AG2005/2686, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 495 (25 February 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 10561

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

AG2005/2686

s.170LJ - agreement with organisations of employees (division 2)

APPLICATION BY AUSPINE LIMITED AND ANOTHER
(AG2005/2686)

ADELAIDE

2.17PM, THURSDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2005

THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AND RECORDED IN ADELAIDE

PN1

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. I will start with some appearances please, perhaps starting in Adelaide.

PN2

MR R MORITZ: I appear on behalf of Auspine Ltd.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Moritz. And in Mt Gambier?

PN4

MR JONES: I am the Human Resources Manager of Auspine Ltd.

PN5

MR T LAWSON: I appear on behalf of the CFMEU.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, can I suggest that Mr Jones and Mr Lawson, you may wish to remain seated in this matter for two reasons. Number one, it's always a little uncomfortable standing up before a television camera and, secondly, when you do that we can't very much of your faces, so that this way we will at least be able to see your face if you sit down.

PN7

MR LAWSON: I thought I would have been short enough, Commissioner.

PN8

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you fare better than Mr Jones, Mr Lawson.

PN9

MR LAWSON: Okay, thank you, sir.

PN10

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can advise the parties that I have read the statutory declarations and I have read the agreement. Mr Moritz, the immediate question that arises is that it appears that the application was filed some 30 days outside the timeframe which is set in section 170LM of the Act. Can you tell me the reason for this on the premise that the parties want me to extend that timeframe, and can you also tell me whether or not there have been any changes in the makeup of the work force over that period of time?

PN11

MR MORITZ: Thank you, sir. I was prepared to address that particular issue. We would be seeking leave to have the statutory period or the time limit extended sir, in the circumstances, which are logistical in nature. The Kalangadoo site and other Auspine sites closed down for Christmas closedown on 17 December and effectively through to mid January. There was no one available either from the Auspine party or, as I understand it, from the CFMEU due to an unfortunate illness to one of the major players from the CFMEU office - I think Mr Lawson may be able to back me up on this - to the extent that it wasn't possible for the agreement itself to be signed until 17 January on Mr Jacobs's return to duty on that date, and the subsequent preparation of statutory declarations to the extent that the particular documentation was not finalised and forwarded to our officer in Adelaide, and did not reach us until 27 January. As to the issue of the document itself, there have been no changes, sir, in the contents of that document. It was purely, as I have mentioned, a matter of logistics and the unavailability of major parties.

PN12

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. The second question I was asking, Mr Moritz, was whether or not there were any changes in the makeup of the work force over that period of time?

PN13

MR MORITZ: No, sir, the work force was stable. There were 39 employees engaged at the Kalangadoo site at that time and there were no additional employees engaged in the intervening period.

PN14

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Thank you. Mr Lawson, can you confirm that explanation and the information provided to me by Mr Moritz?

PN15

MR LAWSON: Yes, I can confirm that 100 per cent, Commissioner.

PN16

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. On that basis, I will use the discretion provided in section 111(1)(r) of the Act so as to extend the timeframe for the lodgment of the application. Mr Moritz, I do not have any other questions about the process that was followed in the negotiation of this agreement. I do have some questions about the agreement itself. I am working from the premise, Mr Lawson, that you and Mr Jones both have copies of the agreement?

PN17

MR LAWSON: Yes, we do, sir.

PN18

MR JONES: Yes.

PN19

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am going to put some questions to Mr Moritz about the intention of the parties in reaching this agreement. My questions do not invite him to rewrite the document in any way. They simply go toward clarifying the intention of the parties about provisions which may become relevant to the certification process and matters that I would rather clarify now than regret doing so at some stage in the future. If you, Mr Jones or you, Mr Lawson want to add anything to any of Mr Moritz's answers, please feel free to do so.

PN20

MR LAWSON: Thank you, sir.

PN21

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you do not do so, I will assume there is agreement.

PN22

MR LAWSON: No worries.

PN23

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Moritz, can I refer you to clause 3.4. Can you simply clarify the intention of the parties in that regard?

PN24

MR MORITZ: 3.4 refers to the standard for this agreement and relevant awards incorporated into employment contracts. The employment contract, there is simply the letter of offer and acceptance by the relevant employees subject to employment at the Kalangadoo site.

PN25

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Now, clause 8.2.11 refers in sub-clause (b) to the Auspine HR Manual. Should I understand that that Human Resources Manual exists in a documented form, that it is readily available to employees and that it may be changed over the life of the agreement?

