[blml] Alerting Rules [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[richard.hills at immi.gov.au]

Richard Hills:

>>A National Authority can subtly exercise its Law 93C power.  It may
>>decide to over-rule a flawed precedent set by an Appeals Committee, but
>>at the same time decide to not over-rule the result set by the Appeals
>>Committee, on the grounds that any change to the result is out of time.

Wayne Burrows:

>That doesn't seem subtle to me.  It seems overtly abusive of the
>appeal process.
>
>If an appeal is to be heard I would have thought that as a minimum the
>parties would be entitled to present a case.

Richard Hills:

The EBU has just held an online survey inviting *all* EBU members to
present a case on what the EBU alerting rules should be.

The EBU Law and Ethics Committee will consider the results of that
survey at its forthcoming meeting on Wednesday 19th September.

What's the problem?


Best wishes

Richard James Hills, amicus curiae
Level 6 Aqua Training Suite, DIAC
02 6225 6776

Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise
the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately.  This email,
including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally
privileged and/or copyright information.  Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and
has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental
privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au
See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm