BP2004/4285, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 321 (10 February 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 10268

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON
COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN

BP2004/4285,BP2004/4286

s.170MW(8a) - power of the commission to suspend or terminate bargaining period

Metropolitan Ambulance Service
and
Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union
(BP2004/4285)

s.170MW(8a) - power of the commission to suspend or terminate bargaining period

Rural Ambulance Victoria
and
Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union
(BP2004/4286)

MELBOURNE

10.02AM, MONDAY, 31 JANUARY 2005

Continued from 29/9/2004

PN1

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I note the appearances are as before. Yes, Mr Friend.

PN2

MR FRIEND: Thank you, your Honour.

PN3

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I take it you have seen a copy of the facsimile from Clayton Utz to the Registrar on 28 January?

PN4

MR FRIEND: Yes, your Honour. I was going to address that initially, if the Commission pleases. Paragraph 1 makes the prediction that a number of matters might be agreed to with the parties and I think the position is that is, on the basis of a brief discussion with my learned friend and I, Mr Parry and I have had this morning, we have a sound prediction, we have agreed that the matter will, when it comes to hearing, run in the ordinary way. That is, I will open, I will call the witnesses, with their statements in the matter. Mr Parry will cross examine. At the conclusion of the union's case, Mr Parry will open to call his witnesses.

PN5

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Have the witness statements for the union been filed?

PN6

MR FRIEND: Yes. The reply statements were filed on Friday.

PN7

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN8

MR FRIEND: But as I understand it, they were then filed, yes.

PN9

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you.

PN10

MR FRIEND: I think there is one outstanding from Dr Robertson which we will have to the Commission as soon as we can get it. One of the other issues that have been in the case was whether the two matters should be heard separately or together, or joined. It is now the position that each party has filed all their evidence in both matters so there will be no issue there.

PN11

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: With the exception of Dr Robertson.

PN12

MR FRIEND: I am sorry, yes. A statement will be filed in both matters as well, your Honour.

PN13

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Have the parties reached a view as to whether or not - - -

PN14

MR FRIEND: The matters to be just run concurrently.

PN15

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Concurrently.

PN16

MR FRIEND: Yes. And insofar as there are different factors relevant to - and evidence relevant to MAS or RAV, well, that could be addressed during the course of submissions or during the course of the case. I think having looked at the evidence now, I don't know if the Commission has had a chance - - -

PN17

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So subject to relevance evidence in one matter is evidence in the other?

PN18

MR FRIEND: Yes.

PN19

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Is that your position as well, Mr Parry?

PN20

MR PARRY: If the Commission pleases, yes, that is the position.

PN21

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you.

PN22

MR FRIEND: The only other matter apart from the speeches which I think have been flagged as a potential matter in issue, was that of intervention. Mr Parry has informed me that he is going to seek leave to intervene on behalf of - I think it's the Department of Human Services. Our position in relation to that is if all that's happening is that he is saying the same things, Human Services are used for the MAS, RAV, well, we don't have an issue about it. If there's something different that he wants to do or say for Human Services, if that could be noted at the time the submission is made, that would assist us. I don't think Mr Parry has a difficulty with proceeding in that course and so we would depose intervention on that basis.

PN23

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: But the Department of Human Services pays the bills, correctly?

PN24

MR FRIEND: Partially, yes.

PN25

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I know the taxpayer is ultimately responsible.

PN26

MR FRIEND: Well, the government is ultimately, yes. If they want to say the same things as MAS and RAV, well, we are not going to stand in the way of that and have an argument about it.

PN27

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, does the Department of Human Services, on the basis of your instructions at the moment, intend to put something, a position that's different from that of either of the services?

PN28

MR PARRY: Not as I am presently instructed, no. As I said, if we are going to say something different, we will make sure that's clear. I do point out that DHS don't pay 100 per cent. I think, I'm not wanting to get into the whole evidentiary case too early, but it is only around 60 per cent, and the other 40 per cent come from their own fund raising and the payment of moneys by the users of the system. So I don't want to start off on too many wrong feet.

PN29

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: But in any event, the Department of Human Services would, on ordinary intervention principles, have a reasonably good claim to have an interest beyond that of any member of the public.

PN30

MR PARRY: Yes. We so seek intervention, as I have done throughout the interlocutory stages. If the Commission pleases.

PN31

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN32

MR FRIEND: If the Commission pleases, the only other matter is the main reason that I have apprehended that that has been put before the Commission today, is the question of inspections. The position the union takes is that inspections would be useful, really necessary in a claim of this nature, would be the ordinary course. It would probably be of assistance to me if I could hear what Mr Parry has to say in opposition to inspections, given that it's a work value claim one would ordinarily expect inspections to be undertaken. The letter that was sent on 28 January states that there is strong opposition, but doesn't set out in any detail the grounds. If I were able to reply to Mr Parry, then he could have a chance to respond to me. It might be- - -

PN33

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think it would be useful for us to hear a little more from you about the particular aspects of the claims for which the union contend that you say are claims where inspections would be either desirable or essential.

PN34

MR FRIEND: Yes.

PN35

SENOIR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: And the nature of those inspections.

PN36

MR FRIEND: Yes, if the Commission pleases. Well, there are two areas in relation to the case where we see inspections as being very desirable. The first is those claims in respect of changes in the nature of the work that it has undertaken, the new skills that have been developed. Those include the ALS skills, so to speak, and I don't want to assume too much in terms of the Commission's reading in relation to this.

PN37

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Speaking for myself, I have not yet read the evidence at all.

PN38

MR FRIEND: Right. Well, the last time there was a work value claim in respect of ambulance officers, as they then were, was 1989 in Victorian state system, and as a result of that case, there were increases in respect of a number of new tasks which were called CEP1 to CEP7. They were continuing education program and they involved a range of different things. CEP7, which was the most sophisticated of them, was defibrillation, which the Commission may be aware is the attempt to resuscitate a person who has had cardiac arrest using the defibrillation, applying pads to the chest and electric shock. Since that time, there have been a number of new procedures introduced and these include the administration of a wide range of drugs in different circumstances. One that springs to mind is Narcan, used for reversing the narcotic effects suffered from drug overdoses.

PN39

In relation to those, there will be some use in seeing how that work is done in the context of an emergency, and not just on the basis of the description. More importantly, the Commission may have noted that one of the union's major claims in respect of an allowance for advance life support, which is a new set of skills, being introduced throughout both MAS and RAV. That involves a range of things, use of a new form of airway clearance and tasks such as chest decompression using a large syringe in certain circumstances. Now, again these things can be described that have been in the statements, but we would submit they will need to be seen in the context of a paramedic attending an emergency and dealing with the matter in situ and making the decisions in the context of the very brief time that's available to do so.

PN40

MICA paramedics also have a range of new skills, including in particular rapid sequence incubation.

PN41

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Sorry, rapid?

PN42

MR FRIEND: Rapid sequence incubation. That, at the moment, is on a trial and has been for some time and it involves injecting the patient with intramuscular injection, with a paralysing drug and thereby stopping the patient from breathing naturally, while the patient is in relaxed position, inserting a tube down the larynx and using a machine to take over the patient's breathing. It's all very well to that point. That might, in some cases, fail and then there is a next step to be taken with a different type of procedure, which might also fail, at which point the patient is still paralysed and in which case the MICA paramedic has to perform a chricothorodotomy , which is making an incision in the throat and ventilating the patient through that.

PN43

Now, the Commission on inspection may or may not see any or all of these tasks undertaken. But what the Commission will see is the nature of the ordinary work in which these tasks are done. So you will see some of the witness statements filed by MAS and RAV say well, these types of tasks are not very difficult for doctors and nurses and trained people. And the reply statements say well, they may not be difficult in a hospital situation, we don't know, but if someone is trapped in a car and they're being cut out and you're trying to do it and someone else is holding a torch, it is a difficult situation. Now, we want the Commission to see- - -

PN44

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: It is really the conditions under which the work is done.

PN45

MR FRIEND: Yes. And it may be that the Commission will also see these tasks performed, or some of them. Now, as well as that- - -

PN46

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Can you also just bear in mind that it would be desirable to hear from you, now that Mr Parry will raise it, about the practical problems of how such an inspection might be conducted.

PN47

MR FRIEND: I will come to that.

PN48

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: It wouldn't be feasible to have three of us riding in the back of an ambulance, for example, with a patient.

PN49

MR FRIEND: I will come to that in a moment, if I may, your Honour.

PN50

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN51

MR FRIEND: The other aspect of the matter is that there are a number of claims, if I might call that first lot work value claims, a number of what might be called work load claims. And these are claims about, for instance, the amount of overtime worked, the number of times the paramedics don't get meal breaks in their windows of opportunity, or at all, because they're called to emergencies, the number of times they are, while on call, called back to duty. These all provide part of the context of the difficulty of the work. The union seeks a number of changes in relation to provisions that currently exist in relation to these things. MAS and RAV seek a number of other changes. We will ultimately submit that it will be important for the Commission to see the circumstances under which the work is undertaken, in forming a view as to what, if any, changes should be made to the current provisions.

