice on the phone and once in person when he needed to get a further statement to “shore up or clarify some issues in his first statement ...”: transcript at p 147.
   
2. It is unsurprising that Mr Haslam would seek to shore up Mr Gibb’s evidence. He must have been aware of the problems that were apparent from the running sheets recording the details of Mr Nystrom’s investigation: transcript at p 149ff. Mr Haslam must have been aware that Mr Gibb and Mr Gear were talking to each other about their evidence. He agreed in cross-examination that he never instructed Mr Gibb or Mr Gear not to talk to other witnesses about the evidence: transcript at pp 151-152. His own running sheets confirm Ms Andersen told him on 7 May 2014 that she had also read Mr Gibb’s statement. He agreed he did not caution her against discussing the evidence with Mr Gibb even though he anticipated obtaining a statement from her: transcript at p 153.
   
3. Mr Haslam said he was aware of the difficulties in the relationship between Mr Gibb and Ms Andersen – although he conceded he did not make any record of threats of violence being made by Mr Gibb against Ms Andersen: transcript at p 165. He said he kept those difficulties in the back of his mind but added (transcript, at p 154):
   

... I rely on the witness to tell the truth in relation to their dealings, and if they are prepared to sign a statement attesting to the evidence they’re giving me, then I have to have some faith that they are telling me the truth.

1. Interestingly, Mr Haslam did not take the same essentially trusting approach towards Mr Eric Bale. Mr Bale resided next door to the Mount Molloy hotel. CASA says Mr Pantovic landed his helicopter in Mr Bale’s yard. Mr Haslam confirmed in his oral evidence that Mr Bale initially told him the helicopter did not land on or near his property. But Mr Haslam was having none of that: he said there was something in the way Mr Bale spoke to him on the telephone that caused him to doubt Mr Bale’s denials. He decided to enlist the services of the local police. He explained in cross-examination (at p 157):
   

I asked [the local police] if they knew Mr Bale, and whether or not they could make some further inquiries in the area.

1. Mr Haslam decided to arm the police with Mr Gibb’s version of events. He agreed he informed them of his suspicions about Mr Bale before they went about whatever inquiries they made: transcript at p 158. Unsurprisingly, an obliging police officer confirmed Mr Bale “was being cagey” when the officer paid him a visit on 13 May 2014: transcript at p 168; see also running sheets annexed to exhibit 20. Mr Bale subsequently withdrew his denial and agreed to attend the station to sign a statement making allegations about Mr Pantovic after his discussion with the police officer: see entries for 13-14 May 2014 in running sheet annexed to exhibit 20.
   
2. This is worrying stuff. Mr Haslam clearly formed an adverse view of Mr Pantovic and he was prepared to pressure witnesses into cooperating with his “investigative activities” by enlisting the assistance of the local constabulary in what was not, at that point, a criminal investigation. He demonstrated slightly more subtlety when he was discussing significant changes Ms Andersen wanted to make to her draft statement. She had indicated she wanted to remove a number of passages from the draft Mr Haslam had prepared and discussed with her previously. Mr Haslam contacted her and, in effect, talked her out of making the changes: transcript at pp 171-172. He denied he pressured, hassled or badgered her to sign the statement without making the changes she sought. She agreed to sign the statement without significant amendment after Mr Haslam visited her: transcript at pp 171-173. Given Ms Andersen has since renounced what she said in her statement, Mr Haslam’s role in convincing her to sign it is particularly unfortunate.
   
3. I have already noted Mr Haslam was aware Mr Gibb had an axe to grind. Mr Haslam was also questioned in cross-examination about his discussion with Ms Sally Morris. The investigator’s running sheet annexed to exhibit 20 included an entry for 19 May 2014 which recorded the following information:
   

She asked if I was aware that there are some nasty vindictive people trying to do awful things to [Mr Pantovic]. I said I was not interested in any potential personal conflicts and only interested in facts surrounding the operation of the helicopter ...