PN26

MR MORITZ: You are correct, sir, in that the Auspine HR Manual is a generic document applicable to all Auspine sites of which Kalangadoo is one. There may be variations to that manual during the life of this agreement, but any alteration of policy or practice would be referred to the Enterprise Consultative Committee, also referred to in the agreement. It is readily accessible at all sites and it is my understanding that all employees are aware of its existence.

PN27

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 8.5 details the dispute or grievance procedure. 8.5.6 says that if a matter cannot be resolved it shall be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation. I am taking it that that reflects, in effect, a grant of power consistent with section 170LW. But 8.5.7 continues to say that the parties agree to abide by recommendations and decisions of the Commission in such instances. The parties also agree that if either party believes a Commission decision errs at law, an application for leave to appeal may be lodged with the Commission. That second subclause is somewhat inconsistent with the concept of conciliation.

PN28

Bear in mind that I am not asking the parties to re-write the document, and hence the capacity to fundamentally restructure clause 8.5 does not exist. But I would invite you, Mr Moritz, to tell me how the employer intended those two particular clauses to operate with particular references to whether or not the employer intended that by virtue of 8.5.7 a matter that could not be resolved by conciliation would be referred to the Commission for arbitration.

PN29

MR MORITZ: Thank you, sir. I acknowledge the apparent inconsistency between the two subclauses. The intention of the parties on my instruction is that matters which are subject to dispute will initially be referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation and that any recommendations arising from that conciliation will be accepted by the particular parties. However, in the event that the matter is not satisfactorily resolved or leads to further issues which emerge from the initial dispute, the intention of this clause - although I accept it may not be clear from the framing of it in its current form - would be that to prevent any automatic referral of matters not resolved at conciliation to automatically go to arbitration. I believe that is the intent of the clause, sir. It is to prevent or to encourage both parties to continue to negotiate towards a mutually acceptable resolution of an issue rather than relying automatically on the Industrial Relations Commission imposing a particular decision upon them. I am also instructed that the intention of the parties is that in the event that it becomes necessary for a matter to be referred for arbitration that the parties will do so only by agreement.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN31

MR LAWSON: Commissioner, Travis Lawson here. What Bob has said there is entirely true. That was the full intention behind these two clauses, even though I'm aware now that there is some inconsistency there.

PN32

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 10 deals with employment related issues. 10.2 deals with equal opportunity and affirmative action. 10.2.2 proposes a continuation of an awareness training program. Should I understand that will occur over the life of the agreement?

PN33

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, that is the intention of that particular provision.

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 10.3 relates to labour hire. Mr Moritz, can I clarify two issues with you that both have their genesis in the Electrolux High Court decision. Should I read that clause such that it does not establish any contractual obligation on any party and in particular any organisation that was not a party to this agreement?

PN35

MR MORITZ: There has been some care applied in relation to matters which may go to the Electrolux matters, sir. The intention of this particular provision is to ensure that the company and its employees recognise the need for flexibility in terms of allocation of work, and that there may be occasions where it is necessary to supplement the existing workforce, having exhausted alternative sources of labour to do that. The intention of this provision is not to impose a particular formula or particular approach to that nor does it certainly address the issue of there being any sort of contractual obligation on any party which may subsequently be sought to provide that additional labour.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 10.4 relates to cross-function sites. How should I read this particular provision in the context of clause 3 of the agreement which establishes that the agreement has application only at the Kalangadoo site?

PN37

MR MORITZ: Sir, if I may, the cross-function site provision is intended to apply primarily for the temporary transfer and utilisation of available resources from another site. If it were the case that a Kalangadoo employee were to be transferred to meet a particular need, say at the quite nearby site at Tarpeena, that person would not suffer any disadvantage, and if it became necessary for that transfer to become a permanent one, the person would then be offered an alternative contract of employment and the Tarpeena arrangements which were in place would apply in those circumstances. Similarly, if a person were transferred from Tarpeena or from Portland or other nearby sites the same arrangements would apply.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, if I can take you back to that first instance though, should I then understand that notwithstanding the provisions of clause 3.1 of the agreement, clause 4 sets out an intention which may or may not be an enforceable intention?

PN39

MR MORITZ: I take that point, sir.

PN40

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A similar issue arises in relation to 10.6. That clause commences at 10.6.1(a) by saying:

PN41

The provisions of this clause shall apply to all employees of Auspine.

PN42

Should I understand that the parties intend that to be all the employees of Auspine at that Kalangadoo site?

PN43

MR MORITZ: That would be the intention and I think that is confirmed by Mr Jones. The disagreement was developed locally and the term Auspine is used in that context in relation to the preparation of these provisions.