PN52

Now, in terms of the practicalities, it's certainly not going to be possible for three members of the Commission to travel in the back of an ambulance. I can tell the Commission that in there were inspections in the 1989 work value case. I have got a copy of Commissioner McIntyre's reports in that regard. That was a full bench of the State Commission that dealt with it. Commission McIntyre undertook the inspections and made the report. The Commissioner probably only needs to look at the first report, which is the one without the heading, 20 February 1989. Inspections are mentioned on page 7 of the fax. Our corporate memory, I don't think, goes back far enough to be able to tell the Commission what was the nature of those inspections. More recently- - -

PN53

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Where did you say it was referred?

PN54

MR FRIEND: On page 7 at the bottom. The bottom paragraph of page 7. Yes, and also the second paragraph of page 5.

PN55

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Page 7, I'm having some difficulties with, Mr Friend.

PN56

MR FRIEND: Is your Honour looking at the - we have handed up two and I probably should only have handed up one. The report, the first heading Background, and I am looking at this.

PN57

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Page 5 I see the second paragraph.

PN58

MR FRIEND: Yes, I am sorry, page 6 is the second one, the bottom half of page 6. I was reading the fax numbers.

PN59

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: All you are doing is you are simply handing this document up to demonstrate that inspections occurred. I don't think there will be any debate about that, will there, Mr Parry?

PN60

MR FRIEND: Well, there might be, your Honour. Similarly, in relation to the work value case that the MICA paramedics had in 1997, their inspection by Senior Deputy President MacBean, I will hand up that decision. There's a little more assistance in these in relation to this case. Page 14, his Honour deals with the inspections. And you will see on the second paragraph of page 15 that his Honour accompanied the MICA officers operating the ambulance and went with them to a number of emergency calls. And then in the last paragraph, in the middle of the page, his Honour said:

PN61

I would stress that the inspections allowed for only a limited opportunity of observing a wide range of circumstances in which MICA officers are required to perform their work. However, I regarded the inspections to be of valuable assistance in understanding the nature of the evidence given in the course of the case.

PN62

Now, our corporate memory does go back far enough to say that Senior Deputy President MacBean travelled in the back of the ambulance on emergency calls. It's clear that three members of the Commission can't do that, and it may be that as inspections are undertaken, one member of the Commission travels while others, together with the rest of the entourage, follow behind in other cars.

PN63

MR PARRY: Lawyers chasing ambulances.

PN64

MR FRIEND: I am sure Mr Parry will be taking his business card. It certainly is feasible for the inspections to be undertaken in that way. Obviously, not everyone will see everything. That doesn't happen in the circumstance where one member of the Commission is sitting alone and travels in the ambulance in any event, but it is something that's been done before. It was also done in relation to a case before Commissioner Holmes in 2002, which was the award simplification case. I am not going to hand this up. The major issues in relation to that case was the work value in respect of ambulance attendance who work for the private sector. But on one day, the Commission went to the St Albans branch of the MAS and saw how emergency ambulance paramedics worked and travelled in the back of the ambulance on that occasion.

PN65

The inspections are mentioned in his decision, and I can provide it to the Commission if it's desirable, but I don't really want the Commission to trawl through this. PR 945582.

PN66

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Sorry, PR?

PN67

MR FRIEND: 945582. Paragraphs 111, 118, 123, 212, 214, 219 and 226. As I say, if the Commission insisted, I can hand copies of those up now.

PN68

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you.

PN69

MR FRIEND: In any event, it's our submission that inspections are workable. They're not only desirable, they're really necessary in order to understand how the work is done in its proper context.

PN70

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Can I just take you, Mr Friend, to the document at tab 2 of volume 1 of the volumes filed by the Metropolitan Ambulance Service and Rural Ambulance Victoria witness statements.

PN71

MR FRIEND: Yes, I don't think I actually have that with me this morning your Honour.

PN72

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That's a comparison of the LHMU draft MX award and MX draft, MX award.

PN73

MR FRIEND: Yes. Thank you, your Honour.

PN74

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Now, just remind me, Mr Parry. This is a document produced by your instructing solicitors I take it?

PN75

MR PARRY: Yes.

PN76

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Friend, has your client responded to this document yet?

PN77

MR FRIEND: No, your Honour. We produced one, and they were supposed to respond. They produced their own. Their direction was that they pointed out the differences. Instead, they produced the same document. There's been some correspondence of that.

PN78

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I thought that was the case. But the question is, is there any document that records your response to this document?

PN79

MR FRIEND: No. There will be a document that sets out - there isn't a document that records our response to this one, your Honour.

PN80

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Do you take objection, or do you contest, the accuracy of the delineation of differences between the LHMU position and the MAS position in this document?

PN81

MR FRIEND: Your Honour, the differences, we set them out in our document. I haven't had an opportunity, because we have been preparing reply statements to deal with this document. But I was hoping, your Honour, to deal with these matters in opening to make it clear- - -

PN82

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I understand that. But just for the purposes of this debate about inspections, this is a useful place to try and isolate where there are matters in issue between the parties where inspections may be relevant.

PN83

MR FRIEND: Yes.

PN84

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: It struck me whilst I was looking through it, there's a difference between the parties on the range of classifications. The union contends for a large range of classifications, the ambulance service contends for a small range of classifications and it occurred to me that there may be some argument that, looking at what occurred with various people in the offices, for example, it may be relevant to some determination as to whether or not the broader range of classifications are appropriate.

PN85

MR FRIEND: Yes, your Honour. We would say that that might - we accept that there's that difference. There might be some assistance in that. That wasn't our main purpose in pressing for inspections.

PN86

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Fine. Wage rates, which is on page 7. I note the union seeks increases of 8 per cent per annum and the service is offering 2.25.

PN87

MR FRIEND: I don't think we would - - -

PN88

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No. But is that difference driven by a work value or is it informed by some work value notion that the 8 per cent is necessary because the value of the work performed by your client's members has not been adequately reflected in its wages over the years and there needs to be some super increase, using that word in its technical sense, technical in an English sense?

PN89

MR FRIEND: I think your Honour will see from the evidence that there are two claims in relation to the work value. One of them is that 8 per cent and one of them is an ALS allowance, and so in a sense they need to be taken together, and some of the evidence will inform the Commission's view of those matters.

PN90

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Right. Then on page 8 there is allowances. The fourth allowance at the end, the paramedic skills allowance which MAS notes as a new allowance, is that the same allowance as the one that you have been referring to, the advanced life support?

PN91

MR FRIEND: Advanced paramedic skills allowance?

PN92

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN93

MR FRIEND: Yes.

PN94

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So that's the principal area in which you say the inspections are necessary?

PN95

MR FRIEND: Yes. And if your Honour looks over to page 12, that's for ambulance paramedics, yes, your Honour. Page 12 you will see that MAS have a proposal in relation to an ALS allowance too of $20 a week.

PN96

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you. The shift allowance on page 11?

PN97

MR FRIEND: Yes, your Honour. That's one of the matters I was referring to as the work load sort of issues, so that you can see the general difficulties that paramedics work under and the extent of work pressure.

PN98

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And it's very difficult to try and gauge in any sort of reliable way that matter from a single inspection or a couple of inspections.

PN99

MR FRIEND: No, of course. I accept that, your Honour. But what we are really putting is that the understanding of the evidence will be better informed by seeing how the paramedics work.

PN100

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The supervisory crewing allowance?

PN101

MR FRIEND: Yes. Well, that's something that's in relation to a student, a paramedic who supervises a student. Now, the significance about that, it may be that we can arrange an inspection and ultimately the Commission will see the extra responsibility that the qualified paramedic has in relation to those types of situations.

PN102

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Well, since you haven't studied the document, there is no point in - or since you don't have it here in a studied form and annotated form there is no point in asking you whether there are further aspects of the differences which are relevant to this issue of inspections.

PN103

MR FRIEND: Well, I can tell you of some. There's an allowance for MICA.

PN104

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think we have already noted that one, that's on page 9.

PN105

MR FRIEND: Yes. I am sorry, I didn't hear your Honour note that one, or those two. There are claims by MAS in relation to the introduction of rosters, without agreement. Claims by the union in respect of notification of changes in rosters. Now, again, the Commission is not going to form any view one way or the other on the basis of an inspection in relation to those things. But, it's the type of work and the type of work situation which is unusual, and it's not one that in my submission the Commission will be able to necessarily gain a real appreciation of without having seen it, and that's really the basis of the claim. And we do say that on other occasions it's superb, and I point particularly to Senior Deputy President MacBean's statement that it was valuable to help him to understand the evidence.

