|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts |
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Workplace Relations Act 1996 16167-1
DEPUTY PRESIDENT IVES
C2006/2974
BOVIS LEND LEASE PTY LIMITED
AND
CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
s.170LW -prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
(C2006/2974)
MELBOURNE
10.16AM, TUESDAY, 21 NOVEMBER 2006
Continued from 12/9/2006
PN1
MR R DALTON: I seek leave to appear for the applicant.
PN2
MS E WALTERS: I appear for the CFMEU. In relation to any change in appearance, with me, M Brown.
PN3
MR E QUIGLEY: I appear for the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner who's given notice of intervention in the matter, your Honour.
PN4
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Mr Dalton, I think the matter seems to me to be a fairly narrow one. It really comes down, I think, to whether or not there was an existing project or whether the project, the subject of the hearing, is a new one. So if that is agreed, then I'm not really in the mood to listen to long opening speeches, unless there is some particular reason you want to give me one.
PN5
MR DALTON: Your Honour, I think it's even narrower than that because I don’t think it's in dispute that the Ericsson building works was not something that was existing at the time that - - -
PN6
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I'm not talking about whether the Ericsson works particularly were an existing project, but whether or not there was an existing project of which the Ericsson works form part, was really what I was referring to.
PN7
MR DALTON: Yes, your Honour. What I'm trying to say is the actual issue in dispute is just simply whether the Ericsson building works is a project because - - -
PN8
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It may not get to that, Mr Dalton. The point of saying what I said is that I don't necessarily think that there's a great need for us to get into extensive opening submissions, if any at all. We could move, in my view, directly to witness evidence unless you have a different view of that.
PN9
MR DALTON: Well, if your Honour has read the materials then I wish to call evidence.
PN10
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have done.
MR DALTON: I call Stephen Broadhead.
<STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD, SWORN [10.20AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON
PN12
MR DALTON: Mr Broadhead, could you state for the transcript record your full name and your work address?---Stephen Mark Broadhead. Level 32, 140 William Street, Melbourne.
PN13
You're employed by Bovis Lend Lease as the Industrial Relations Manager?
---Yes.
PN14
And you've held that position since the start of 2003?---Yes.
PN15
You've prepared a statement for this proceeding?---Yes.
PN16
Have you got a copy of that with you?---Yes.
PN17
Is that statement, with the 11 attachments, your statement to this proceeding?
---Yes.
PN18
Is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes.
PN19
I tender that.
PN20
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. The tender is inclusive of 11 attachments, Mr Dalton, that's correct?
MR DALTON: Yes, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #BL1 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD WITH ATTACHMENTS
PN22
MR DALTON: Mr Broadhead, could I take you to paragraph 14 of your statement. It's there that you're referring to site allowances having been set in accordance with the procedure in clause 40 of the VBIA and you've attached that clause at attachment 3 of your statement and you go on to say that the site allowance was based on the location within the CB or on project value, what do you mean by that?---The site allowance was based on location as the site allowance clause, it's got a section in it which talks about a zone in Melbourne which encompasses a certain value of projects. I think it was 2.1 million up to about 170 million, or on the project value that meant that if it went over that capped value, then you would refer to a scale.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XN MR DALTON
PN23
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, can I just interrupt you for a second, Mr Dalton. I don't know whether it's an issue, but there's been no request for an order excluding witnesses. I'm not sure whether there are any in the court room anyway that you intend to call, Ms Walters?
PN24
MS WALTERS: No, your Honour, there aren't currently.
PN25
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right, thank you. Go ahead, Mr Dalton.
PN26
MR DALTON: Your Honour, I'm going to get more copies of coloured map of the area that may assist your Honour in finding out what particular areas we're talking about. At this stage I've only got two. Perhaps I'll give one to the CFMEU and the witness and I'll leave that with your Honour once the witness has finished with it.
PN27
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure.
PN28
MR DALTON: Now, I've handed you four pages, A3 pages. Could you go through each one, page 1 through to 4 and describe what they depict?---The first one depicts the entire Docklands area with the various sections coloured differently to show the different developers or developments.
PN29
Yes. And the next page?---The next one is one that shows Victoria Harbour primarily. It's a current one that shows the National Australia Bank being completed. It shows Dock 5 being completed and it has pictorial descriptions of future works to be done. It's a little bit different to the last one. The last one is an older version and this is a newer version, the next one.
PN30
How do you account for the differences between the older version and the newer version?---Looking at the Victoria Harbour site, the National Australia Bank building originally was three sections very similar. It's now - what's currently being built is two sections are similar and the next section is actually the Ericsson building. Also it's got a pictorial of the ANZ Bank proposal in the bottom right hand corner, whereas it wasn't shown on the original drawing and there's a couple of other things where the park in the middle has been expanded and it's got various changes to mariners on the outside.
PN31
Page 3?---Page 3 looks like a stick drawing of the separation of the sites. It shows the different projects that are there to be - are proposed. It shows National Australia Bank as one project, V1. It shows V2 as a separate project. It shows V3 where Dock 5 is and it combines C3 and C4, which is a current proposal that they're working on.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XN MR DALTON
PN32
Page 4?---Page 4 looks like a - it's a smaller section of the Victoria Harbour project down the end where the majority of the work is going on currently and it's not very reflective of what's - or some places, it's reflective of what's going on, some places it's not. The National Australia Bank is fairly accurate. Dock 5 is accurate, but the C3, C4 is not very accurate and the place where the Mosaic building is not very accurate, or the ANZ area. So it's an older one.
PN33
All right. Now, paragraph 55 of your statement, this is in the section where you are dealing with the Ericsson building, you say that - - -
PN34
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Paragraph?
PN35
MR DALTON: 55, your Honour.
PN36
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
PN37
MR DALTON: "When the price for the project was being put together in late April 2006", what do you mean by that?---Bovis Lend Lease was asked to put together a guaranteed maximum price for a development down at Victoria Harbour on behalf of Lend Lease Development. So we put together a price which broke down the scope of works, set of drawings, specifications and we allocated cost of material, cost of labour, cost of prelims and supervision alongside that to submit a guaranteed maximum price to Lend Lease Development.
PN38
This is the Ericsson building?---Yes.
PN39
And when you say we, who is putting that together?---Bovis Lend Lease staff.
PN40
Now, work commenced on the project when at the Ericsson building?---Early '06, May '06, May/June, yes.
PN41
Describe the site for us?---It was a - before we got there to do the Ericsson project it was a public car park. It was asphalt - - -
PN42
And it was next to the NAB building?---Next to the National Australia Bank building, yes. It was asphalt and it had an electrical substation on there that we had to demolish and it had a number of services going through the ground that we had to remove and relocate.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XN MR DALTON
PN43
Now, did it have a particular allotment description or something?---I'm not sure of its allotment description. It was originally and going to be - was up for use by National Australia Bank, when National Australia Bank built their building.
PN44
Yes, and is that what we see on page 1 of the map with the three buildings?---Yes, that's what we see on page 1, is you've got the three buildings where in actual fact National Australia Bank - - -
PN45
Which were allocated to NAB?---Yes, to National Australia Bank, those three areas. The first two were done, then they had an option to do the next section which they didn't take up.
PN46
They didn't take up?---No
PN47
All right. Go to page 2 of your map. Is that showing the situation now
or - - - ?---Similar, yes.
PN48
So go back to - having got the car park cleared and the electrical substation out of the way, what does the site now look like?---Initially we put up fences to protect it, to separate the area.
PN49
Where were the fences?---Around the boundary, the proposed boundary, put the fences up and then did the demolition work inside the fence.
PN50
Who's working on that site?---Currently?
PN51
Yes, does Bovis Lend Lease employ anyone?---Yes. We got subcontractors we employ, so Bovis Lend Lease has a team of staff down there working on the project administering.
PN52
Then you have subcontractors?---Subcontractors executing the works.
PN53
At paragraph 55 of your statement, the second part of that paragraph you say, "I was involved in discussions about the site allowance
that would apply." Who did you have those discussions with, what discussions are you referring to there?
---Internally with the project manager we were discussing the cost of our labour on the project and what site allowance would e
applicable to our labour. We have a certain amount of construction workers on the project and we needed to cost a forecast cost
on what their expense would be and part of that what would be the site allowance component.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XN MR DALTON
PN54
Now, in your statement you refer to the consent recommendation made by Commissioner Tolley in late 2000 which granted a site allowance of $3.30 for three years. Could you explain to his Honour, if one were to apply that particular allowance, what would its value be today?---Originally it was $3.30 indexed, I think, from 2003 onwards, October 2003 - - -
PN55
So it was fixed for three years under the recommendation for three years?---Yes, it was fixed for three years and then it - - -
PN56
Then from late 2003?---Yes, October 2003, there was a CPI increase and it increased and each year thereafter it increased and it took it up or down to the nearest five cents and I think from my calculation that the cost now would be about $3.70.
PN57
What site allowance do you say is applicable for the Ericsson work?---$3.25 according to our JDA.
PN58
Just explain to his Honour exactly how you come to that figure?---Our JDA has a clause - - -
PN59
Your Honour, the provision is attached to Mr Broadhead's statement, if you've got that marked.
PN60
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I've got it.
PN61
MR DALTON: Thanks, your Honour?---On schedule 1 the site allowance applicable from 1 October for new projects in the City of Melbourne.
PN62
What clause are you looking at, clause 5?---Clause 5.1, City of Melbourne.