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 11.3 relates to journey accident insurance. 11.3.2 references the policy, as such. Now, should I understand from the remaining components of that clause that the potential exists for an alteration to occur to that policy with that alteration potentially impacting on both the number of people covered by it and the extent and the duration of the coverage?

PN45

MR MORITZ: If I may, sir, if I could defer here to Mr Jones, who I understand has particular details relating to the journey accident provisions and in particular the policy coverage which has been negotiated for Auspine employees.

PN46

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Jones, can you help us in this regard?

PN47

MR JONES: My understanding is the only changes to the policy that would occur in the life of the agreement would be essentially the period of coverage and the renewal and the associated premium.

PN48

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. To what extent is the period of coverage currently an agreed item? You see, I am asking this question not so much from the perspective that this particular clause might or might not preclude certification because I don't think that the questions that I have about the clause would do so. However, experience has demonstrated that these types of insurance arrangements can be problematic. In the event of a difference of opinion over the amount or the duration of an insurance payment to an employee, if that payment is not made by the employer then the potential exists for a very complicated dispute to occur. It's to that effect that I am just trying to clarify specifically the extent to which changes in an agreed insurance arrangement may or may not occur.

PN49

MR JONES: That is a difficult one to answer, sir, again it hasn't been a policy that we have had - or many incidents that we have had where an employee has had to access the provisions of that policy. Of course there is an excess period required as well at the start of that policy, so I am not sure how to actually answer your question, sir.

PN50

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Well, to what extent then would it be possible for you and Mr Lawson to sit down and agree on how you see that particular clause 11.3 operating over the duration of the agreement, and then provide that information to me in a written form? I would then attach that to the Commission's file. Would that be a possible strategy?

PN51

MR MORITZ: We can certainly do that, sir.

PN52

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 11.4 refers to annualised wages. Mr Moritz, are you able to give me - let me rephrase that, I am working on the premise that that investigation and trial may occur within the life of this agreement.

PN53

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, such a trial would do.

PN54

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you able to give me an undertaking which would reflect a binding undertaking that the payment of any annualised wages would be assessed by the employer to ensure that it meets, in overall terms, all of the requirements of this particular agreement?

PN55

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, that has certainly been the pattern in the past and I am aware that the employer is fully conversant with the requirements of the no disadvantage test that will be run against this agreement and others in the organisation. Any alternative rate which might be developed in trial would take account of both the outcome of the proceedings today and also the provisions of the Act in that regard.

PN56

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 12 deals with hours of work. Clause 12.1 deals with shift arrangements. Should I understand that that research and indeed the implementation of that research may occur over the life of this agreement?

PN57

MR MORITZ: It's our anticipation that that would occur, sir, and that, before any such alternative shift arrangements were put in place, would be subject to the factors listed there for assessment, and also for negotiation through the enterprise consultative committee.

PN58

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 14.1.2 deals with a skill development and training plan. Should I understand that that skill development and training plan is the same plan which is referenced in clause 8.2.9?

PN59

MR JONES: Yes, that is the same plan.

PN60

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Clause 14.1.4 deals with training conditions, with particular reference to subclause (e). Should I understand that the Auspine travel policy is again a documented policy readily available to employees, and a policy which may be changed over the life of this agreement?

PN61

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, you are correct in that assumption.

PN62

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 15 deals with union related matters. I suspect, Mr Moritz, that this is another of the clauses that has been the subject of very deliberate wording on the part of the authors of this particular document. I have noted the definition of employee representative in clause 2 of the agreement. Is it the case that the right of entry provisions referenced in clause 15.1 are intended to apply to employee representatives who might be described as external representatives?

PN63

MR MORITZ: Precisely so, sir. The document itself recognises that employee representatives may be full time employees a lot of the time, or agents or members of associations who may from time to time be engaged from internal sources. The purpose of this clause is merely to facilitate their access to the particular site and to establish some minimum requirements in terms of their attendance.

PN64

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If 15.1 has that purpose then, can you tell me how 15.1 can be said to pertain to the employment relationship? You see, if the clause made it clear that the purpose of the right of entry referenced in that particular clause was related to the application of the agreement or, for instance, the resolution of disputes, then that would appear to be something that was beyond any substantive doubt, in that I could readily conclude that such a provision was ancillary to the dispute resolution provisions of the agreement.

PN65

The difficulty that I am having with clause 15.1, is that if I look at 15.1.1, it simply talks about a current practice. In that regard I am not sure that it's anything other than a nonsense provision. 15.1.2 seems to impose an obligation on the employee representatives or the union official and, I must say, I am struggling with the extent to which I can consider that to be a pertaining clause in its current form. It may be the case that I can be persuaded in that regard, and 15.1.3 once again appears to impose an obligation on that delegate or union official. You can answer my questions now, or you could, if you wish, given that Mr Lawson and Mr Jones have got a task to do, take that question away and ponder upon it, advising me in writing. If you go for that written option then I need to foreshadow to you that I would expect any document to be shared with Mr Lawson, such that if he also wishes to put in a document it will be exchanged with you too.

PN66

MR MORITZ: Yes, certainly, sir.

PN67

MR LAWLER: Commissioner, I believe that clause, or we believe that clause 15 and 15.1, and the other subsections that you have brought into question - - -

PN68

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am only dealing with 15.1 at the moment, Mr Lawson.

PN69

MR LAWLER: Okay. Well, the word, employee representative, has come from freedom of association under the act. That is in regards to if an employee on site wishes to even have his partner as a witness, being his wife, then she would have to abide by the OH&S policies and the requirements of the company to enter the site. It's just not referring to union representatives.

PN70

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That may well be the case, Mr Lawson, in which event it probably simply heightens the question that I have to Mr Moritz, and it also means that I would be fairly keen that the parties do confirm their collective understanding of what is meant by the words, employee representatives, in the context of that clause 15.1. It may be that you can persuade me that the clause does pertain, but I am simply indicating to you at this stage that you will need to do so.

PN71

MR MORITZ: Sir, conscious of the sensitivity of this particular issue, I think it's probably in Auspine's best interest if we undertake some further discussion with Mr Lawson and attempt to at least clarify the intent of that provision, which I acknowledge could be read in more than one context, and we would want to overcome that particular situation, if we possibly could in the easiest possible way.

PN72

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, Mr Lawson, you have got the same opportunity to put in either a collective response with Mr Moritz, or to put in a separate response. Bear in mind that in, effect, now I am raising two issues. The first is the extent to which the parties have a common understanding of the words, employee representatives, but the second is perhaps the more fundamental one, and that is the extent to which those provisions can be said to be matters pertaining to the relationship, or matters that are incidental or ancillary to a pertaining provision.

PN73

In contrast, I might say, if it helps the parties at all, that looking at the provisions of clause 15.2, which, I take it, fundamentally apply to the internal employee representative, that is, in other words a shop steward or a job delegate, I am satisfied that that clause can be said to be a provision which is incidental to other provisions of the agreement. In that regard I place particular significance on the provisions of 15.2.3, which limit activities and tie those activities back to matters pertaining.

PN74

MR MORITZ: Sir, if I may? I think I am recognising where you are coming from here, sir, and I think what we would attempt to do is to make a more specific reference to the purpose of any visit by an external employee representative, and to make a distinction between an external representative and the job delegate, or employee representative, that you have just alluded to.

PN75

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Moritz, what you do is your business at this stage, except that if you want to change the words in the agreement, then you will need to take it back to the employees.

PN76

MR MORITZ: No, that is entirely understood, sir.

PN77

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN78

MR MORITZ: In terms of providing the clarification I am just signalling - - -

PN79

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I am simply giving you the opportunity to demonstrate to me that 15.1 can be said to be either a matter pertaining in its own right, or a matter which is incidental or ancillary to a pertaining provision.

PN80

MR MORITZ: Yes, if that 15.1.2 were to be taken on its own, it would, I think, leave the reader to the understanding that it was referring to all employee representatives. That is not the intent. The intent is, of course, for any form of employee representative who may be engaged on any of the processes alluded to in the agreement, that would be in relation to the consultative process in particular and the dispute resolution process, to gain access. That is the clear intent of that provision, and as you yourself, sir, have pointed out, the local employee representatives who are on site, and don't require the same access processes, would be excluded from the consideration of 15.1.2. Perhaps, if I could just - - -

PN81

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The reality is that they are already in.

PN82

MR MORITZ: That is correct, sir, yes. That is my point, that they are already there, so that they don't require to sign in, and be particularly aware of OH&S requirements whether it's an ongoing part of their - - -

PN83

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It may be that you can rely on that definition of employee representative in clause 2, but I will leave that as a question for you to ponder upon, Mr Moritz.

PN84

MR MORITZ: Certainly, sir, and rather than undertake that particular task at the moment, I think would be in both parties' interests if we could come to some understanding as you have suggested.

PN85

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I should also note that in case the parties were wondering, I have no question of the provisions of clause 15.4. It appears to me that that clause is capable of being clearly linked back to the dispute resolution provisions of the agreement. Clause 16 relates to no extra claims and no precedent. 16.3 relates to the precedent issue. It says that:

PN86

This agreement will not be used as a precedent for any other agreement in Auspine or the timber industry.