PN106

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes, thank you, Mr Friend.

PN107

MR FRIEND: If your Honour pleases. I will hand back your Honour, Senior Deputy President Watson's document.

PN108

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes, Mr Parry?

PN109

MR PARRY: If the Commission pleases, this is a case where there is a very wide range of claims that have been pursued by the union. They cover wages and a wide variety of allowances. They refer to the skills being utilised. They refer to a range of other terms and conditions. There's a huge range of matters being pursued. We have 10 volumes, around about, of statements, detailed statements given by ambulance officers - I am sorry, paramedics and by managers. Now, in this context the issue is today, what are the inspections for and to which claim are they specifically being directed? Now, the Commission will be well familiar with the general law on the world views and it's well settled, and the Commission may be familiar with the decision in Scott v Numurkah, the High Court case where the principles were set down.

PN110

That is, a view may well assist understanding the evidence, but a view, as was made pretty clear in Scott v Numurkah, and perhaps for the assistance of the Commission I will hand up a copy of that. It's a High Court decision. The lead up to it was that a single judge was dealing with a complaint about noise and interruption at a particular theatre. He went to the theatre and there was a demonstration. What was in effect a demonstration occurred. Music was played and attempts were made to show something had occurred. And it went ultimately in to the High Court and unfortunately the high court said well, it's all been done wrongly, it has to go back for a new trial. But the purpose of handing this up today is to go through the settled law and it appears the judgement of the majority, it appears on page 305, the Commission will see on page 306, half way down, there were complaints made about music and what happened was set out on page 307, that the judge - and I'm trying to - my only delay is I have got a copy of an internet print and I am trying to link it to- - -

PN111

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think it's the bottom of 307, isn't it:

PN112

Nevertheless the trial judge felt that he should admit and hear recordings and observe and treat them as being evidence of the kinds of sounds.

PN113

MR FRIEND: That's right. It starts at the bottom of the page, admitting recordings and there was, I think what happened was that in a way, he was invited to do that by counsel for the appellants, or the plaintiffs, and they all turned up and then there came a late vote about whether it was agreed or not, as to whether it was agreed that what would be seen. And I think the law is set out in page 309, and his Honour's judgement is set out there in the first part of it, but then it commences half way down the page. And as the High court points out:

PN114

At this stage, attention should be drawn to a number of features of the case, but the first place it was ...(reads)... full consent and occurrence of both parties and unhappily on this point, there is some degree of conflict between the parties.

PN115

And they then deal with some debate about that. But on the next page, commencing at the bottom of page 309, the last sentence:

PN116

It is however equally clear that the demonstration is not, in one sense, the product ...(reads)... of that evening.

PN117

And the High Court then, after dealing with this, set out what they described as the well established principles, and that occurs on page 313. And it commences, I think the third line down. The fourth line:

PN118

It of course clear that the legitimate use of a view may greatly assist in deciding between two conflicting bodies of evidence, but to say that a view may serve such a purpose gives no real clue to the manner in which for the purpose a tribunal may derive assistance from a view.

PN119

And they set out, refer to Unstead v Unstead, and they say the rule after referring to Hodge and Williams:

PN120

In general form, the rule is that a view is for the purpose of enabling the tribunal to understand the questions that are being raised to follow the evidence and apply it, but not to put the result of the view in place of evidence.

PN121

Now, those are the sort of general principles that apply and it's our position that the sole function of the view, where the parties don't agree that the results may be used as evidence, is to give the tribunal a better understanding of the issues.

PN122

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Just before you head on, Mr Parry, can I just see if I can understand with more precision the particular direction you're coming from here. The notion of the view that's adverted to on page 110, specifically a view of the locus, the locus of some event or the accident or whatever, is a different notion, isn't it, from an inspection in an industrial context? An inspection in an industrial context is something that is more than simply looking at a place where something has occurred.

PN123

MR PARRY: I am not quite sure on what basis your Honour says that.

PN124

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I am putting it in a rhetorical sense, asking you to respond one way or the other.

PN125

MR PARRY: Our submission is that an inspection is, in effect, a view. That the Commission can, or does on occasions, might decide a site allowance by looking at the site and the conditions of the site. It might observe a piece of equipment in operation. However, once one gets into the world of demonstrations and other actions, then that's a world of evidence. And unless that's agreed- - -

PN126

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So point number one is you reject any suggestion that the notion of inspection is somehow or other different and broader than the notion of the view, as it's referred to in this case?

PN127

MR PARRY: That is so.

PN128

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And then secondly, the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence. This is a case concerned very archetypically with the rules of evidence, but rather, must act in accordance with equity, good conscious in the merits of the case and inform itself in any manner it considers just. I think that's the language of section 110. So that the rules of evidence are a starting point as indicating what is fair, but what is fair will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. Is there any disagreement with you from that sort of potted summary that I have given?

PN129

MR PARRY: No. Well, we are not going to disagree with your Honour's description of section 110, because that's what it says. But generally this Commission takes a guidance on what is fair and reasonable from what the law enshrines in the laws of evidence. It's a pretty good starting point, if the legislature thinks it's a fair and reasonable approach. So our position is, well, correct, your Honour is correct, that this is a decision of the High Court dealing with the laws of evidence. But we think it's a pretty fair description and a good starting point for this Commission to come to bear on its deliberations to bear on this matter.

PN130

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Okay, so if I could just - Mr Parry, you will have an opportunity to say whatever you want, but there are just these few matters that I want to get clear in my mind before you proceed. What distinction then do you draw - sorry, let me start that again. There is a distinction drawn in this case between a mere view, if I can put it that way, a mere inspection and conducting some experiment. I don't understand what Mr Friend is proposing to be anything another than the mere view, the mere inspection.

PN131

MR PARRY: I am sorry, I rather heard differently, your Honour. We don't oppose, as we have said in our letter - - -

PN132

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: He is suggesting that we should, or one of us, attend at workplaces and see what is happening and we should attend with paramedics, the people who would be amenable to the ambulance paramedic skills allowances, the MICA paramedics skills allowance or the advanced life support allowance, and observe the sort of work they do in the conditions in which they have to perform that work.

PN133

MR PARRY: The conditions haven't changed. The conditions have been the same for 100 years. It's performed outside. It's performed in people's homes. It's performed at accidents in factories and beside roads. It's performed when people are highly emotional, people are upset with ill and seriously injured and dying people. Nothing has changed. What possible value is a member of this Commission sitting in the back of an ambulance? It might have happened in other cases.

PN134

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, at the moment I am trying to get you to provide responses to particular questions and, with respect, that is not responding to the particular question, or the particular proposition I was putting to you. The particular proposition was, that what Mr Friend is asking us to do is nothing more than a mere view in the sense of the dichotomy that I was referring to a moment ago, he is not asking for the performance of any experiment.

PN135

MR PARRY: He is asking for a demonstration. It's a bit like - your Honour, perhaps to go through what he said, the reason he wants it and we take issue with this..... claim aspect of it, but that will be ultimately a serious matter that we will argue at the appropriate time, but this isn't a work value case. This is an MX case, but we will get to that eventually. Firstly, he made reference to Narcan, the drug overdoses. How does it work in the context of- - -

PN136

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No, I understand that, but demonstration in the sense in which it's being used in Scott v Numurkah is different from observing people doing things, is it not? The demonstration here was in the nature of an experiment. Let me sit here and determine by making noises, whether or not the noises can be heard inside the theatre. And that demonstration, in the way that that's used here, is a demonstration in that experimental sense, rather than simply an observance of people doing the things they would ordinarily be doing. I am adopting a Socratic approach here, as you understand the devil's advocate thing, inviting you to tease out the notion. I am concerned that there is a certain amount of conceptual ambiguity in the way in which the expressions have been used, and the notions that have been used thus far.

PN137

So, coming back to it, do you contend - or why do you contend that what is being proposed by Mr Friend is anything more than a mere view and could be described as a demonstration or an experiment in the sense in which is used in the decision in Scott v Numurkah?

PN138

MR PARRY: Your Honour, we have two concerns with what is going on here. Firstly, whether it's a demonstration or whether it's an artificial situation where you have a member of the Commission in the back of an ambulance. That is not the normal course. To have a member of the Commission sitting in an ambulance travelling out to these events is not typical, normal. The treatment decisions that are made, for example Mr Friend refers to chest - he goes through the various things, he goes to chest decompression. Well that's an RAV matter but that's not a common - most of the things he said that will occur are very uncommon. So what we are essentially dealing with here is travelling around, looking at the conditions under which various clinical procedures are performed. And we would be most concerned about, firstly, the patients, and secondly, the treatments options that are chosen. Well, we can't control, we, being the services, the treatment options that are chosen.