PN63
Yes, City of Melbourne?---New projects, $3.10 per hour worked, and then - - -
PN64
What's the value of this project, you say I think 70 something?---73 million, I think, 72 million or 73 million.
PN65
So it's in the 2.1 to 71.9, $3.10 per hour worked?---Yes.
PN66
What's it current value with the CPI and the rounding off?---That was October '04, so it's '05/06, $3.25 is what the calculation is now.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XN MR DALTON
PN67
So $3.70 versus $3.75, is that correct?---Yes.
PN68
And that's comparing it with the Tolley recommendation. So we'll just deal with that 45 cent differential, are you in a position to tell his Honour roughly what that equates to in terms of additional cost for the project and how you'd come to calculate?---If you work out a rough estimate of cost allocation compared to material allocation on the cost of a project, it's roughly 60 per cent labour, 40 per cent material. Taking that cost into account you can work out the number of man hours and then from that you can multiply it by the 45 cents that would be applicable. It comes up to around about 370,000.
PN69
That's for this building?---This Ericsson project.
PN70
Not including any other buildings you might get at Victoria Harbour?---That's right.
PN71
Have you got any other buildings at the moment that you're working on?---Yes, we're working on C3, C4 project.
PN72
What's being built there?---It's about a 60 million dollar development for a Safeway shopping centre and some associated retail and some commercial, six level commercial building and child - - -
PN73
When did you win that building job?---That got approval about two months ago.
PN74
No more questions, thank you.
PN75
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Quigley?
MR QUIGLEY: No questions, your Honour.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS [10.35AM]
PN77
MS WALTERS: Mr Broadhead, can I take you to paragraph 7 of your statement?
PN78
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, before you go further forward, Ms Walters. Mr Dalton, those maps, did you intend to tender those into evidence?
PN79
MR DALTON: I do, yes, your Honour, and it's convenient to do that now and I'll provide - perhaps if your Honour could keep those unless Ms Walters wants to deal with the witness by reference to those maps, and as I said, we'll provide further copies when they come a little later this morning.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN80
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sure. Did you need to refer to those at all, Ms Walters? If so, I'll leave them with the witness for the time being.
PN81
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, I think I will do so, so, yes.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll mark them now in the event as BL2.
EXHIBIT #BL2 THREE MAPS
PN83
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, I might indicate at this point in time I do understand one of the witnesses in these proceedings has entered the room. It would be appropriate that - - -
PN84
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you'd be seeking an order? Yes. Yes, Mr Cross, perhaps you could find yourself a chair somewhere outside, thank you.
PN85
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, I've just handed to Mr Dalton and to Mr Quigley and about to hand up to yourself and the witness, what is the Melbourne Docklands Authority Construction Code of Practice. If the witness could have a couple of minutes to have a look at that.
PN86
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Perhaps if you took the witness specifically to where you want to take him to.
PN87
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, it's just certainly that I want to give the opportunity for the witness to have a brief look at the document. I certainly don't need him to go through in any detail, I certainly don't intend to take the witness through the document. I just ask the witness a few questions in relation to its existence per se.
PN88
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN89
MS WALTERS: Mr Broadhead, you've had a brief look at the document?---Yes.
PN90
Are you familiar with the document, Mr Broadhead?---Not familiar with it, no.
PN91
You've never seen that before?---I've seen it before. I'm not familiar. I've seen it, but I'm not aware of its total contents.
PN92
But you are aware of the existence of the Code of Practice in relation to all works that are carried on at the Docklands specific project areas?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN93
And that you're required in any construction work to comply with that Code of Practice?---Yes.
PN94
I refer you to paragraph 7 of your witness statement and paragraph 8 of your witness statement where you state that each project has specific site, safety plans and management procedures, et cetera. You'd agree that they're also required to comply with that Code of Practice, correct?---The Code of Practice would be a guideline, yes, and we'd try to comply with it where we could.
PN95
What would happen, Mr Broadhead, if you didn't?---You'd probably have discussions with the Docklands Authority for any changes.
PN96
Changes to what, Mr Broadhead?---To your site safety plan if it wasn't in conjunction with that.
PN97
Right. To amend the site safety plan to comply with the Code of Practice?---Or to vary it.
PN98
In your experience has the Code of Practice been varied?---Not that I know of, no.
I might seek to tender that, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #CFMEU1 MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION CODE OF PRACTICE
PN100
MS WALTERS: Mr Broadhead, can I take you to paragraph 12 to your statement. You say in 2003 the VBIA was first incorporated into the national Bovis Lend Lease agreement, that's correct?---Yes.
PN101
And the VBIA you refer to is the - which VBIA is it, Mr Broadhead?---The 2000 to 2005 version.
PN102
Mr Broadhead, you're involved in negotiations for what's referred to as the JDA Mark VI, correct?---Yes.
PN103
Were you involved in negotiations for Mark V also?---No, not that I know of.
PN104
Mr Broadhead, could I take you to paragraph 17 of your witness statement or, indeed, 15, 16 and 17 when you deal with the commencement of work on Arkley Tower. When did work commence on the Arkley Tower?---About April 2000.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN105
About April, mid, late, early?---I think mid, I think.
PN106
What do you mean by when did construction work commence?---That was when we started down there to do the Arkley Tower. We had some demolition work to do down there to start with.
PN107
So you performed demolition work?---Yes.
PN108
What did you do prior to performing demolition work?---We did planning in the office.
PN109
Which office?---Our head office at 140 William Street.
PN110
Planning for what, Mr Broadhead?---Programming, tendering and planning the job. Procurement.
PN111
I take you - you've given evidence-in-chief in relation to the commencement of work on the Ericsson building. When did the fences go up prior to the commencement of demolition work at Arkley Tower?---The fences went up there just prior to commencement of demolition.
PN112
When was that?---That would have been the week before we started.
PN113
When was that?---Mid April, from my recollection, it was five years ago.
PN114
You put the fences up in mid April prior to commencing demolition work in mid April, is that your evidence?---Yes.
PN115
And when were site sheds and amenities constructed or - - - ?---At the same time. Generally the fences and amenities go up at the same time.
PN116
It's your evidence that they went up in mid April, is that correct?---Yes. That's my recollection. It was five years ago, six years ago.
PN117
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So it's mid April 2005 you're talking about?
---Yes.
PN118
MS WALTERS: Now, Mr Broadhead, when work commenced on that
very - when it first commenced on Arkley Tower, did you employ Bovis Lend Lease employees and construction workers?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN119
And they were bound by the JDA Mark III, correct?---Yes.
PN120
Mr Broadhead, the JDA3, did it have a Victorian appendix?---No.
PN121
Mr Broadhead, you refer in paragraph 22 of your statement to the compact?
---Yes.
PN122
Were you involved in the negotiation of the compact?---No.
PN123
But Bovis Lend Lease was involved in the negotiation of the compact?---Yes.
PN124
And who from Bovis Lend Lease?---Brian Maloney. No longer works with us.
PN125
You've exhibited a copy of the compact to your statement at SMB4?---Yes.
PN126
Can I take you to page 10 of your exhibit. Can you read what it says to the Commission?---Page 10?
PN127
Docklands?---"All new Docklands projects are to be in accordance with the new calendar of working arrangements and the new scale of site allowances attached. Existing projects at Docklands are to remain unchanged regarding site allowances and working hours."
PN128
Now, you'd agree, Mr Broadhead, that negotiations in relation to the applicable site allowance at the MAB development commenced prior to the commencement of any work on that project? Negotiations for the applicable site allowance commenced prior to the commencement of any work on the Arkley Tower, that's correct, isn't it?---Not from my point of view.
PN129
Mr Broadhead, prior to the commencement of work on the Arkley Tower, a site office, work was commenced on that, is that correct, at the Docklands?---At the same time, yes.
PN130
At the same time?---As we started work there.
PN131
Sorry, to be clear, Mr Broadhead, not the site office in reference to the Arkley Tower but indeed prior to the commencement of work
on the MAB development, there was an overall planning office developed at the Docklands, is that correct?
---There was a display suite.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN132
Display suite, correct?---Sorry. Now I'm with you.
PN133
And that commenced prior to work on the Arkley Tower, correct?---It was there when we got there.
PN134
And you were involved in negotiations at the commencement of construction of the display suite with Mr Oliver?---No, not at the display suite.
PN135
Weren't you?---No. No, the display suite was built, I think, by MAB. We didn't build the display suite.
PN136
At the display suite, Mr Broadhead, you had negotiations with Mr Oliver of the CFMEU in relation to the application site allowance for the MAB development at commencement there?---After commencement of MAB, yes.
PN137
Those discussions occurred prior to commencement of work on Arkley Tower, Mr Broadhead, didn't they?---No. We'd started work on Arkley.
PN138
You'd agree, Mr Broadhead, that following proceedings in the Commission the site allowance, the parties agreed that the applicable site allowance for works to be carried out at the MAB would be paid at $3.30 fixed for three years and then indexed, correct?---That was the decision of Tolley, yes, Commissioner Tolley.
PN139
And so, indeed, long after the decision of Commissioner Tolley on the basis of location of works carried out by Bovis Lend Lease, Bovis Lend Lease played the site allowance as prescribed by that decision?---Yes.
PN140
That is, you agreed that if the construction of an individual building allotment was within the area defined as the MAB development, you paid that site allowance, correct?---We just continued that along.
PN141
You just continued it?---Yes.