PN87

There are two possibilities here that I can foresee, and once again, the parties might want to ponder upon this particular provision. It may be that the parties say to me that the clause is a nonsense, it is unenforceable, and it has no binding effect or obligation, such that I should not regard it as a meaningful provision of the agreement. If, however, the parties say that the clause has relevance, and reflects a binding commitment, then you will need to explain to me how it is that an obligation imposed, presumably on parties outside of this agreement, can be said to pertain to the relationship of Auspine and its employees.

PN88

I don't expect an answer to that question now. There are no prizes for guessing the majority of parties in this situation generally say that the clause is a nonsense, but it's a matter that the parties may want to consider in this instance.

PN89

MR MORITZ: See, my first inclination is to say that the clause is a nonsense, but I'll resist that temptation and undertake to speak with Mr Lawson and the CFMEU or/and employee reps on site before we respond to that.

PN90

MR LAWSON: No, I would agree with Bob there, Commissioner, it is a nonsense, and Mr Jones and myself have an excellent relationship and I am sure we would be able to reach agreement in regards to staff in a document outside of this enterprise bargaining agreement.

PN91

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Appendix 2 relates to a counselling and warning procedure, I just have a question of clarification, under the heading of Confidentiality, reference is made to, any outside persons, should I take it that outside persons are people who are not employees of Auspine?

PN92

MR MORITZ: The reference there is to anyone not - any outside person may be a person outside Auspine, but this also refers to any person outside the particular process which is being conducted at that particular time, so it has a dual meaning.

PN93

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, thank you. Clause 4.10 relates to decision making. 4.10.3 states that:

PN94

If the committee is unable to reach a decision on a matter, it may be referred to the state branch of the union and senior management for resolution. If no resolution is achievable normal industrial relations procedures will apply.

PN95

Mr Moritz and Mr Lawson, are you both able to give me undertakings that the consideration of any non-agreed matter by the union and by senior management will apply irrespective of whether or not an employee is a member of a union?

PN96

MR LAWSON: Sorry, Commissioner, what clause are we looking at?

PN97

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am looking at clause 4.10.3, Mr Lawson, in appendix B.

PN98

MR LAWSON: Sorry for that.

PN99

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, it's appendix 4.

PN100

MR LAWSON: May I have the question again, please?

PN101

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The clause envisages that a non-agreed matter will be referred to the state branch of the union and to senior management for resolution, I am seeking an undertaking that in their consideration of any such issue, senior management and the union, will ensure that employees are treated equally irrespective of whether or not they are a member of the union.

PN102

MR LAWSON: Yes, of course, Commissioner.

PN103

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Moritz, can you give me that undertaking?

PN104

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, I can.

PN105

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. That concludes the questions that I have, Mr Moritz. How long will the parties need to come back to me in this matter?

PN106

MR MORITZ: I would needed to be guided by Mr Lawson's availability, but certainly, I would be available, and I understand Mr Jones would also be available, certainly to have a response, if not by the end of this week, by Monday at the latest.

PN107

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. If I gave you a little latitude and suggested that within a fortnight the parties should provide me with a response.

PN108

MR MORITZ: Yes, that would be the most acceptable answer.

PN109

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you happy with that approach, Mr Lawson?

PN110

MR LAWSON: Yes, a fortnight would be good, Commissioner, because I have to travel to Melbourne next week for my organising work, so I have got all day tomorrow free, and then I will be back next Thursday, and Mr Jones and myself will catch up again if need be.

PN111

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. In the event that I am provided with responses that clarify the issues that I have raised, such that I can certify the agreement, it will be certified from the date upon which I receive that material. The certificate that would then be issued would detail the various clauses about which I have sought clarification, but it will not identify or record the answers that are retained on the transcript. In the event that I am not able to certify the agreement on the basis of the information provided to me, I will either call the matter back on if I consider that appropriate, or simply outline to the parties the reasons for my concern. Are you happy with that approach, Mr Moritz?

PN112

MR MORITZ: Yes, sir, that is fine.

PN113

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Lawson, are you happy with that approach?

PN114

MR LAWSON: Yes, Commissioner, sir.

PN115

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Jones, have you got any questions about that approach?

PN116

MR JONES: No, that is fine.

PN117

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. The only other comment that I will make is that the question that I have asked the parties to address me on, relative to clause 15, has the potential to be impacted upon by a decision, an appeal decision, which presumably will be handed down at some stage in the foreseeable future. In the event that that changed the basis of the question, such that I needed to seek further information from the parties, I would alert you to that possibility.

PN118

MR MORITZ: Thank you, sir.

PN119

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, I will adjourn the matter on that basis.

<ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.57PM]