PN139

Your Honour has been told about the RSI and that's a trial, rapid sequence intubation. And what happens is that at a particular incident the MICA officer makes a decision based on opening an envelope as to whether to entertain the trial or not. He follows one course, if not, and another course it if goes the other way, depending on what is in the envelope. So we would be most concerned that there would be an element of artificiality entering into the treatment options that are chosen. Now, whether that crosses your Honour's boundary into being a demonstration or an experiment, we don't know. We are very concerned about the potential for that. It might be that it does cross into that sort of area where people are showing off, doing something they wouldn't normally do. We would hope that wouldn't be the case, but that is a real risk. These aren't people observing people in a factory operating a machine, they are people making instant and important decisions, as they have for many years. And we would be concerned about crossing that line.

PN140

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You wouldn't have any concern, I take it, that a member of the Bench may be emotionally prejudiced because of the extremity of the circumstances that might be observed?

PN141

MR PARRY: Well, we don't know what the impact will be on the members of the Commission by seeing an accident or somebody in a seriously ill condition. I suppose in a practical sense that's not what we're concerned about, the frailty of members of the Commission. We are more concerned here, this part of my argument, with the position of the patients. These are, as we say, ill, sick and frightened, and to have people in suits watching what is going on and gathering around, we say is totally, totally wrong, and we oppose it. Now, it might have happened in the past. We don't know the detail of whether there was consent or whether it was an arrangement, but our position is that whatever went on in the past isn't appropriate today in 2005. Our position is the laws. Well, we have got privacy laws, we have huge restrictions on what we can show people's medical cards with, the patient details, so we oppose it, firstly, primarily because we don't think it's in the patients' interests to have this sort of show going on.

PN142

Secondly, we say, unlike perhaps as appears from the other decisions, this has got 10 volumes of witness statements, huge amounts of material, and we say that the issues that they want to inspect, for example, and there is about four that my learned friend pointed to. Narcan re drug overdoses. Well, what the Commission will then see is a heroin addict being injected with Narcan and hopefully getting up and walking away. All right, we can accept that. Secondly, chest decompression using a large syringe. Well, the likelihood of that is rather small, that would be an RAV matter. The likelihood of that is rather small. What the Commission would then see is an ambulance officer inserting a needle into a chest cavity and allowing the chest to decompress, as it were.

PN143

Thirdly, the MICA skills, injecting with a paralysing drug. Now, this would be - I think there has been about 40-odd, approximately, uses of this procedure in a trial so the chances of actually seeing this - - -

PN144

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Well, correct me if I am wrong, but Mr Friend is not identifying these as the complete list of innovations which are underpinning the claim, but rather as representative of increased responsibilities and increased complexity in the tasks that are expected of the relevant paramedics.

PN145

MR PARRY: We agree. That's the way they are going to run the case.

PN146

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: So an argument that says, well, you're unlikely to see procedure X, doesn't exactly meet the basis upon which the inspections are sought, does it?

PN147

MR PARRY: What are we looking at? I am sorry, your Honour, I am not sure what we're looking at in the case.

PN148

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Maybe I am just really stupid, Mr Parry, but I would have thought that what I just put to you and what you just accepted would have justified the concluding rhetorical question that I put to you. That is, that Mr Friend does not rely upon simply the procedures that he identified. He relies upon generally a more extensive set of innovations and change or circumstances and change of tasks by the paramedics, no doubt set out in detail in the evidence. And the fact that you can point to one particular procedure and say, well, you're unlikely to see that, doesn't meet his broader basis, I suggest.

PN149

MR PARRY: Your Honour, his broader basis was the conditions under which the work is done. That was as I understand broad basis. We say that conditions haven't changed at all. Now, your Honour, also can we also say the practical, as we say - - -

PN150

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Pardon me one moment, Mr Parry.

PN151

MR PARRY: I am sorry, your Honour.

PN152

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Sorry, Mr Parry, yes.

PN153

MR PARRY: We have, as I submit, serious concerns, firstly about the carrying out of such inspections which involve members of the Commission or a single member sitting in an ambulance travelling to events. We oppose that. We see that it has issues for the patients firstly. Secondly, we see this as being an uncontrolled exercise in input to the Commission member about the work conditions including, for example, the number of times meal breaks, the number of times called back to duty. They cannot be assisted in any sense by an inspection. The proposition that a member of the Commission will sit in an ambulance with a member of somebody chosen by the union, opens up a great deal of concerns about what is said and done, and we oppose that.

PN154

We say that it might have been done in the past but that is no reason for doing it now, and we indicate that, as we have written to the Commission, that we don't oppose, if we think the Commission might gain some value from seeing a MICA ambulance and seeing a standard ambulance, the outfitting of it, the bags, the drugs, the equipment. We don't oppose the Commission doing that to understand the way the evidence is put and what is said. If the Commission wants to go and see a station, that's again a matter that we won't oppose and will facilitate. But we do oppose anything in the nature of evidence and the statements being made to Commissioner members, and we oppose any such broad exercise. If the Commission pleases.

PN155

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You have made the submission several times now that it is not in the interest of patients for this to occur. Can you elaborate upon that, Mr Parry? Can you just make the assumption that we recognise that seeking to try and have three men in suits sitting in the back of an ambulance with a patient is not desirable, the space considerations would make that not desirable if nothing else. But in relation to one member of the Commission sitting in an ambulance, how does that interfere with the patient or prejudice the patient?

PN156

MR PARRY: Well, we, as a party in this - - -

PN157

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think you have identified one already. You have suggested that the ambulance officer may be disposed to, I think your words were "show off", and therefore perform some procedure that carries with it some danger in circumstances where the procedure wasn't necessary.

PN158

MR PARRY: Perhaps I will answer your Honour's question, that is, the concerns we have with the member of the Commission being in the ambulance, firstly. The paramedics will travel out to an incident. I assume that when they arrive at the incident they will leave the ambulance and enter a house or a factory or go to the scene of a car accident. Now, is the Commission member to get out of the ambulance and go over then and observe what occurs? Now, there are two options. He stays in the ambulance out of the way so as not to get involved, not to interfere. That might be the case, and that is what we would prefer if it is to occur, but then it seems little point in the inspection itself.

PN159

Secondly, he gets out of the ambulance, follows the ambulance officers into the treating area where there is probably somebody lying down or sitting up, or upset and unhappy and concerned. They have rung an ambulance, two ambulance paramedics enter, a man in a suit walks in. Now, is the man in the suit in there - are we, being the employers, are we allowed to observe this as well? Are we allowed to go into the premises and - - -

PN160

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, with respect, you are not answering the question. You had concluded your submissions, you have made the assertion several times now that there is potential harm or prejudice to patients as a result of an inspection. That is a serious matter to suggest and it needs to be treated by this Bench seriously. I am asking you to identify, to particularise what you say is the nature and source of the risk.

PN161

MR PARRY: Your Honour, what I am attempting to do with the Commission is to go through the options, that is, to work out the risks for the patients. We have to work out how this thing is going to operate. Now, the first option I have said is he sits in the ambulance. That might not have much of a risk to the patient at all, but then what is the point, what is the point of the inspection? The second option is that the Commission member follows in. Now, that is one option, but we can't just say that. If it is to be a single member of the Commission travelling in, then you will have the incident, you will have a patient frightened and concerned at somebody in a suit, either with one person in a suit or, if the lawyers are allowed to attend, the ambulance services are allowed to attend, you will have a union representative, a representative of the employers, you will have two or three other people in suits at the same time. So that is the sort of option of the scenario.

PN162

Now, we submit in those circumstances, this patient hasn't consented to this, this patient hasn't any rights to consent or oppose this. They might not be happy about having people observing, then being treated by an ambulance paramedic. We would say that it would not be surprising at all if a patient is going to be a little unhappy about having his or her privacy interfered with, we say, without a choice for that patient, and that patient is in no position to consent or not. And, indeed, that would be a most curious position if a patient was compelled in effect against their wishes to be involved in a sort of a show for the benefit of the Commission.

PN163

So then the paramedic makes, hopefully, the right decisions, and certainly they are professional people and we would anticipate they would make the correct decisions. The ambulance officer would then transport the patient. But we say that it's a serious position to have outsiders observing the treatment of patients and it may well not be in the interests of the patient for that to occur.

PN164

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Do you wish to particularise any further aspects of the potential harm to a patient?

PN165

MR PARRY: We say it could easily be anticipated to create further stress in a patient who has called an ambulance, to have two ambulance officers come in with then, two or three people in suits. We say it would not be surprising at all if that increased the stress of the patient.

PN166

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I take it that it would be possible for anyone participating in an hypothesised inspection to dress in a set of overalls or something of that sort, which would make the persons less conspicuous?

PN167

MR PARRY: Well, I am sorry to do this, your Honour, but respectfully, would the patient be told that the person standing there in overalls wasn't a member of MICA team, wasn't a paramedic, was actually an observer from the Industrial Commission or a lawyer? The patient would need to be told. I don't think this camouflaging of the extra people there is really the point.

PN168

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Well, no. But you see you have raised two quite - you elide two issues together there, with respect, Mr Parry. The first is the issue of the additional stress on the patient, and that comes because there is a troop of additional people in suits, as you have emphasised several times, and the question I asked was directed at whether or not there was some way or ameliorating the perception of stress on the part of a patient. And then you have ran that together with the question of patient rights in relation to issues of privacy and the like, and consent, which are two different issues. And I thought at the moment we were focusing on your assertion that there is a potential for harm to the patients, as distinct from some sort of invasion of privacy.

PN169

MR PARRY: Yes, they are different matters, but we have firstly, the stress that is very likely to occur, we would submit, to patients by having people, extra people that are not paramedics observing their treatment.

PN170

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I take it you don't take trainees out, do you? Your clients don't take trainees out to observe as extra people?

PN171

MR PARRY: I don't know the answer to that, your Honour. There are student paramedics.

PN172

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: That was a rhetorical question also, Mr Parry.

PN173

MR PARRY: Well, if your Honour knows the answer, I don't. I don't know.

PN174

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I don't think you need to be Albert Einstein to draw an inference, do you, about that? That would be a necessary part of training, it has to be a necessary part of training.

PN175

MR PARRY: It may well be a part of training to take a trainee paramedic out to incidents, I don't know.

PN176

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Is there anything further?

PN177

MR PARRY: No, your Honour.

PN178

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Friend?

PN179

MR FRIEND: Scott v Numurkah first, your Honour.

PN180

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Sorry?

PN181

MR FRIEND: Scott v Numurkah, if I can deal with that first. And I submit to you that it's not very helpful to look at what the law about views in the 1950s in the Victorian Supreme Court rules was in the present context. One point my learned friend made was, well, the Commission is guided by evidence, the laws of evidence, and that may be so. He hasn't referred to the Federal Evidence Act, and I have to say I haven't looked at it in this context. I didn't anticipate Scott v Numurkah being raised. If the Commission would turn to page 310, you will see that Scott v Numurkah is really a case about which provision the judge acted under. In the middle paragraph, the report says:

PN182

It is, of course, quite clear that acting pursuant to the provisions of order 50, rule 3, his Honour might have directed the making of an appropriate experiment but gave no such express direction.

PN183

So my learned friend seeks to elevate the case to stand for the proposition that a view is only just going and looking and you can never do anything else.

PN184

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Is that fair for Mr Parry, Mr Friend? It's an issue of fairness, isn't it? The evil, if I can put it that way, in this particular case was that the relevant party was prejudiced by the way in which this occurred because the relevant party didn't have any opportunity to, any proper opportunity, adequate opportunity to have a say about how the experiment would be conducted, to make observations about it and so on and so forth.

PN185

MR FRIEND: Yes. Well, I accept that, your Honour, of course I accept that. But the point I am trying to make is that you could have had an experiment. There is no rule in law or rule of evidence that says you can't have an experiment. It depends upon the source of power. And what my learned friend hasn't done is take the Commission to its source of power to have inspections, which are much broader than used at common law. Can I ask the Commission to turn to section 134. And that provides that a member of the Commission or an authorised person may at any time during working hours enter prescribed premises, inspect or view any work material; machinery, appliance, et cetera, and interview on a prescribed premises any employee who is usually engaged to work on the prescribed premises. Take that together with the Commission's power to inform itself in such manner as it sees fit in relation to the exercise of its functions, then it's a very broad power that the Commission has.

PN186

Now, the point I really make in relation to that, your Honour, is that the Commission has the power under that provision to conduct an inspection of the nature that we propose. So far as I can find there is no authority on that section or any of its predecessors.

PN187

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Friend, what do you, in fact, propose in a practical sense? The one, the three, travelling in the ambulance, travelling behind the ambulance.

PN188

MR FRIEND: One in the ambulance, your Honour. We would leave it to the Commission whether other members would wish to attend with the other people that might attend.

PN189

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Would the union be wishing to have a representative in attendance as well?

PN190

MR FRIEND: Your Honour, the way it has been done in the past is that the member of the Commission has travelled in the ambulance, others have followed. They have not been in the ambulance or taken part in any of the proceedings. The member of the Commission has gone with the paramedics into the site premises, consent has been sought from those in the site of treatment and it has always been given. The Commission member then comes back and travels in the ambulance with the patient. There might be circumstances where that may not be possible, depending on conditions, but that's the way in which it has been done. Now, there are three days, the Commission may wish to have different persons going in different days and seeing different things and writing reports. We would seek to have one person, and no doubt the employers would wish to have one person at least following from a distance but not going into the - - -

PN191

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: When you say following, ambulances might be travelling at speed to an emergency situation.

PN192

MR FRIEND: Yes, your Honour. On at least the occasions I went on an inspection in 2002, we went in another car travelling without sirens.

PN193

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you, yes.

PN194

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: How many more do you say occurs when the vehicles arrive at the scene, travelling in a second car - - -

PN195

MR FRIEND: Well, they might get out of the car, your Honour, but they certainly don't go into the premises or stand around very closely, but they can see the general nature of what is going on. But, your Honour, we wouldn't be wedded to the idea of having a representative accompany. I mean, if the Commission feels that it's more appropriate just for one member to attend, and obviously a report would have to be prepared.

PN196

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, there doesn't seem much purpose in a second vehicle attending and standing by that medical - - -

PN197

MR FRIEND: Well, they will see the types of things that are undertaken, your Honour, and the circumstances of which it's done. It will give some benefit to us in being able to deal with what occurred on the inspection, but we don't press that point.

PN198

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: You indicated earlier that a member of the Commission attended the scene once consent had been obtained.

PN199

MR FRIEND: On every occasion consent was obtained.

PN200

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Consent from who?

PN201

MR FRIEND: Well, the persons with the ill person. I don't know if the person who was ill did on the occasion, I doubt it, or with injury. But the persons who presumably called the ambulance.

PN202

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, that might be someone with no association to - - -

PN203

MR FRIEND: Well, it may have been, your Honour, if it was in a public place. But public places are public places. But there is another aspect to this. My learned friend said he doesn't know if trainees go with ambulances. We have taken the trouble to obtain the policies of both the MAS and RAV in relation to people travelling in emergency vehicles. May I hand these up. I might say in regard to this that we assume the course that my learned friend said on instructions, that there was a fear that paramedics would not perform the best or most approved appropriate procedure for the patient because they would show off. I have it on instructions very firmly to reject any sort of assertion of that nature in relation to the conduct of paramedics.

PN204

Can I ask Commission to turn to the MAS one, which is the one with the crest at the top left, and that policy's purpose is to outline the requirements necessary for an observer to be approved to accompany a crew. And paragraph 3 talks about procedure, and then observer status in 3.2. So there are medical observers. These are observers, not persons engaged in treatments, so nurses, a doctor in an acute care symptom. 3.2.2, media observers. They have a policy that allows the media to travel with ambulance crews, but they won't let a member of the Commission, or they argue against it, or any other person with special permission.

PN205

Now, we don't mean to be concerned with the policy, as the Commission would appreciate, because the Commission acts under federal law and has the power to order the inspections. And there is nothing in here about consent from the persons being treated, but there is a good deal about indemnity for MAS. The second document is RAV. They say something about patient confidentiality. In 5 they talk about RAV having a legislative responsibility to protect patient confidentiality in the event of media coverage of operations. At the same time, the media have legal rights to record events on public property.

PN206

They then have a policy at paragraph 11 on page 6 of 8, dealing with media observers. The second requires the observers to sign an indemnity and patient confidentiality agreement form, and then they get an identification badge, and that apparently is sufficient even if they are wearing a suit. And something about ..... It is my submission that the objections to inspections have no force whatsoever. The Commissioner should accept that proposal that there be inspections.

PN207

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Yes. Can I just take you to the nature of the submissions again. Am I right in thinking that the primary objective is to observe the conditions under which the work is done, that is, the stress of a life threatening situation you may come across?

PN208

MR FRIEND: Yes, that, and it is likely that the Commission will see some of the new tasks.

PN209

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, I will come to that, but let's take the general context as a first proposition.

PN210

MR FRIEND: It was because your Honour said the primary position. But it is both, to see the conditions under which the work is done, and one would expect to see some of the new tasks.

PN211

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Okay. In terms of the conditions under which the work is done, is there evidence in the - there seems to be some sort of level of agreement that, from what Mr Parry put as to the nature of the work environment.

PN212

MR FRIEND: I think there is a fair bit of contest about some of the aspects of the nature of the work environment, and there is certainly suggestions for changes, which we would say would make it more stressful and more difficult.

PN213

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: I am not sure how - - -

PN214

MR FRIEND: Changes by MAS in terms of the way in which overtime is allowed, recalls and standby.

PN215

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, I will come to that. I am not sure how one assesses changes by observing one - - -

PN216

MR FRIEND: Well, you can see what is being changed, your Honour, that's my point, or what the proposals are, what it is proposed to be changed.

PN217

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: And you say also the Commission may observe some of the particular procedures.

PN218

MR FRIEND: Yes. Well, I think, your Honour, my submission is that it's likely.

PN219

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: And the third area went to preference for, well, call outs, missed meal breaks, overtime and the conditions in which the work gets done. Presumably that is subject to some substantial evidence - - -

PN220

MR FRIEND: Yes, your Honour. But it might put a different complexion on the matter to say, well, what does it feel like at the end of a 14 hour shift? And if the 14 hour shift has been with no meal break or with only one meal break which was late, and then there is a call for incidental overtime of another one or two hours. And it's all very well to say those things but it's a very particular type of occupation, and my submission is - - -

PN221

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Simply be viewing one illustration.

PN222

MR FRIEND: I am sorry, your Honour?

PN223

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Doing that would simply be to view one illustration of the general pattern reflected in the general statistical materials. I mean the frequency of overtime, the frequency of - - -

PN224

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Which has limited utility because one swallow doesn't make a spring.

PN225

MR FRIEND: One swallow doesn't make a spring, your Honour, but you have got to know what a swallow looks like. And you can write on a piece of paper what a swallow looks like, but you still won't necessarily recognise a swallow when one flies overhead, or even a flock of them.

PN226

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, I know what a missed meal break feels like.

PN227

MR FRIEND: But you mightn't know what it's like in conditions of extreme stress, your Honour, with respect. It really is a type - well, your Honour, Senior Deputy President MacBean said in relation to very similar issues that he found the inspections valuable as an aid in assessing the evidence. Now, the Senior Deputy President was, with respect, a very experienced industrial practitioner and member of this Commission, and we would point to that as being of some importance.

PN228

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Yes. When you take a particular procedure and, presumably they can explain - have a different context in a training situation and an emergency department a ward situation.

PN229

MR FRIEND: Exactly, your Honour. If I could take one example from the evidence. The doctors called by MAS and RAV say inserting an IV cannula is simple, and the response evidence, well it's not so easy if someone is lying in a car and being cut out of it while you're trying to do it. And speed is involved, there is all sort of things, your Honour, and we say that there will be some fair appreciation in the Commission if it can be seen.

PN230

COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN: Why don't we take a morning tea adjournment and work out what we are doing at the end of that.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.21AM]
<RESUMED [11.53AM]

PN231

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The view we have come to is that inspections ought occur, but we are cognisant of a number of the concerns that Mr Parry has articulated, and we think that the inspections ought to be tailored take account of those concerns to a certain extent. We think that there would be significant utility in first aid inspections encompassing the inspection of the general view of ambulances and equipment suggested by the Ambulance Services solicitors. We think also that the inspections on that day ought encompass the operations centre and an ambulance station, and then there should be a second day of inspections where the members of the Bench travel with ambulances, and we think it desirable that there be only one member of the Bench in the ambulance, that we propose that each member of the Bench should participate in such inspections, so that would effectively involve three separate inspections on the same day.

PN232

Clearly a representative of the Ambulance Services and the union ought be available or ought be entitled to participate. Whether that is in the ambulance itself or in a following vehicle is a matter that we would be happy to have your views on Mr Parry. So far as dress is concerned we take your point, Mr Parry, that to the extent that the way in which the individuals who are involved in inspection present might have an impact upon the stresses present on patients should be taken account and that accordingly we would be happy to modify dress as the Ambulance Service suggests, whether that is wearing overalls that are provided by the service or whether that is dressing in casual clothes in a particular way, is something that you could indicate.

PN233

Further, the inspection by each of the members of the Bench would be subject to any - let me put that a different way. Each member of the Bench would submit themselves to the direction of the ranking ambulance officer, so that if the officer formed the view it was inappropriate for the member of the Bench to observe any particular matter or to enter particular premises or to do any particular thing then we would submit to that judgment on the part of the senior officer. Senior Deputy President Watson has indicated his preparedness to do an inspection with the Rural Ambulance Service, and myself and Commissioner Hoffman would do inspections with the metropolitan service, Commissioner Hoffman during the day on Friday and myself during the evening on Friday. Do you wish to have any reasons given, Mr Parry?

PN234

MR PARRY: I am instructed to ask for those. We note that the Commission has called a ruling on, I take it, that firstly will be Monday where there will be a general view of ambulances and equipment.

PN235

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: An ambulance station and the operations centre?

PN236

MR PARRY: Yes, I understand that. As to the second stage, that is - and you did ask for my comments I think with regard to this - the member of the Commission travelling with the ambulance.

PN237

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No, not the member of the Commission travelling with the ambulance. Whether or not the representatives of the Ambulance Service and the union travel in the ambulance or travel in a following vehicle.

PN238

MR PARRY: Well, your Honour, our preference is that firstly, that everyone, the others, travel in a separate car following, not lights and sirens, so that the union representatives and the Commission member can be in a separate car. There can be a manager present, a manager of an ambulance service, a representative of the union in a separate car which travels to the incident, and the manager will need to obtain the consent of the patient or the patient's family for the inspection to occur. Those are what I am instructed to seek, because I think my learned friend raised the issue of consent. It is an issue. We do require consent to be given.

PN239

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Just when you say you require consent to be given, I am just a little unclear what you mean. You require that generally as a matter of policy in relation to media, in relation to media observers and medical observers and other special permission cases?

PN240

MR PARRY: Yes. The answer is yes, your Honour.

PN241

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN242

MR PARRY: Firstly, might I say with regard to media, this is a matter that is going as we speak. A media organisation is seeking to travel in the back of an ambulance and we have refused that. We refused them primarily because of concerns about privacy. So I think the media, we should knock that on the head at this stage. Our preference is, as we say, for there to be a separate vehicle travelling. We note that it is a matter for the Commission. There are two seats in the back of most ambulances, two seats in the back, one facing forward, one facing back. Some of them only have seat belts around the waist, others have lap sash. We would want the lap and sash ambulances to be the ones that people sit in, and clearly on occasions those seats are used by paramedics to treat people in the back.

PN243

So we would want, if there is to be a member of the Commission in the ambulance travelling, there be a manager sitting in the other seat, and that manager can address the privacy issues and the consent on attendance at the event. That is the alternative position we put forward. Our primary position is that everyone is in a separate vehicle. If the Commission wants it to be the position that the member of the Commission is in a vehicle, in the actual ambulance vehicle, we would seek that the manager in the vehicle as well, and that manager can attend at the premises, can ensure that the privacy concerns and the consents are dealt with. The others can travel along without lights and sirens and attend at the incident.

PN244

VICE PRESIDENT LALWER: Yes. Well, the view that we have taken is that the inspections will occur with the member travelling in the ambulance.

PN245

MR PARRY: Well, if that is the case we would seek that there be a manager there so we can address the privacy and consent issues.

PN246

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: In the standard configuration how many seats are there in an ambulance?

PN247

MR PARRY: There is two in the front and two seats in the back.

PN248

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: And depending upon the particular circumstances one of the paramedics who occupies a seat in the front may travel in the back after the patient has been collected and placed in the ambulance?

PN249

MR PARRY: Sometimes two because you might have multiple responses. That is certainly not uncommon. You may well have two paramedics.

PN250

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Well, let there be no mistake. The medical needs of the patient are obviously paramount, and to the extent that a continued travel in the ambulance by a member of the Commission for inspection purposes is incompatible with the medical needs of the patient because seats have got to be occupied by others then so be it, the member will not at that point continue to travel in the ambulance. However, the proposal that you are putting forward is that there would be two ambulance officers occupying the front seats, a Commission member and a manager occupying the two seats in the rear section of the ambulance.

PN251

MR PARRY: That is so.

PN252

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Mr Friend, do you have any objection or comment to be made on this particular aspect.

PN253

MR FRIEND: On this particular aspect, yes. Your Honour, one would expect in the ordinary course, as I understand it, one of the paramedics travels in the back with the patient. We want the Commission to see what work the paramedics do, not to see a manager sitting with a patient, which I would have thought has the potential to compromise patient safety more than anything else that has been suggested today.

PN254

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Well, there seem to be two elements of the journey, if you like. The journey out, presumably where the manager and the Commissioner member could be accommodated and the manager can attend to the consent matters for example. A return trip might be a different proposition entirely.

PN255

MR FRIEND: It might be. Then the Commissioner might have to sit in the front for part of the way on the way out, and in the back with the manager or in the back with the paramedic. But we have a concern about the Commissioner not seeing the work done because they are sitting with the manager rather than with the paramedic.

PN256

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: What would be the position - I know I have had one journey in an ambulance with my son and I was in the back with my son, obviously a desire that he be comforted by a family member.

PN257

MR FRIEND: Well, what we would expect, there would be no room for the Commission member in the back of the ambulance if someone is accompanying the patient, and we would also expect the paramedic to be there.

PN258

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: Yes, that is true.

PN259

MR FRIEND: The Commission member either to sit in the front or to wait for another car to come along. The manager doesn't need to address consent issues. We don't see the need for a manager. I think it creates a somewhat artificial situation. The senior paramedic can deal with those. But in the Commission is minded we are not going to seek to oppose that. We want the Commission to see something as close as possible to normal.

PN260

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Friend, we agree with you that the whole point of the exercise is for the Commission member to see what the paramedics are doing as part of their work over a period of some hours or a shift in the ordinary course of their performance of their duties, and that therefore to the extent that that was compatible with the appropriate treatment and circumstances of the patient it would be desirable for the Commission member to be able to travel in the back of the ambulance on the return trip from the scene to the hospital. To the extent that the Commission member's presence in the back of the ambulance was inappropriate because either one or two paramedics needed to be there or because a family member and a paramedic needed to be there, well, then the Commission member would not travel in the back of the ambulance on the outward journey, sorry the home bound journey, the hospital bound journey.

PN261

We do think that it really is a matter for the sensible exercise of discretion by the Commission member at the time. And we have indicated the principles and we are certainly not going to insist upon, none of us will be insisting upon travelling in the back of the ambulance on the hospital bound journey if the seats are to be occupied by two paramedics or one paramedic and a family member.

PN262

MR FRIEND: Yes. Your Honour, I may not have made myself clear, but that is the position I was attempting to outline, not the creation of an artificial situation of the patient, a manager and a member of the Commission in the back of the ambulance. And one would obviously anticipate that it would be a manner in probably just about every instance of a Commission member to exercise a discretion and have some discussion with the manager as to how is the best way to actually see what is done, that being the over riding purpose of the exercise. If the Commission pleases.

PN263

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Is there anything further you wanted to say, Mr Friend?

PN264

MR FRIEND: It has just been raised with me whether the Commission has any view about which operations centre. Apparently there is one in Melbourne and one in Geelong. The MAS operations centre is run by a separate organisation called ECV, Emergency Communications Victoria. There are some MAS employees there, medical support officers I think. The Geelong RAV operations centre is run and staffed totally by RAV employees.

PN265

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Do you say that those two centres operate in a different fashion?

PN266

MR FRIEND: We do apparently, yes.

PN267

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, do you have a view? Assuming that we wish to see an operations centre, it seems like the Geelong centre is probably the better alternative or, alternatively, we will look at both of them.

PN268

MR PARRY: Your Honour, might I have this stood down so I can take some instructions with regard to the operations centre? And there is also one at Ballarat. If the Commission wants to work out a sort of program now it is probably best if we at least have some - if I can get some instructions now and come back and put something to the Commission.

PN269

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes, fine. Well, should we resume when? How long do you need?

PN270

MR PARRY: Five minutes.

PN271

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Fine. We will resume in five minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [12.11 PM]
<RESUMED [12.22PM]

PN272

MR PARRY: If the Commission pleases, the first day, which I think the days that the Commission I assume is anticipating is Thursday and Friday of this week, that is my understanding.

PN273

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN274

MR PARRY: The first day the Commission has said it wants a general view of ambulances and equipment I think in line with what we have proposed in our letter - - -

PN275

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Subject to an issue about what is meant by without any further comment or submissions in paragraph 4(a) of your solicitor's letter of 28 January.

PN276

MR PARRY: Well, I suppose that will be a matter that may be in some dispute in some respects, in that the back of an ambulance has a number of - - -

PN277

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, I think we can short circuit this. This is a situation where clearly a legal representative for the Ambulance Services would be present, I would presume, at least one of the solicitors will be present and a representative from the union would be there as well, and in those circumstances there is no natural justice impediment to the asking of questions, to Commission members asking questions and seeking answers. What happens with that, to the extent that anything happens with it, is a matter for argument. I mean, you can rest assured that each of us has the capacity to recognise that at the end of the day the decision that is made in the 170MX application is one that is made on material that is admitted into evidence and identified as such, and there will be an opportunity for submissions and argument about it in due course.

PN278

But there seems a certain unreality in a situation where all that happens is that a manager simply points to a piece of equipment and names it, and says nothing more.

PN279

MR PARRY: Well, that is our primary position. If the Commission wants more I imagine the Commission might ask questions.

PN280

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN281

MR PARRY: We don't anticipate this is going to be transcripted, and we would not see this as a period where there should be extensive submissions or comment made. I suppose it is a matter of degree as to how it is dealt with by the member of the Commission. Often in my experience of inspections sometimes people get a bit excited and start making rather big statements, and we want to avoid people getting into rather bigger statements than are necessary. Certainly that is the way we intend to function.

PN282

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think we have a shared view about what ought occur. It is inappropriate on an inspection for there to be any substantial argument or inquiry in the nature of the sort of questions and answers that might properly be asked in the witness box.

PN283

MR PARRY: If the Commission pleases. Well, there is a branch at St Vincent's Hospital where there can be a normal ambulance and a MICA ambulance available on the first morning. There is also a branch there, it is just a fairly ordinary branch, and that can be inspected by the Commission. So that is at a time suitable to the Commission on Thursday, when all the members of the - my learned friend raises with me that there is normally a MICA sedan there. That is so. As to a MICA ambulance, it can be provided, and that is at a time suitable to the Commission.

PN284

Now, the Commission has asked to see an operations centre. Now, the position is that there is an operations centre at Burwood which provides the provision of those services for MAS. That is substantially ourselves, it is operated by ECV, Emergency Communications Victoria, provided it does not employ any ambulance employees.

PN285

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I think we have indicated we are happy to go to Geelong if that is the closest of the operations centres that are operated by either of the services.

PN286

MR PARRY: I am not sure the operations centre is really an RAV thing. What we were proposing was that on the Friday that Senior Deputy President Watson travels to Bendigo has an operations centre at it, that is a 24 hour branch. With RAV of course you have a number of smaller branches around the state, and bigger branches at Geelong and slightly smaller branches at Ballarat and Bendigo. We have simply chosen Bendigo because it is somewhere in the middle.

PN287

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON: That is next to the hospital in Arnold Street?

PN288

MR PARRY: I think you are ahead of me Senior Deputy President. I am instructed yes. There is on call branches nearby and there is an on call branch at Heathcote, which is on the way back to Melbourne, and that is what we would be anticipating for you Senior Deputy President on the Friday. Now, as to the Friday for MAS, there is day shift. Now, there are city based branches within the sort of general city area, and it is a matter of selecting one of those for the day shift. For night shift there is a MICA - and I note the ruling didn't deal with MICA versus paramedic, but there is a western suburbs MICA 3, which is a sort of average MICA operation, and that would be the place that we would propose the inspection to take place. Now, that is a sort of a broad structure, there needs a couple of times attached to it.

PN289

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Whereabouts is the western suburbs MICA 3?

PN290

MR PARRY: The Western Hospital, Footscray. Now, obviously there will need to be times. We haven't worked those out. If we assume that they will be sort of normal business hours, the Commission will attend there and stay as long as it likes.

PN291

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Mr Friend, do you have any - - -

PN292

MR PARRY: Might I just finish. I regard to the uniform, I think that is something that we will have to work out, and we will get back to the Commission on that, as to the uniform that we in the services consider appropriate.

PN293

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You can assume that we will arrive in casual attire rather than a suit. To the extent that you wish there to be a change of clothes or the wearing of overalls, then that is something that can be accommodated.

PN294

MR PARRY: If the Commission pleases.

PN295

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Friend, do you have any objection to the suggested venues?

PN296

MR FRIEND: Some comments, your Honour. It may be worthwhile for all members of the Bench to see the ops centre at Geelong, and then Senior Deputy President Watson to have the more general RAV inspection on Friday. Geelong is 50 minutes from the city, for those members of the Bench who aren't local. So we would make that suggestion. In relation to the Friday inspection, the day shift will need to have some discussion about the branches. Obviously we would seek the branch to be one where there is a number of paramedics who have ALS, because not all people have ALS, advanced life support skills, at the moment.

PN297

The MICA 3 in the western suburbs is probably a convenient branch to use. We wouldn't have any comment to make in relation to that.

PN298

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: What time does the evening shift start, Mr Parry?