PN142
You paid that site allowance?---Yes.
PN143
I take you to paragraph 34 of your statement, Mr Broadhead?
PN144
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 34 you said, Ms Walters?
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN145
MS WALTERS: Yes. So in September 2003, Mr Broadhead, Bovis won the contract to build the Conder project at the MAB development?---Yes.
PN146
And you'd agree that any works carried on on that on what you refer to as the Conder project, or Conder building were carried out under the auspices of the JDA Mark V?---Yes.
PN147
And you've exhibited JDA Mark V to your statement, it's SMB2?---Yes.
PN148
And it incorporates, in respect to work being carried out in Victoria, the Victorian Building Industry Agreement 2000-2005, that's correct, isn't it?---Yes.
PN149
And you've exhibited to your statement at SMB3 clause 40 of the 2000-2005 VBIA, that's correct?---Yes.
PN150
Can I take you to clause 40.7 of that exhibit?---Yes.
PN151
And it states, in fact just before clause 40.8, that all new Docklands projects to be in accordance with the new scale of allowances, existing projects at Docklands remain unchanged regarding site allowance and working hours?---Yes.
PN152
That's correct. So you recognised the MAB development as an existing project, correct?---The MAB development, yes, it was an existing development.
PN153
You recognised it as an existing project?---As an existing development.
PN154
Yes, an existing project. For the purposes of that clause?---Well, it was an existing development.
PN155
Yes, but in accordance with 40.7 then you applied the allowance of $3.30 indexed at that point in time, correct?---I didn't apply it. At that time I wasn't in the position I'm in. At that time I was on holidays, I think.
PN156
You were on holidays - - - ?---No, no, sorry, I was there.
PN157
In September 2003?---Sorry, no, no.
PN158
Well, in fact, after - I presume a couple of months after?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN159
So were you on holidays in September/October 2003?---I can't remember if I was on holidays then or just before Christmas. It would be just before Christmas, yes.
PN160
September/October 2003?---I'd have to check. I'm not sure if I was on holidays or not. I don't remember exactly when.
PN161
Can I take you to paragraph 34 of your witness statement, Mr Broadhead?---Yes.
PN162
Where you state that "We once again applied the $3.30 site allowance as it was located in the MAB development"?---Yes.
PN163
So were you on holidays or were you not on holidays?---I said I'm not sure whether I was on holidays.
PN164
Right. But put aside whether you were on holiday at the time, you agree that you applied to the Conder building for site allowance of 3.30?---Yes.
PN165
On the basis that it was an existing project for the purposes of that clause?---We applied it on the basis that it was what we paid on previous projects there, so we just applied the same thing again to avoid any disputation.
PN166
And that was because you recognised it as an existing project?---We applied it to avoid disputation. We didn't look at whether it was an existing project or not at the time.
PN167
So your evidence-in-chief, Mr Broadhead, is that prior to the commencement of work on the Ericsson building you had a number of internal
discussions, and I can take you to the paragraph, at paragraph 56 and you were questioned by Mr Dalton in relation to it, that you
had discussions with internal relevant managerial staff, administration staff, et cetera, within Bovis Lend Lease as to the appropriate
site allowance to apply on the Ericsson building, that's correct, that's your evidence?
---Yes, paragraph 55.
PN168
Yes, paragraph 55. So are you saying you didn't do that, Mr Broadhead, in relation to the Conder building?---No.
PN169
You had no discussions internally as a manager of IR responsible for the implementation of the industrial instruments with personnel of Bovis Lend Lease as to the site allowance that will apply on the project, the Conder building?---Yes, we did and we said, let's just leave the site allowance the same to avoid disputation.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN170
You didn't refer to the industrial agreement, the JDA Mark V?---Not at that time.
PN171
And those discussions you never referred to that agreement or the VBIA that applied by virtue of it?---No, we didn't.
PN172
So in determining what site allowance to apply on the Conder building you didn't examine the industrial instrument which you were required to comply, is that what your evidence is?---We were aware of it.
PN173
So were you aware of - - - ?---And we chose to pay $3.30 or the indexed scale of $3.30 to avoid disputation.
PN174
What were you aware of, Mr Broadhead?---We were aware of our JDA. We were aware of the VBIA.
PN175
But you didn't examine it or apply it?---No.
PN176
Is your evidence that you didn't apply it to the Conder building?---No. We applied the $3.30 indexed allowance.
PN177
So you didn't apply to the performance of works, the construction of the Conder project, the JDA Mark V, that's your evidence?---We chose - we were working under JDA V, yes. We chose to apply the $3.30 decision to avoid disputation. We chose to do that.
PN178
Not because it complied with the - - -
PN179
MR DALTON: Well, your Honour, he's answered the question. I'm not sure how many different ways it can be asked, but he's given the same evidence.
PN180
MS WALTERS: I'll move on, your Honour.
PN181
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Broadhead, were you of a view at the time that a different project allowance applied than the one you paid on the Conder project?---At the time I was aware that the decision from Commissioner Tolley had - the extent of what Commissioner Tolley's decision was put about, the project had developed beyond that. I was aware of that.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN182
I'm not sure you're answering my question. Were you of a view at the time that a different project allowance applied than the one which you paid which was the indexed $3.30?---At the time I was unsure as to the exact answer to that. I was unsure as to whether it was - should go back to the Melbourne CBD allowance or whether the Tolley - the Commissioner Tolley decision would apply. I was unsure at that time.
PN183
Thank you.
PN184
MS WALTERS: Mr Broadhead, can I just confirm, in answering the question put to you by his Honour you stated that prior to the commencement of the Conder building you weren't sure whether the MAB, the decision of Commissioner Tolley, applied?---Whether it still applied?
PN185
Right, and you confirmed - - - ?---Whether it was still relevant.
PN186
You sought advice as to whether it applied or not?---I don't think I did seek advice.
PN187
You just decided to pay the allowance?---Yes.
PN188
So if I can take you to paragraph 36 of your statement, Mr Broadhead. The National Australia Bank was the first building to be constructed at Victoria Harbour, that's correct?---Yes.
PN189
And prior to the commencement of the NAB building there were discussions between the CFMEU senior officials and, indeed, the other, what's referred to as building union, ETU, Electrical Trades Union and the CEPU, the plumbing division, that's correct?---I'm not aware of those.
PN190
Are you aware of the Building Industry Group, Mr Broadhead?---Yes.
PN191
Who makes up the Building Industry Group?---Unions from Trades Hall Council. I understand the CFMEU, CEPU, ETU and AMWU, I think.
PN192
You've exhibited at SMB9 a letter from Stephen Hay, Steve Hay to Brian Boyd as chair of the Building Industry Group, that's correct?---Yes.
PN193
And Steve Hay was your predecessor, IR Manager?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN194
Back on 8 November 2001 were you employed by Bovis Lend Lease, Mr Broadhead?---Yes.
PN195
What role were you performing?---General Foreman on the Arkley, Boyd and Palladio Towers.
PN196
Had they been completed by 8 November 2001?---No. They were under construction.
PN197
Now, at SMB10 there's a letter dated 21 November 2001 and it's addressed to Brian Boyd?---SMB9?
PN198
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think SMB10 is actually transcript, Ms Walters.
PN199
MS WALTERS: I may have, in compiling my folder - I thought - SMB9 includes the 21 November letter?---Yes.
PN200
Right. My mistake, I apologise. And the letter of 8 November?---Yes.
PN201
It's addressed to Brian Boyd you will agree from Steve Hay in the capacity of Construction Manager, correct?---Yes.
PN202
Of 21 November. Can I take you to paragraph 1 of that letter?---8 November?
PN203
No, 21 November, paragraph - it's indicated, it's numerically indicated, paragraph 1?---Yes.
PN204
It's actually the fourth paragraph down of the letter of 21 November?---Yes.
PN205
SMB9. It says, "Bovis Lend Lease is prepared to adopt the projects at Victoria Harbour, Docklands' site allowance in decision of Commissioner Tolley." 3.30 per hour because it's in 2001, so it's not subject to the CPI index, you agree, but it will be following, correct?---1 October 2002?
PN206
That reflects the agreement reached by Bovis Lend Lease and the building industry unions in relation to work at Victoria Harbour, correct?---That's what this letter says, yes.
PN207
Yes, and you will agree, 2001, that in accordance with the JDA III, Mr Broadhead, that clause 40.7 of the VBIA applied, that's correct?---JDA III?
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN208
In 2001 - sorry, JDA IV, Mr Broadhead?---JDA IV, I'd have to get a copy of it to see if it included it or not. Not off the top of my head.
PN209
But you'd agree as per the letter of paragraph 1 where it indicates as per the VBIA, that's the Victorian Building Industry Agreement 2000-2005?---Where are you reading from, sorry?
PN210
The numerically indicated paragraph 1, it's the fourth paragraph down on the letter of 21 November?---Yes. It will be indexed as per CPI - indexed by CPI as per VBIA.
PN211
So you agree that the VBIA 2000-2005 applied to any programmed works at Victoria Harbour at that point in time?---This letter says that, yes.
PN212
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But what are you saying, Mr Broadhead, that you are not sure whether the agreement at the time actually incorporated
the VBIA?
---I wasn't a party to this letter, I wasn't doing the role at the time.
PN213
I understand that, but are you now saying that without checking, you are not sure whether the national agreement that you have at
the time incorporated the VBIA?
---The national agreement, I think incorporated the VBIA at JDA V.
PN214
Right. So the answer to my question is, you're not sure whether it did at the time that that letter was written?---No, not sure.
PN215
Thank you.
PN216
MS WALTERS: Dock 5 is a building, as you've indicated on your - did we tender and mark the maps, your Honour?
PN217
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, we did, as BL2, Ms Walters.
PN218
MS WALTERS: Thank you, your Honour.
PN219
You've referred to the Dock 5 building in terms of its physical location in BL2 and also in your statement. When exactly did works
commence on Dock 5?
---June '04.
PN220
In June '04, Mr Broadhead, you were manager of IR at BL, Bovis Lend Lease?
---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN221
You'll agree that the Mark V agreement applied?---Yes.
PN222
And prior to the commencement of the project did you consider the appropriate site allowance to be paid by BLL on the project?---Similar to the Conder project.
PN223
Well - - - ?---We chose to continue the existing allowance across from the National Australia Bank building. It was a similar situation.
PN224
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Were you of a view that a different allowance applied?---Again, I was unsure at that stage.
PN225
MS WALTERS: Did you seek advice on that, Mr Broadhead?---No, I didn't.
PN226
From the Manager IR. The difference in cost to the company, Mr Broadhead, is quite significant, you'd agree?---Yes.
PN227
In the role of Manager of Industrial Relations you chose not to seek any advice as to the appropriate site allowance to apply?---Yes.
PN228
You chose not to seek advice?---Yes.
PN229
But you agree that you applied the site allowance that you'd agreed to apply on the NAB building, the first building in Victoria Harbour?---Yes, yes.
PN230
Correct, and at that stage you'd have become aware - or prior to the commencement of Dock 5 and in your new role, you've had become aware of the correspondence between Trades Hall on behalf of Building Industry Group and Bovis Lend Lease, that's correct?---Yes.
PN231
And so when you were, prior to commencement of Dock 5, considering the appropriate site allowance, you were aware of the correspondence of 8 and 21 November 2001?---Yes.
PN232
And you recognised under the Mark V agreement that Dock 5 was a building, part of an existing project, correct?---Dock 5 was a new project.
PN233
It was a building, part of Victoria Harbour project, correct?---It was part of Victoria Harbour development.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN234
Right, and you considered the correspondence that I've referred to, correct?---Yes.
PN235
And it clearly indicates at the numerical paragraph 1 the position of Bovis Lend Lease in relation to all work at Victoria Harbour, correct?---Yes.
PN236
And it's on that basis that you applied the 3.30 indexed site allowance on Dock 5, correct?---We applied it to continue from the National Australia Bank.
PN237
You recognised that Dock 5 was the second building at Victoria Harbour, Victoria Harbour project, correct?---Yes.
PN238
Now, at that time, Mr Broadhead, you were very familiar with the terms of the Mark V agreement, correct?---Yes.
PN239
And you were responsible and participated in the negotiations for the Mark VI agreement, correct?---Yes.
PN240
You've exhibited the Mark VI agreement to your statement - - -
PN241
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, just before you go on, Ms Walters. Did keeping faith with that letter of 21 November play any role in your decision to pay the $3.30 indexed for the Dock 5 project?---I was aware of the letter. The main reason for paying the $3.30 indexed figure at Dock 5 was to avoid any disputation.
PN242
Yes. But the question I asked you was, did keeping faith with the letter play any role in your decision?---Yes.
PN243
Thank you.
PN244
MS WALTERS: So, Mr Broadhead, you were involved in negotiations of the Victorian appendix to the Mark VI agreement, correct?---Yes.
PN245
And if I can take you, it's SMB1 to your - it's exhibited to your statement, and page 50, Mr Broadhead - - - ?---15?
PN246
Sorry, 50, page 50, schedule 1, in brackets, "(e) site allowance procedure". You were involved in the negotiation of that, Mr Broadhead, correct?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN247
And the parties agree that that site allowance should apply to work that falls within the scope of the operation of the agreement, correct?---Yes.
PN248
And at clause 5.2, Mr Broadhead, it indicates that all new documents, projects are to be in accordance with the new scale of site allowances?---Yes.
PN249
Existing Docklands projects, or existing projects at Docklands are to remain unchanged regarding site allowance and working hours?---Yes.
PN250
Yes, and when did you start negotiating the JDA Mark VI, Mr Broadhead?
---From memory I think October '05.
PN251
And when was the agreement certified?---I think February '06.
PN252
When was agreement reached in relation to the terms and conditions of the Mark VI agreement?---I think it was the end of '05 that the agreement was reached and then it took that time to certify it.
PN253
And you didn't seek to change in those negotiations the paragraph at 5.2, the terms of that paragraph, did you, Mr Broadhead?---Didn't seek to change the words, no.
PN254
So you agreed to recognise existing projects at Docklands and that their site allowance was to remain unchanged, correct?---Agreed to leave the words as they were.
PN255
Well, the question, Mr Broadhead, was you agreed and recognised existing projects at Docklands, is that correct?---Yes. It wasn't discussed in detail.
PN256
That wasn't the question, Mr Broadhead.
PN257
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, the answer I think was yes, in any event.
PN258
MS WALTERS: Yes, your Honour.
PN259
And you did not seek to change the terms of that paragraph, that's correct?---Yes.
PN260
So you agreed, Mr Broadhead, to pay the site allowance that was existing prior to the negotiation settlement and certification of
this agreement, that's correct?
---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN261
Mr Broadhead, you said that prior to commencement of work or, indeed - well, you've indicated at paragraph 55, prior to commencement
of work at the Ericsson you had some discussions internally in relation to the appropriate site allowance to apply at the Ericsson
building or building at the Ericsson building, that's correct?
---Yes.
PN262
And what provoked those internal discussions on this occasion? You've indicated that in relation to Dock 5 and the Conder building, those discussions didn't occur?---I was approached by our estimators.
PN263
And what did they say?---What would be the applicable site allowance.
PN264
What was your response, Mr Broadhead?---$3.25.
PN265
Why did you say that, Mr Broadhead?---From reading the document.
PN266
Which document?---The JDA VI.
PN267
Right. So you didn't refer to clause 5.2?---No. I went to clause 5.1, City of Melbourne, New Projects.
PN268
But you didn't go to - - - ?---And it fitted within the 2.1 to 171.9 million and - - -
PN269
But you didn't go to clause 5.2?---I didn't need to. The bottom clause of 5.2?
PN270
5.2?---Yes. No, I didn't. No, I was aware of it, but I didn't go to it.
PN271
You didn't read the whole of the site allowance when you were asked by the estimator to tell them what the site allowance - - - ?---At that stage, I understood it, I got advice and understood that it was in the City of Melbourne, the extended boundaries, and that allowance should apply.
PN272
You got advice on this occasion, Mr Broadhead?---Yes.
PN273
Previously you didn't, Mr Broadhead?---Yes.
PN274
So, Mr Broadhead, prior to the commencement of Dock 5, did you class it as a new project?---Yes.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD XXN MS WALTERS
PN275
Your evidence was that you regarded it as a continuation of the NAB and - - -
PN276
MR DALTON: That wasn't his evidence.
PN277
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, I don't think that was his evidence, Ms Walters.
MS WALTERS: Right. Retract that, your Honour. That's all, your Honour.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DALTON [11.24AM]
PN279
MR DALTON: Mr Broadhead, you were shown this document?---Yes.
PN280
Now, you said you'd seen it before?---Yes.
PN281
Are you able to - or do you know for sure whether this is the latest version of this?---I don't know which version they're up to or - no, I'm not aware of the different versions.
PN282
Now, you were referred to the last paragraph in 5.2, you were asked some questions in relation to that. Note that it says for existing projects at Docklands "are to remain unchanged regarding site allowance and working hours"?---Yes.
PN283
In relation to working hours at NAB, what were the working hours that were worked at NAB between 2001 and 2003?---We worked a 2001, I think it was a 38 hour week.
PN284
What hours were people working?---Generally they were working 56 hours, generally. They were generally like, four 10s and two 8s.
PN285
What's been the position at Ericsson, well, Dock 5 was the next one, and then Ericsson?---Dock 5 was a combination of the four 10s and two 8s and then it became more flexible and the hours were worked as required and then Ericsson, it's the hours that are required under the enterprise agreement, with a limitation - - -
PN286
And are they the same or different from the working hours arrangements that were worked at NAB?---They're different to the working hours at NAB.
PN287
No more questions.
**** STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD RXN MR DALTON
PN288
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Quigley?
PN289
MR QUIGLEY: No questions, your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.26AM]
<LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS, SWORN [11.27AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON
PN291
MR DALTON: Mr Cross, could your state your full and your work address?
---Lawrence Vincent Cross, 332 Albert Street, East Melbourne.
PN292
You're employed by the Master Builders' Association of Victoria as the Manager of Industrial Relations and OH&S?---Yes.
PN293
And you've held that position for 11 years?---Yes.
PN294
You've prepared a statement for this proceeding?---Yes, I have.
PN295
Have you got a copy of that in front of you?---I do.
PN296
Is that statement and the attachments true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, it is.
I tender that.
EXHIBIT #BL3 STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS
PN298
MR DALTON: Mr Cross, you refer to evidence that both you and Mr Brian Welsh of the MBAV gave in the Coal Royal Commission and you've exhibited some transcripts to that. Can I ask you whether the CFMEU ever applied to cross-examine you or Mr Welsh in relation to the evidence you gave to the Commission at that time?---No, they did not.
PN299
Now, at paragraph 22 of your statement you attach as LC7 a copy of the patent agreement that applies at the moment in the Victorian Building Industry 2005-2008 EBA, yes?---Yes, that's correct.
PN300
Now, you say that there were some changes made to the site allowance procedure shown in there in the red text throughout the document. For those of us who have got a Photostat of the document where it doesn't appear in red, could you just explain to us exactly what text you're referring to there?---Yes. I'll just locate it myself.
PN301
Yes. LC7?---Okay. That, on my copy, is page 61 of the enterprise agreement.
PN302
Yes?---The text now appears in bold and the purpose of - - -
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XN MR DALTON
PN303
So the red text that you mention in your statement?---Yes, the red, yes.
PN304
Is bold and italicised text?---That's right.
PN305
That we see in our copies?---Appears in paragraph 12.
PN306
So at item 12, Special and Exceptional Circumstances, is that an amendment in red text that you're referring to?---That's the one, yes.
PN307
And on page 62, item 13?---Yes, a further amendment in the same terms at item 13.
PN308
No more questions.
PN309
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Quigley?
MR QUIGLEY: No, your Honour.
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS [11.31AM]
PN311
MS WALTERS: Mr Cross, were you involved in the negotiation of the Compact(?)?---No, I was not.
PN312
Are you aware of who was involved in those negotiations?---The CFMEU and about seven other construction companies including Bovis, Multiplex, Mirvac and several others that I can recall at the moment.
PN313
Have you seen a copy of the statement of Mr Broadhead in these proceedings, Mr Cross?---No, I haven't.
PN314
Is it true to say, Mr Cross, that the Compact was negotiated in two stages, that's correct?---If you refer to the initial settlement with the group of contractors and then a second negotiation that was held with MBA about further particulars, then, yes, I would agree, it was held in two stages.
PN315
Can I hand this up to your Honour and to Mr Cross, please?---Yes, that's fine. I recognise the document.
PN316
Yes, and you recognise the document. And it's dated 7 April 2000, that's correct?
---That's right, yes.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN317
And it's got a Part B?---Yes.
PN318
Which refers to an amendment to the Compact?---Mm.
PN319
It's amended to include additional words, "Projects currently under construction will be completed on the current VBIA site allowance formal"?---Yes.
PN320
And, "MV projects in the new City of Melbourne boundaries awarded but not yet commenced will be identified to enable the existing VBIA site allowance to apply," that's correct?---Yes.
PN321
And there was a process that was engaged in by both the MBA and the CFMEU in relation to that identification of those works for the purpose of that?---That's correct.
PN322
If I can take you to page 3 of that letter, Mr Cross?---Yes.
PN323
There are a number of signatories. Do you agree they're all members of the MBA, and were at the time?---Yes, that's right. With the exception - no, I'm sorry. No, they were all members at the time, yes.
PN324
Yes, and in fact Mr Jonathan Forster of Cain Construction was the President of the MBA at that time?---That's also correct.
PN325
And you are familiar with those terms in relation to the giving of advice to your members with respect to industrial issues, correct?---Yes.
I seek to tender that, your Honour.
EXHIBIT #CFMEU2 COMPACT DOCUMENT WITH AMENDMENTS
PN327
MS WALTERS: Now, you were responsible for the negotiations of the 2000-2005 VBIA, that's correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN328
And have you seen a copy of the site allowance provision for the 2000-2005 VBIA, Mr Cross?---I have, yes.
PN329
And you're very familiar with the terms of that?---Reasonably so.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN330
If I can take you to paragraph 4 of your statement, and then paragraph 12 of your statement. It's true to say that you say that to the best of your knowledge and in your experience that the application of site allowance since 1989 has been determined with the relevant clause in the VBIA and then you exhibit at LC2 the relevant clause of the 1992-95, the '96 and 2000 VBIA?---Yes.
PN331
I note that you don't exhibit the 2000-2005 VBIA. That is exhibited to the statement of Mr Broadhead and I haven't got copies of that provision. I'm wondering - - -
PN332
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would it be possible for the witness to be handed a copy of Mr Broadhead's statement? Sorry, it's at SMB, what did you say?
PN333
MS WALTERS: Sorry, your Honour. If you could just bear with me a minute. It's at SMB3?---Yes.
PN334
That's an accurate copy of the site allowance provision of the 2000-2005 VBIA that you negotiated?---That's correct, yes.
PN335
Now, if I take you to your exhibit, the 19 LC2 where you exhibit the 1996 to 2000 VBIA site allowance clause, that's LC2, Mr Cross There's a significant difference - sorry, Mr Cross?---'96 to 2000, is that the one we're looking at?
PN336
Yes?---Yes, okay, got it.
PN337
Yes. At clause 35.5.3, halfway down that the project - and then it has in brackets "building permit" amount, doesn't it, and then new projects, correct?---Can you just call out that - - -
PN338
34.5.3?---I'm looking at the '96 to 2000 version.
PN339
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We're looking at LC2 in your - - - ?---LC2.
PN340
MS WALTERS: Yes?---I have a copy of the cover, '96 to 2000 and then immediately after that I have clause 35, posting of the agreement.
PN341
Yes, Mr Cross, you're correct. I was referring to the predecessor, the '92-'95. So I'll correct myself and refer you to clause 38.9.4, page 5 of the '96-2000 VBIA, it's still exhibit LC2?---Yes.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN342
And at 38.9.4 it's got project value, and again it's got, bracket "(building permit)" amount, new projects, is that correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN343
On the basis that the parties had agreed that for new projects one considered a building permit to determine the value of that project,
monetary value of it?
---That had always been the - one of the major elements of identifying the value, yes.
PN344
Can I now take you to the 2000-2005 - - - ?---Yes.
PN345
VBIA, and clause 40.7(b), it indicates that new projects for Victoria, and then it has a project value and has site allowance next to it, correct?---That's right, yes.
PN346
There's no indication of the building permit amount in that paragraph, is there?
---No, there's not.
PN347
And you've got an accurate recollection of negotiations in relation to the 2000-2005 VBIA?---I remember the major features of the re-negotiation, yes.
PN348
And at LC3 you refer to a draft log of claims in relation to what appears to be both the 2000-2005 VBIA and the enterprise negotiations, correct?---That's correct.
PN349
So site allowance was the key factor in those negotiations, wasn't it?---Yes, it was.
PN350
And a position of the union was that the value of the project was determined on the total value of the project, correct?---That was a point that was often at issue, not only during the negotiation but during the exercise of the industrial instruments, the VBIA and the EBA.
PN351
Right. Mr Cross, specifically in relation to the negotiation of the 2000-2005 VBIA, the site allowance clause was a significant issue between the parties and the position of the CFMEU was that the project value should not be determined by the building permit value alone, but the total project value, correct?---I don't recall the CFMEUs position to that extent.
PN352
So can I further take you to the 2005 VBIA clause, 40.7 and can I take you to page 85, it's on?---Yes.
PN353
It says all new Docklands projects are to be in accordance with the new start of site allowance, existing projects at Docklands are to remain unchanged regarding the site allowance and working hours, that's correct, isn't it?---That's right, yes.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN354
Yes, and that was a similar recognition of work, projects that have been identified as is referred to in CFMEU2, paragraph part B. That is, you recognised at the time of negotiations that there are, as to the terms and conditions in the VBIA, projects that had been commenced?---That's right, yes.
PN355
Projects were identified?---Yes.
PN356
And recognised between the parties, and then what would be new projects, correct?---That's right.
PN357
And that was the basis for the terminology as negotiated in that clause, correct?
---At 40.7(b), is that the one you refer to, all new Docklands projects?
PN358
Yes?---Yes.
PN359
Now, at paragraph 23 of your statement you say in all your years of experience, that's the last 11 years, so you commenced in 1995, correct?---That's right, yes.
PN360
In accordance with the clause it's always the value of the projects as being the sense originally conceived in 1989 to 1992 VBIA. That included the terminology, building permit value, correct, in brackets?---In 1989?
PN361
Yes?---Onwards, yes, it did, yes.
PN362
But in 2000 when the negotiations were completed and parties agreed to the terms of that VBIA, the term, building permit, was no longer associated with new projects, was it?---Not in the agreement, no.
PN363
In the VBIA?---That's right.
PN364
And that's been applied between the years 2000 and 2005, correct?---That's right.
PN365
Mr Cross, I think, having conceded that, that in paragraph 23 your evidence is at odds, is it not?---How so?
PN366
The term, building permit value, has been removed from the VBIA 2000-2005, correct?---Yes, it has.
PN367
And what was the basis for doing that, Mr Cross?---I can't recall.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN368
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What did you understand, in the exhibit LC3, Mr Cross, which was the log of claims, about two-thirds of the
way down the page under the VBIA claims there's a claim there, site allowance project value, what did you understand that claim to
be about? Just under "CityLink tolls reimbursement"?---It didn't have any significance other than for the parties to adjust
the rates in accordance with CPI to my recollection. The major change in the negotiation came with the re-drawing of the boundaries
so as to include Docklands as part of the CBD rather than, you know, a major negotiation on site allowance project value. It was
more the inclusion of Docklands into the
new - what was to become the new CBD map.
PN369
So it wasn't that claim that drove the removal of the words, building permit?---I don't think it was, but I can't recall the actual claim that led to the removal of those words.
PN370
Thank you.
PN371
MS WALTERS: Is it true to say, Mr Cross, that the MBA executed the 2000-2005 VBIA early August 2000?---I think it's true to say that it was finally signed off by the parties, but substantive agreement had already been reached around April of that year.
PN372
Right, and can you explain then why the parties didn't execute the agreement until late August, some in September 2000?---That was essentially the time it took the parties to go through what was always a very detailed exercise of re-drafting provisions in the VBIA. As I said, the substantive terms had been agreed, but there was a lot of detailed work to do to re-draft the clauses and re-number them and agreed on all of those changes. I think the parties had a regime of meetings whereby they met fortnightly for something like three to four months to complete the process.
PN373
So you agree, Mr Cross, the agreement wasn't finally settled until early August 2000?---Signed and settled, yes.
PN374
You'd be aware also, Mr Cross, in late, mid to late '90s, the Docklands authority commenced discussions with the Building Industry Group in relation to a number of projects in what was largely defined as the Docklands, correct?---I'm sorry, who is Building Industry Group?
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS XXN MS WALTERS
PN375
The Building Industry Group, Mr Cross, you're not aware of the Building Industry Group in all your years of experience?---No, I'm not, no.
PN376
You wouldn't be aware of the Building Industry Group chaired by Mr Brian Boyd?---I know recognise that the Building Industry Group of Unions, yes, yes.
PN377
Yes, Mr Cross. So the question was, you would be aware that discussions had commenced and will refer to the Building Industry Group of Unions and furthermore the Building Industry Consultative Committee in relation to the Docklands generally, correct?---No. I wasn't particularly aware of those discussions that you refer to between - - -
PN378
Mid to late - - - ?---Between the Docklands Authority and the Building Industry Group of Unions and - - -
PN379
Yes, and the Building Industry Consultative Committee?---The Building Industry Consultative Committee attached at that time to the Victorian Building Industry Agreement? No, I don't recall any discussions with the Docklands Authority with either of those groups as I was not involved in either of them.
PN380
But you recognise in your involvement with the negotiations for the 2000-2005 VBIA site allowance clause that the parties recognised that there were projects already existing at the Docklands, correct?---That's correct, yes.
PN381
And that they were to remain unchanged in terms of site allowance and work allowance?---That's right.
That's all, your Honour.
<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DALTON [11.54AM]
PN383
MR DALTON: Just to clarify, with the removal of the reference to building permit, do you remember whether there was any specific discussion about that or rationale for that?---The only rationale that I can recall were some frustrations with disputes that arose out of the closeness of building permit value against the overall contract value, and to give an example, the building permit value may, on one occasion, have been 1.7 million which fell below the threshold, the trigger point of 1.8 as it was at the time which would have been a trigger for site allowance payment. The unions were often frustrated by that process because finding out later in the program that the actual total building works would go over 1.7 with the introduction of things such as landscape gardening to complete a project, those are the sorts of frustrations that I recall about the threshold.
**** LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS RXN MR DALTON
PN384
No more questions.
<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.55AM]
PN385
MR DALTON: Your Honour, the next witness if Geoffrey Moore who may not be here yet. We've got through the evidence a bit quicker than we originally anticipated and - - -
PN386
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: May not be here or isn't here?
PN387
MR DALTON: May not be here.
PN388
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would you like to check?
PN389
MR DALTON: Yes. I call Geoffrey Moore. Your Honour, I've got a copy of the four pages, being the maps, BL2.
PN390
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Right. If you could just - I've got the copies that the witness had, Mr Dalton, so it seems that we're all set.
PN391
MR DALTON: I'm told that Mr Moore is 10 minutes away, your Honour, if we could have a brief adjournment.
PN392
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, I wonder - well, if it's only 10 minutes, we might as well do it that way and then I'll break for lunch at 12.30 if that suits.
PN393
MR DALTON: Yes. Another thing we could perhaps do, your Honour, is deal with Mr Noonan's statement. In discussions with - - -
PN394
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's right. There was some question as to whether you wished to cross-examine.
PN395
MR DALTON: Yes. We won't need to, subject to some objections that I had in relation to his statement and depending on how they're resolved, I have made attempts to reach agreement with Ms Walters and have not been able to do that. So I can address you in relation to those particular parts of his statements to which we object.
PN396
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN397
MR DALTON: And depending on your Honour's rulings on that, we may not need to deal with Mr Noonan. His statement can simply go in.
PN398
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN399
MR DALTON: Your Honour, if it's convenient I'll address you in relation to those parts of his statement which we object to.
PN400
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just bear with me for a second, Mr Dalton, while I find it. Yes, go ahead.
PN401
MR DALTON: Paragraph 11. Your Honour, I object to the second sentence in that paragraph. It's a conclusion and an attempt to characterise the effect of the change to the words. You've heard some evidence on that just beforehand with Mr Cross. Ms Walters no doubt will make some submissions to you in relation to that and how your Honour should take that change, but we object to Mr Noonan putting that in as evidence.
PN402
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Go ahead. Is there further objections? You may as well deal with them all and then Ms Walters - - -
PN403
MR DALTON: Very well. The second one is paragraph 13, the last sentence. Your Honour, I object to that because again, in effect, it's a view that Mr Noonan may have as to what the decision was based on. It's not reflected in the decision. We just simply ask that the decision which is exhibited speak for itself and that Mr Noonan not be permitted to simply give evidence to say what it was based on when there's no indication of that in the decision, or in the consent recommendation made. The final objection, your Honour, is the first sentence in paragraph 18 which in essence encapsulates the CFMEUs case. No doubt you'll hear some submissions on it but we object to Mr Noonan putting that forward as evidence.
PN404
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The first sentence, down to, JDA Mark V?
PN405
MR DALTON: That's correct.
PN406
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN407
MR DALTON: Subject to those objections, your Honour, we don't propose to cross-examine Mr Noonan and that statement can be tendered.
PN408
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Go ahead, Ms Walters?
PN409
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, in relation to all three objections generally, we say it is Mr Noonan's evidence and it is his opinion. The circumstances in which that appeared has been formulated - I'll take you to paragraph 11. Mr Noonan gives evidence in paragraph 10 and then, in paragraph 11, the reasons why the CFMEU executed that agreement. He's giving his opinion in the role that he had at that time as to the key reason that the VBIA was executed and - - -
PN410
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Look, just to cut it a little bit short, whether that is opinion or more than that, it appears to be his evidence and I'm not inclined to excise it from the witness statement, that being the second sentence of 11. As far as the last sentence of 13, that takes me nowhere and I am inclined to excise it because Mr Noonan is attempting to provide a basis for a decision which has been made that, in my view, could only be speculation, a decision in my view stands alone, and as far as the first sentence of paragraph 18 is concerned, it again appears to be Mr Noonan's evidence that the parties recognise that.
PN411
Now, whether they did or whether they didn't is perhaps a matter for cross-examination of Mr Noonan, but that is his evidence. I'm not prepared to excise it simply on the basis that Mr Dalton says that it is the case of the union. Yes, certainly, it is the case of the union, but it is also the evidence at the moment in the statement of Mr Noonan. Now, whether it would stand up or not is a separate matter, but I'm not prepared to take it out. So where that leaves us, subject to what Mr Dalton has to say, is that I would excise that sentence that begins with, "That decision was based," which is the final sentence in paragraph 13, and the other two sentences would remain. Mr Dalton?
PN412
MR DALTON: Well, we might be able to get around your Honour's ruling in relation to paragraph 11 of the statements in that it just simply reserve our position to make submissions to you about the weight you should give to an unexpressed subjective view that the union held before the agreement was finalised and what assistance that could possibly offer the Commission in construing the terms of the agreement. However, paragraph 18 is more problematic because of course it's stating what the union says ought to be the ultimate outcome in this case, that - - -
PN413
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. But the point I make, Mr Dalton - - -
PN414
MR DALTON: Well, your Honour, just if I could finish in relation to that.
PN415
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
PN416
MR DALTON: Paragraph 17, Mr Noonan, in setting out the actual facts that he can rely on in the negotiations that led to the making of JDA6, what he puts is that no representative of Bovis Lend Lease made a claim to change the provisions, right? It doesn't set out any further facts. Paragraph 18 is, in my respectful submission, it is a statement of a view that he holds that that's the effect of the evidence that he's given, that's the effect of the negotiations, the failure of BLL to seek a change to the provision means the parties have recognised it. He does not say that anyone said that the project - that's the difficulty we have.
PN417
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. No, I understand the point you're making, Mr Dalton, and you well may be right. However, I don't know what the basis of Mr Noonan's statement there is and that is why I've made the ruling that I've made. It seems to me that that is a statement that would have to be explored further under cross-examination - - -
PN418
MR DALTON: Your Honour - - -
PN419
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Has the basis beyond simply the basis that you've put - - -
PN420
MR DALTON: I've made every effort to try and avoid Mr Noonan being cross-examined and, based on your Honour's ruling, that's not going to be possible. So I reserve my rights to cross-examine him in relation to all matters.
PN421
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, all right. What's the circumstance, Ms Walters, as far as Mr Noonan giving evidence is concerned, because I understand from correspondence prior to us beginning proceedings that there was some question as to his availability?
PN422
MS WALTERS: Yes, indeed, your Honour. We indicated to Bovis Lend Lease on Wednesday last week and to yourself on Thursday, I understand that Mr Noonan isn't able to give evidence on the basis that he's been drawn to WA on personal matters. We have, as indicated in correspondence, and in our discussions with Bovis Lend Lease, whilst we appreciate the inconvenience, we'd make - - -
PN423
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well, look, Ms Walters, without Moore the statement that is really the issue here, which is the first sentence of paragraph 18, is really not going to take you anywhere. In other words, unless Mr Noonan is in a position to back that up, then it's not going to go anywhere. So he would have to be able to further elaborate on that statement to the extent that there was in fact recognition by the parties. Now, he will either be able to do that or he won't be able to do that. There's not much point in wasting everybody's time. It would be better for you to find out whether he is able to do that to the satisfaction of the Commission and really, if he can't, then it would be better simply to treat it in the way that I think Mr Dalton has envisaged, because otherwise we'll just be wasting a lot of time. We'll have him in the stand, he'll be cross-examined. It will come out that it's not able to be backed up. He can tell us that before we go that far.
PN424
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, in those circumstances we'd propose a course whereby we might seek some further instructions in relation to that and to convey my response to yourself and to Bovis Lend Lease while we obtain those instructions. My capacity to do so may be complicated by the difference in hours.
PN425
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They should be out of bed by now, I would have thought.
PN426
MS WALTERS: I'm not sure where Perth is. Three hours.
PN427
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Three hours, yes.
PN428
MS WALTERS: So we'll make every attempt, your Honour, to obtain those instructions as quickly as possible.
PN429
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. Does that suit you, Mr Dalton?
PN430
MR DALTON: For the moment, yes, your Honour, of course. We don't want to have any pointless adjournments if that can be avoided.
PN431
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Neither do I and that's the reason I said what I've said, but - well, I won't go through the - - -
PN432
MR DALTON: Mr Moore is here now apparently, so I call Geoffrey Moore.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
<GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE, SWORN [12.09PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON
PN434
MR DALTON: Mr Moore, could you state your full name and working address?---Geoffrey Robert Moore. Level 32, 140 William Street.
PN435
You're the General Manager, Victoria and South Australia for Bovis Lend Lease?
---That's correct.
PN436
How long have you held that position?---Since late 2001, approximately October 2001.
PN437
Yes, and you've prepared a statement for this proceeding?---Yes, I have.
PN438
Do you have a copy of that in front of you?---Yes, I do.
PN439
Are there any changes you wish to make to it?---I would like to make an amendment to paragraph 37, the last paragraph, first line where it's currently stated as, "We hope". I'd like to amend that to, "We expect".
PN440
With that change. Are there any other changes?---No, there is not.
PN441
With that change is it true and correct to the best of your knowledge, the statement and the attachments thereto?---Yes, it is.
I tender that.
EXHIBIT #BL4 STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE
PN443
MR DALTON: Mr Moore, I want to show you exhibit BL2. Now, the first map, that's a birds eye view of the Docklands area, yes?---Yes, it is.
PN444
Now, at paragraph 9 of your statement you list the various building projects that Bovis Lend Lease has undertaken in the Docklands area. The Arkley Tower, Boyd, Palladio, St Helier, Nolan and Conder, am I right in saying that they all part of the MAB NewQuay area?---That's correct.
PN445
And the National Australia Bank Complex, Dock 5 and Ericsson, am I right in saying they're all part of the Lend Lease developments, Victoria Harbour precinct?---Correct.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN446
Paragraph 18 of your statement, you say that in 1997 developers put together proposals for the development rights to each precinct. Now, what were the precincts that were identified by the Docklands authority as at 1997?---The authority had identified seven precincts. The Studio Village precinct, the MAB NewQuay precinct - - -
PN447
Sorry, just to cut you show, are they the ones that you've listed in paragraph 12 of your statement?---That's correct.
PN448
Perhaps if we can go to the map and you can point them out for us. The Business Park, which contains NewQuay, Waterfront City and
Docklands Studios, is that the MAB NewQuay - that seems to be split into two there along the foreshore?
---That's correct. So MAB NewQuay is in two parts, but one precinct - one development precinct at NewQuay includes Waterfront City
and the Film Studio site.
PN449
Yes, all right. Batman's Hill is over to the bottom right?---Correct.
PN450
Yarra Waters, is that Yarra's Edge?---That is right.
PN451
All right, so that's at the bottom there opposite Victoria Harbour?---Yes.
PN452
Technology Park, now Comtechport precinct, do you see that to the north of Colonial Stadium?---Correct.
PN453
West End precinct, the railway area, is that Spencer Street Station?---That's Spencer Street and to my understanding that has subsequently been passed to a separate authority.
PN454
The Docklands Village, now Stadium Precinct, is that Colonial Stadium Network 7 and that - what's NESP?---North East Stadium Precinct.
PN455
Yes, and Southern Stadium?---Correct.
PN456
So those four areas form the Docklands Village precinct?---That's right.
PN457
Going back to paragraph 18 of your statement, when you say in 1997 developers put together proposals for development right to each precinct. Are we to take that to mean that any developer who wanted to win the rights to develop any of the precincts put together proposals in 1997?---1997 was the commencement of the precincts being progressively made available to the development industry to bid. The early precincts for bidding was the NewQuay Precinct and the Lend Lease, or the Victoria Harbour Precinct. The precincts have been progressively put to the development industry for bid from that time and in fact it's still - some of those sites are still held by Docklands Authority or VicUrban, it is today, for an ongoing bid process. But in the main the predominant precincts have been allocated to developers today.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN458
Could we start - let's go back to 2000. Now, we've heard some evidence that the VBIA was signed in September 2000. So I want to ask you, based on your knowledge, what was the position of Docklands in terms of the Authority having appointed particular developers for precincts and at what stage any construction work was at in relation to each precinct before that - as at that time?---As at mid 2000?
PN459
Yes. So let's say mid 2000 is a good starting point, yes?---At mid 2000 my understanding is that the - - -
PN460
Perhaps if we can go through that, back to your list in paragraph 12?---Sure.
PN461
So the Business Park, I think we've got some evidence that at least NewQuay had started construction work, so obviously NAB had already been allocated development rights by that time and I think Arkley Tower was under construction at that time?---That's correct.
PN462
Yes, all right. Let's go - so that was a precinct that had been allocated a developer and some construction work had already commenced. What about Victoria Harbour?---No. At mid 2000 my understanding is that VicUrban or Docklands Authority at that time had put out a - or commenced an expression of interest process for the development rights to Victoria Harbour.
PN463
So Lend Lease Development was one such developer, prospective developer looking to win that work?---That's correct.
PN464
And I think we've got some evidence, it may be in your statement, that Lend Lease Development was successful and that became known in May 2001?---That's right.
PN465
Yes, all right. So no developer allocated at that time, no construction work had been commenced at that time in respect of Victoria Harbour?---No.
PN466
What about Yarra's Edge?---To my understanding Yarra's Edge was awarded to Mirvac approximately the same time as NewQuay to MAB which was late in 1999 and - - -
PN467
All right, so a developer has been appointed?---Correct.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN468
What about construction work? Do you know whether any buildings had started by that time?---During 2000 it's my understanding that the first tower of Yarra Edge was commenced.
PN469
So that may have commenced at the time that the VBIA was signed in 2000?---I'm not sure of the specific timing in 2000.
PN470
Batman's Hill?---No, no award or no development activity at that time.
PN471
Comtech Precinct?---Not awarded at that time.
PN472
Just perhaps if you could fill us in. Do you know if a developer has been appointed for Batman's Hill and if so, when?---There has been. There's been two projects. Well, the second is nearing completion. The name of the developer, particular developer I'm not sure of. But certainly the physical work is there, evidence that that site or that precinct has been awarded and - - -
PN473
Do you know how long ago that started up?---It would be in the order of 2003.
PN474
Comtech Precinct?---Sorry, that's the same precinct we're just talking about.
PN475
I beg your pardon. I was asking, Batman's Hill - sorry. Comtechport Precinct, you say the work started, construction work started
there in and around 2003?
---2003.
PN476
Batman's Hill?---Batman's Hill would have been in the order of the same time.
PN477
2003, and the Stadium, of course, well, we know that that's been around for a while. Construction work commenced there - - - ?---Certainly before mid 2000. It was in the late '90s.
PN478
I think we've gone through the seven there. So by 2003 your evidence is that all those precincts were underway, work was underway in all of them?---That's correct.
PN479
Now, in your role as general manager for Bovis Lend Lease could you describe what your relationship is with Lend Lease Development, how you deal with each other, the structures you have in place and how you get work from them?---Sure. Lend Lease operates on what we refer to as an integrated property model. Bovis Lend Lease - - -
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN480
That's the Group?---That's the Group.
PN481
Yes?---The subsidiary companies of Lend Lease are in essence three parts. The Bovis Lend Lease business is project management, design and construction. Lend Lease Development is that, it's a development business, it's a creator of projects and it has related businesses which own the end product and manage the end product. Lend Lease Development becomes a key client of Bovis Lend Lease wherein Development is the creator, the initiator of projects and we support the development business in the delivery of those projects.
PN482
The creator and - what did you say, the creator and the - - - ?---Delivery.
PN483
And the deliverer. So - - - ?---Bovis Lend Lease deliver the project.
PN484
What does the development company do, creates?---Creates. Identifies.
PN485
Creates and identifies?---Potential projects.
PN486
How does it go about that, based on your understanding?---It firstly operates in different market sectors. It focuses in commercial, residential and, to a lesser extent, retail sectors. It has an understanding of where emerging demands are, potential sites and it looks to meet the balance of revenue and demand for those sites to achieve successful developments.