1. In cross-examination, Mr Haslam said he responded in that way because he wanted to focus on the aviation-related matters and did not want to be distracted by personal issues. He insisted (transcript at p 173):
   

I’m not interested in the private affairs of the persons involved. I want to get to the facts of the matter.

1. Unfortunately for Mr Haslam, the tangled “private affairs” of individuals in this community could not be separated from the allegations that were being made. It was, at a minimum, naïve to ignore the motivations of the witnesses.
   
2. The CASA investigators did not do a good job. They were clearly predisposed to believe Mr Gibb and ignored warning signs about the reliability of his evidence. They allowed him to contaminate the evidence provided by other witnesses when they failed to warn him, and the other witnesses, that they should not discuss their statements with each other. The investigators gave Mr Gibb too much credit and may have relied on him too heavily to identify and contact witnesses. They also appeared to bring pressure to bear on witnesses to cooperate – cooperation that was subsequently withdrawn.
   
3. I do not suggest the CASA investigators acted dishonestly or in bad faith. They were simply taken in by a story about Mr Pantovic and then pursued him in a determined and blinkered way, confident in their conviction that he had done that which was alleged against him.
   

The final climax to this classic tale of embuggerance...err maybe??

The correct or preferable decision

1. Having established Mr Pantovic contravened his duties, I am satisfied it is appropriate to take regulatory action. I must now decide what form that action should take.
   
2. I begin by acknowledging s 9A of the Act requires that I regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
   
3. I will next deal with the applicant’s approval to act as Chief Pilot of Panmer. CASA says his performance as Chief Pilot is no longer of an acceptable standard. I agree. A chief pilot occupies a leadership position within the organisation – even a small organisation like Panmer. He has no credibility in the discharge of that role if he becomes involved in contraventions like those I have identified. It is one thing for an individual to experience errors of judgment of this kind; such poor judgment is especially dangerous where the safety and culture of the whole organisation is at stake. Mr Pantovic cannot continue in that role.
   
4. I am satisfied the applicant’s approval to act as Chief Pilot should be cancelled pursuant to subclause 6.1 of Appendix 1 of CAO 82.0. CASA’s decision to that effect is affirmed. It shall take effect within 28 days of the date of these reasons.
   
5. What of the applicant’s flight crew licences? CASA says they should be cancelled pursuant to CAR 269(1). The power to cancel (or vary, or suspend) is engaged under at least three sub-clauses of CAR 269(1), namely:
   • CAR 269(1)(a), which refers to the holder of the authorisation breaching the Act or the regulations. I have already identified a series of breaches that occurred in connection with the flight over water on the way back from the Mt Carbine hotel.
     
   • CAR 269(1)©, which refers to the holder of the authorisation failing in his “duty with respect to any matter affecting the safe navigation or operation of an aircraft”. I have already referred to breaches of that duty which occurred while he was pilot-in-command.
     
   • CAR 269(1)(d), which says action can be taken when a person is no longer “a fit and proper person to have the responsibilities and exercise and perform the functions and duties of a holder of such an authorisation”.
     
6. The expression “fit and proper person” is not defined. I discussed the expression in my reasons in Jones and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  [2014] AATA 820. In that case, I concluded the applicant had demonstrated remarkably poor judgment in the operation of a helicopter, while accepting he was a skilful pilot. Good pilots have good judgment, although I accept even good pilots occasionally make errors of judgment. Errors of judgment are a problem where they suggest the person’s judgment is flawed. A person with bad judgment (as opposed to a person who has merely made a mistake) is not fit to hold a pilot’s licence, no matter how skilful he or she may be.
   
7. Flying low over water at high speed while consuming alcohol demonstrates remarkably bad judgment, as opposed to a series of individual errors in judgment. (Leaving the helicopter unattended while the engine was running in the mistaken belief that the collective lock was an adequate safeguard was an error of judgment, as was failing to insist that passengers wore life jackets. Either of these transgressions might not, in isolation, reflect on the applicant’s fitness.) It follows I accept the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the flight crew licences. But what action should be taken?
   