PN299

MR PARRY: Five.

PN300

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Five. Now, I think the only significant difference then between what you have suggested and what Mr Friend has responded relates to visiting Geelong. Is there any objection to accommodating a Geelong visit on the afternoon of Thursday?

PN301

MR PARRY: Well, no, we don't have any great objection. We are just not sure why we are seeing it. I mean, it is all very well to - - -

PN302

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: You say they are all one of a kind, they are all of a kind? In other words, the visit to the Bendigo operations centre by Senior Deputy President Watson would give it a fair indication of the look and feel of what is happening in an operations centre, including Geelong?

PN303

MR PARRY: Yes. We say the similar operation centre is the difference. Geelong is a city, it has a different - it is busier but they appear to go slower. That is going to be the main difference. So I am just not sure why we are going to Geelong, but it is our proposition.

PN304

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. We won't insist upon an inspection of Geelong. Mr Parry, I propose to travel to Bendigo with SDP Watson on the Friday to view the operations centre with him, and to do the inspection with the ambulance on Saturday evening. Is there any reason why that can't be accommodated?

PN305

MR PARRY: Saturday evening, I am sorry?

PN306

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. I mean, obviously western suburbs might have three, but Commissioner Hoffman was going to do a day shift inspection and I was going to do a night shift inspection. Commissioner Hoffman was going to do the day time on Friday, and I would do the night time on Friday. Is there any reason why I can't do the night time on Saturday?

PN307

MR PARRY: Not that I know of. We will polish this up, with all due respect, a bit better form, set out what we - well, we will put that to the Commission tomorrow, by at least tomorrow, setting out where the inspections are to occur, who we understand is to attend, and so forth.

PN308

MR FRIEND: We would perhaps like to be involved in the preparation of that. If my learned friend could have a discussion with me, that would be helpful. If your Honour pleases.

PN309

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: I will sit tomorrow with the concurrence of the other members of the Bench to resolve any outstanding difficulties that might exist. I will be back in Sydney and can do that by video link or by telephone conference if that is necessary, but I think the position of what the Commission requires is reasonably clear. And I think, Mr Friend, the only issue that is extant in that respect in my mind is whether or not you are content that, to the extent that it is practicable, a manager will be travelling with the Commission member in the ambulance, but not a representative of the union. You see, there are natural justice considerations here, and I had in mind an objection by the union in due course that there was some denial of procedural fairness because the union representative was not accommodated in the ambulance.

PN310

MR FRIEND: Well, we would see the manager as travelling probably in the front seat, your Honour, and the member of the Commission with the paramedic, who will more likely than not I think be a union member, in the back.

PN311

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: We draw a distinction between a member and the union.

PN312

MR FRIEND: I understand that, your Honour.

PN313

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The union is the applicant.

PN314

MR FRIEND: I am trying to be practical and to not put obstacles in the way of the matter, and my learned friend has raised this issue because they want to address some concerns about privacy and what have you. We would accommodate that, but we want the Commission member to sit with the paramedic rather than with the manager.

PN315

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN316

MR FRIEND: The only other matter that has just been raised with me, your Honour, and I will just raise this now and my learned friend can consider it, we can talk about it tomorrow. It was suggested that the Commission, that those of you travelling to Bendigo stop at the Heathcote on call branch. We don't have any difficulty with that. I am told that it is a very light work load branch and rather a nicely appointed one. It may also be possible to stop at the Woodend branch, which is also on the way, briefly on the way back. As I say, I haven't raised that with my learned friend.

PN317

MR PARRY: This back seat, front seat, I don't think we are limiting. We should be saying what should be happening. I would understand the normal course to be - - -

PN318

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: No. There is a degree of flexibility required because we can't foresee what particular circumstances may arise, and I have made it clear that the view of the Bench is that patient care is not going to be compromised, and to the extent that the rear seats need to be occupied by two paramedics or by a paramedic and a relative, then the Commission member will not be travelling in the back seat.

PN319

MR PARRY: Yes. And on the way to the event I assume the normal course is that the two paramedics sit in the front of the ambulance, and we are assuming this is the normal practice. So on the way to the event, I am assuming that the two paramedics will do what they normally do, sit in the front. If the Commission pleases.

PN320

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes. Now, is there anything further that needs to be done now apart from delivering some brief reasons? Mr Friend?

PN321

MR FRIEND: No, your Honour.

PN322

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry?

PN323

MR PARRY: No, your Honour.

PN324

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you. I think as a matter of formality I should mark the documents that were handed up by Mr Friend. Do you have any objection to them being marked as exhibits, Mr Parry? Firstly, I take it there can be no objection to the three decisions that were handed up, should I say the two reports and one decision? Mr Parry, any objection?

PN325

MR PARRY: To the decisions?

PN326

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Yes.

PN327

MR PARRY: No, your Honour.

PN328

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Thank you. Collectively those two reports, the report of Commissioner MacIntyre in matter number 88/0637 in respect of hearing dates 11 April, 2, 12 13 and 19 May in 1988, the report of Commissioner MacIntyre in the same matter number of 20 February 1989, and the decision in print PO547.

EXHIBIT #1 REPORTS OF COMMISSIONER MACINTYRE IN 88/0637 RE HEARING DATES 11 APRIL, 2, 12, 13, 19 MAY 1988 AND 20 FEBRUARY 1989, AND DECISION IN PRINT P0547
EXHIBIT #2 PROCEDURES RE OBSERVERS FOR MAS AND RAV

PN329

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The Commission has before it an application pursuant to section 170MX of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. That application is consequent upon a termination of bargaining period made by Senior Deputy President Kaufman. The issue before the Commission today was whether or not there would be inspections by members of the Bench in this matter. The Metropolitan Ambulance Service and Rural Ambulance Victoria strongly opposed any inspections that involve the observation of treatment or interaction with patients and of evidence, statements or other actions by either staff or managers, and generally opposed the inspections.

PN330

Senior counsel for the Ambulance Services relied upon the decision of the High Court in Scott v Numurkah [1954] HCA 14; (1954) 91 CLR 300. We do not think that decision governs this matter or governs the issue of inspections in this case. We think it is distinguishable. This Bench is not proposing either collectively or the individual members by themselves to conduct any demonstration or experiment of the sort that was criticised in Scott v Numurkah, rather what is proposed by the members of this Bench is that there be inspections pure and simple.

PN331

In any event we note that the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence, and that the decision in Scott v Numurkah was concerned specifically with the rules of evidence in relation to views which may in fact be a narrower legal concept or concept of inspections under the Workplace Relations Act. Pursuant to section 110 of the Act the Commission is not bound by any rules of evidence and may inform itself in any matter in such matter as it considers just. It has long been the practice of the Commission to undertake inspections in appropriate cases, and there is a specific power conferred upon the Commission under section 134 to undertake inspections in any event.

PN332

Whilst I have not read the witness statements in this matter, I have skimmed several of them briefly, and it is apparent to me at any rate on the basis of that brief consideration of the evidence and, more particularly, from the considerations of document comparison of LHMU draft MX award and MAS draft MX award, which is the document behind tab one in volume one of Metropolitan Ambulance Service and Rural Ambulance Victoria witness statements. It is apparent from that document that there are a number of issues in dispute between the parties that will need to be resolved as part of this proceeding in respect of which the Commission, in its opinion as a specialist tribunal, considers that it would be appropriate to conduct an inspection so as to better understand the evidence or, more particularly, for the purpose of enabling the Commission to understand the questions that are being raised and to follow the evidence in a better fashion.

PN333

Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion we have determined that there ought be inspections, and the precise nature of what we have determined in that regard is as would appear from the transcript that precedes this brief outline of reasons. We note that this is a brief outline of reasons, and a more fulsome set of reasons will be provided if required in the final written decision in this matter. Finally, by way of reasons we note that the procedures of both the MAS and the RAV in exhibit 2 contemplate observers and provide for regulation in that regard. Yes, Mr Friend, anything further?

PN334

MR FRIEND: Nothing further, your Honour.

PN335

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: Mr Parry, anything further?

PN336

MR PARRY: No, if the Commission pleases.

PN337

VICE PRESIDENT LAWLER: The Commission is adjourned. To the extent that the parties are unable to agree upon the more precise details consistent with what has already been discussed, they can contact my associate, and then the matter can be listed for a telephone hearing or, alternatively, a video conference in Sydney. The Commission is adjourned.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [12.50PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #1 REPORTS OF COMMISSIONER MACINTYRE IN 88/0637 RE HEARING DATES 11 APRIL, 2, 12, 13, 19 MAY 1988 AND 20 FEBRUARY 1989, AND DECISION IN PRINT P0547 PN328
EXHIBIT #2 PROCEDURES RE OBSERVERS FOR MAS AND RAV PN328