In paragraph 7 of his affidavit filed in the matter, the analyst, Mr Semple swore that: 7. I was given terms of reference by the Council and my consultation proceeded on the basis of the terms of reference. The terms of reference were clear. I was not instructed to work towards an outcome that had been pre-determined in any way. Mr Semple proceeded with his review and prepared his finding for the Council in the form of the Semple Report was approved and accepted by the Council on . The Report summarised fourteen specific recommendations and proposals in Chapter 7 and Council Decisions’. These ‘Conclusion recommendations and proposals included a new executive management structure for the Institute, the advertising of the new executive management positions, and the negotiation of redundancy payments designated “within limits” for the existing Executive members. In December 2004 when the Council commissioned the Semple Report were five members of the Executive: the Director Veronica Arbon; the Deputy Director Trevor Cook; the General Manager Barry Hinton; the Registrar Holly Marjerrison; the Assistant Academic Director; and the Complainant Berice Anning. Three of these five, Ms Arbon, Mr Cook and Ms Anning, are indigenous, the other two, Mr Hinton and Ms Marjerrison, are not indigenous. The Semple review and report are not an issue of dispute between the parties. During the course of the Hearing Ms Anning acknowledged several times that the Semple Report itself and the recommendations made by Mr Semple did not discriminate. However, Ms Anning claimed in her evidence at the Hearing and in her written material before the Commission that the Semple Report may have been commissioned specifically to her. For example, in paragraph 13 “target” and paragraph 4 of her Submissions, she says: 13. The Review of the Executive from December 2004 to March 2005 was a ploy to remove the Director CEO and then myself as the call to terminate the Director and Assistant Director (Academic) had failed on 2-3 December 4. In order to understand the basis of my complaint, it is necessary to view the history leading up to the Institute’s restructure and the basis for which I was targeted. I refer the Commissioner to a document I provided during the hearing, a copy of which was also provided to the Respondent entitled “Opening Statement for NT ADC Hearing Set Down for 13-14 December 2006”.
In paragraph 7 of his affidavit filed in the matter, the analyst, Mr Semple swore that: 7. I was given terms of reference by the Council and my consultation proceeded on the basis of the terms of reference. The terms of reference were clear. I was not instructed to work towards an outcome that had been pre-determined in any way. Mr Semple proceeded with his review and prepared his finding for the Council in the form of the Semple Report was approved and accepted by the Council on . The Report summarised fourteen specific recommendations and proposals in Chapter 7 ‘Conclusion and Council Decisions’. These recommendations and proposals included a new executive management structure for the Institute, the advertising of the new executive management positions, and the negotiation of redundancy payments “within designated limits” for the existing Executive members. In December 2004 when the Council commissioned the Semple Report were five members of the Executive: the Director Veronica Arbon; the Deputy Director Trevor Cook; the General Manager Barry Hinton; the Registrar Holly Marjerrison; the Assistant Academic Director; and the Complainant Berice Anning. Three of these five, Ms Arbon, Mr Cook and Ms Anning, are indigenous, the other two, Mr Hinton and Ms Marjerrison, are not indigenous. The Semple review and report are not an issue of dispute between the parties. During the course of the Hearing Ms Anning acknowledged several times that the Semple Report itself and the recommendations made by Mr Semple did not discriminate. However, Ms Anning claimed in her evidence at the Hearing and in her written material before the Commission that the Semple Report may have been commissioned specifically to “target” her. For example, in paragraph 13 and paragraph 4 of her Submissions, she says: 13. The Review of the Executive from December 2004 to March 2005 was a ploy to remove the Director CEO and then myself as the call to terminate the Director and Assistant Director (Academic) had failed on 2-3 December 4. In order to understand the basis of my complaint, it is necessary to view the history leading up to the Institute’s restructure and the basis for which I was targeted. I refer the Commissioner to a document I provided during the hearing, a copy of which was also provided to the Respondent entitled “Opening Statement for NT ADC Hearing Set Down for 13-14 December 2006”.
2007_anning_biite.docx