8. I decided Mr Jones’s judgment was not irredeemably flawed in Jones and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority . I accepted he had the intelligence and insight to appreciate his errors and learn from them. On that basis, I decided a more lenient regulatory response was justified. The position of Mr Jones can be contrasted with that of the applicant in Quadrio and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  [2011] AATA 709. In that case, the applicant actively ignored the rules in order to entertain his passengers. The Tribunal took a tougher line. Mr Pantovic’s errors were in at least one respect more serious than those of Mr Jones: I concluded Mr Jones did not knowingly flout the rules, whereas Mr Pantovic knew he was not permitted to consume alcohol while flying, for example. Having said that, Mr Pantovic’s judgment does not strike me as being as flawed as that of Mr Quadrio, who apparently regarded the regulatory action against him as a form of persecution.
   
9. I also concluded in Jones and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  that it was appropriate to take into account the need for specific and general deterrence. In all the circumstances, I accepted Mr Jones did not require much in the way of specific deterrence: I was satisfied after observing him give evidence over a lengthy period during the hearing that he had learned his lesson. Mr Pantovic spent less time in the witness box, so it is harder for me to gauge the depth of his contrition and the genuineness of his insight. But I must also acknowledge he endured – and paid for the costs associated with – a lengthy hearing in which a series of allegations were made against him and ultimately disproved. He has already borne a heavy financial burden as a consequence of what happened.
   
10. General deterrence was an important consideration in Jones and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority . Mr Jones was a prominent member of the aviation community, and his errors and transgressions were played out on national television. Mr Pantovic does not have anything like the same profile as Mr Jones, which counts in his favour. Even so, it is necessary to send a clear message to the aviation community that this sort of conduct is unacceptable.
    
11. I do not think it is necessary or appropriate to cancel Mr Pantovic’s flight crew licences. The decision to cancel is therefore set aside. Mr Pantovic has offered (in exhibit 4) to enter into enforceable undertakings to submit to a number of obligations and limits if he is allowed to continue flying, but I fear that will not send the right message to the wider aviation community. I am inclined to suspend his licence for a period of time. A period of suspension is required to confirm this sort of “cowboy” behaviour will not be tolerated. In all the circumstances, I think the correct or preferable decision is to vary the decision under review and suspend the applicant’s flight crew licences for a period of six months – but I am minded to order that the suspension will itself be suspended after one month if the applicant enters into enforceable undertakings pursuant to s 30DK of the Act along the following lines:
    
    1. The applicant undergo urine testing, at the beginning of each month for both drugs and alcohol and provide to the CASA Aviation Medicine branch the test results as prepared by an accredited laboratory in accordance with secure sample collection protocols.
       
    2. The applicant restricts his flying to commercial activities and will not conduct any other flying activities as pilot in command, with the exception of delivering a helicopter for any maintenance and positioning a helicopter for commercial activity.
       
    3. The applicant provide to the CASA Cairns Regional office at the end of each week, a complete listing of all flights conducted over the previous week, including details as to the purpose of the flight, duration and destination, the Air Operator’s Certificate under which the flight was conducted, and the identity of any persons carried as a passenger.
       
    4. The applicant will, when due for his Bi Annual flight test conduct that test with a CASA officer.
       
12. If the applicant complies with the enforceable undertakings, the decision to suspend the applicant’s flight crew licences would be discharged on the date the undertaking comes to an end.
    
13. I invite the parties to make written submissions as to the proper form of orders that would give effect to this aspect of my reasons. Subject to those submissions, I anticipate the decision to suspend the applicant’s flight crew licences would take effect within 28 days of these reasons.
    
14. I also invite the parties to make written submissions as to the form of any orders under s 35(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). For now, I am satisfied that paragraphs [16]-[22] of these reasons should not be published to any person apart from the parties and their legal representatives by reasons of the confidential nature of the evidence referred to therein.
    

MTF..P2