PN487
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: As an example, Mr Moore, the Victoria Harbour Precinct, what did Lend Lease have to do to achieve the status of the developer of that particular precinct?---Yes. What - the response that the Docklands Authority called for was in essence for developers to provide a master plan, a product mix for their vision for what that precinct would look like, commercial response. It - - -
PN488
You'd better explain what a product mix for their vision means to me?---Sure. These precincts are very large. They're made up of a number of projects and a number of buildings and in the same way as our city planners look to get diversity and mix in the bid response for Victoria Harbour, Lend Lease Development replied with a response of a mix of commercial buildings, residential buildings, retail buildings, community uses, open spaces. That was its master plan. That was the framework for which it would go forward and develop individual projects subject to the viability of those individual projects over time. So back to your original question, it was a response of a master plan, an overall planning framework which needed to comply with the State Planning requirements and a commercial master plan, which was then the measure with its commercial development agreement between Lend Lease Development and Docklands Authority to control the type of projects that would be envisaged as that project goes forward. Other parts of that response was capability, to be able to manage and control the ongoing developments of the scale, and clearly an important part was the value of the land payment which the developer would pay and in principle the way that works, it's a percentage of the development value of each individual project is paid to VicUrban or Docklands Authority as each development proceeds.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN489
So you produce a master plan, as you call it, which essentially might be characterised as a statement of intent for that particular area. What obligations are imposed upon Lend Lease for compliance with their master plan?---Yes. The obligations are in a couple of areas. One is time, so there's an obligation to develop a certain amount of product over time and the development rights for Lend Lease Development are for a 20 year period over the Victoria Harbour Precinct. The next component is the master plan which describes the product, and that master plan is revised as time goes on, subject to market viability. So if I could be more specific, that we are approximately, or the development business is in the process of its third master plan for Victoria Harbour and that's responding to the changes in demand from different market sectors, residential demand has decreased. Commercial market sector has increased. So the allocation of sites and the types of usage change in t hat master plan by agreement with VicUrban and ultimately with the Department of Sustainability and Environment as the statutory planning authority.
PN490
Thank you.
PN491
MR DALTON: Timing. Would you explain to his Honour just a little bit further what exactly is involved in timing, the extent to which you're locked into, making developments within a particular time over this span of 15, 20 years?---The overall time frame is 20 years. From the May 2001 appointment of Lend Lease Development, there's three fundamental milestones. There's a requirement to commence development within a period of years. There's a requirement to have developed a percentage of the land within another period of years, and then there is that expiry sunset date. Overridden with that is an expected rate of take up of the land that is in the developer's control. Title to the land remains with the authority and as each development proves commercially viable, then the developer effectively purchases that site for that project.
PN492
Now, you say as each development proves viable. Proves viable to Lend Lease Development or to the Authority or to both of them?---To Lend Lease Development.
PN493
So Lend Lease Development has the call on whether it's viable?---That's correct.
PN494
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So, and again I'm interrupting Mr Dalton, if - just to take a hypothetical example, Lend Lease says in its original master plan that we will put in a mariner, for example, in the area. The obligation placed upon you at that point in time as far as the authorities is concerned is to comply with your master plan within the 20 years, but your compliance with it will be subject to your own commercial assessments as to its viability at particular points in time and you may decide, subject to viability, to vary your master plan with the agreement of the authorities with respect to that timing, is that correct?---That's correct and if I could help with an example. It's known in the media that the ANZ have decided to go to the Victoria Harbour site.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN495
MR DALTON: Just to stop you there, I think we can refer that to the map, Mr Broadhead made mention of that. Could I show you page 2 of the four pages of the maps you've got?---Yes.
PN496
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which one is page, Mr Dalton, because I've got - - -
PN497
MR DALTON: It's a closer up version of Victoria Harbour.
PN498
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Is that it?
PN499
MR DALTON: Yes.
PN500
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
PN501
MR DALTON: Do you have that one?---Yes, I do. So to talk to - - -
PN502
Yes. So point out - is the ANZ building or the plan for it - - - ?---If I can assist. This is our most recent diagram, master plan for Victoria Harbour. The development company have shown the footprint of the ANZ building. If we were to look at some of the previous - - -
PN503
Yes. Go back to page 1, the bigger picture of the Docklands area?---Diagram 1 in that bottom area, adjacent to the river certainly shows a different building footprint and that's probably made clearer by diagrams 3 and 4.
PN504
Yes?---Which, back to the original planning, envisaged two different projects in that location, a residential tower and a smaller commercial tower.
PN505
More than one building originally?---Correct. On sheet, what I would refer to as sheet 3, you'll see that there's actually two sites, Y1 and Y2.
PN506
Yes?---To accommodate the market demand of ANZ and its footprint, sites Y1 and Y2 were combined to accommodate a single large commercial building.
PN507
Yes. National Australia Bank, page 1 of the map, that's that three building thing at the top - - - ?---Well, it's - - -
PN508
Is that the original plan?---In the original planning it was envisaged as a three building project. The initial commitment to the project was for the first two of those buildings, which is what is built today. The National Australia Bank had a right to have the third building developed. That right has subsequently expired.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN509
Yes. So if we go to the second page, does that depict what's actually being done?
---That's correct. That's showing the footprint of what is today the Ericsson site.
PN510
Yes, with the two NAB buildings having been constructed?---Yes.
PN511
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that option that NAB had once lapsed, the land reverts back to Lend Lease to determine a development plan for and gain approval from the relevant authorities, is that correct?---The NAB had an option to take up the use of that site. The control reverted back to Lend Lease Development. In the time between the option expiring and the Ericsson building we see today, there was plans for that actually to be a residential site. Again, with shift in market demand, we see it now fall back to a commercial building, but as a freestanding site.
PN512
Is there any financial imperative upon Lend Lease in respect of the entire development? That's a really bad way I've phrased that question, but obviously the master plan that you put in in the first place must be able to be costed at least to some degree, presumably, and I accept that that master plan is subject to variation at various points in time by the agreement of the Authority, but is the figure that you have used, if you in fact have used one, at the initial stage, are you held to that by any of the authorities?---Not as an absolute figure. The commercial mechanism is that it's a percentage of the development value of each of the developments and the mix of development is controlled through this flexible master planning process.
PN513
Okay, thank you.
PN514
MR DALTON: So for the developer to get a particular building viable, such that they'd go ahead and get a builder such as Bovis Lend Lease on board to do it, what do they actually have to put in place that's not already, you know, set out in the master plan?---The master plan is showing a product mix intent and nominating sites for subdivision.
PN515
Well, let's got to the Ericsson example, okay. So NAB decides not to go ahead with this third building and so that block of land is free. Lend Lease Developments initially plans for that to go residential. Let's just work with the residential example to start. How would Lend Lease Development put in place the things that are - well, what are the things that are essential for that project to go ahead? What things have to be put in place before Bovis Lend Lease comes into play?---For the developer there's two fundamental parts to the development equation. One is the revenue and the certainty of that revenue for the development, and the second is the cost to deliver that development.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN516
Right. Now, let's due with the revenue. How does it get all that organised and put that together, for residential, for example?---From a residential example, it will look at market demand, the broader demand for Victoria Harbour is predominantly a multi level residential production solution. It will look for demand for that product. It will look for product differentiation. It will then seek to understand what rates of revenue it will be able to achieve for certain products, certain design.
PN517
Yes. Does it sell them off the plans or - - - ?---Yes, it does.
PN518
Before it goes to a builder to have the building built?---It's a developer's decision but predominantly the project is pre-sold to enable that degree of financial viability.
PN519
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that the same with the commercial development, for example, the MAB site, that's essentially sold to NAB by the developer and then the - - - ?---If I could answer that?
PN520
Yes?---The principle is the same and from a commercial perspective the projects are secured or anchored by way of a tenancy commitment. So in the case of the National Australia Bank the NAB are a tenant in that building. A separate group, General Property Trust, are the owner of the building.
PN521
MR DALTON: So did Lend Lease Development sell that development to GPT for GPT to go and get a commercial tenant in or something?---It agreed with General Property Trust that they would be the end owner of the building on certain terms. Lend Lease Development identified and obtained the National Australia Bank's commitment as a tenant and by way of the end building take out or ownership passing to General Property Trust and National Australia Bank agreeing to lease that building for the leased term, they were the core ingredients for the viability of the revenue site of the development.
PN522
Yes. All right. Well, having put those things in place, what then happens in terms of getting the ball rolling? You mentioned a release of the land, or in this particular case NAB had - that land had already been released by the Authority, is that correct?---The land was controlled by Docklands Authority and at the point of Lend Lease Development being prepared to commit to go ahead with the development, being that it had secured end ownership and secured tenancy commitment, it had secure, design and construct price to complete the project. It then sought to take control or ownership of the land and it effectively purchased that land and passed that land to General Property Trust.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN523
So when did Bovis Lend Lease come into play and get a building contract?---Late 2001.
PN524
Sorry, 2001 or - - - ?---Sorry - - -
PN525
Are we talking about Ericsson?---Sorry, you were talking about National Australia Bank.
PN526
Well, in all these cases you talk about things being put in place et cetera, finding owners and tenants et cetera and agreements being signed. Does Bovis Lend Lease get a building contract before or after those processes?---We work in parallel. The developer is looking to secure both revenue and cost to deliver. So we are giving price advice which ranges from very indicative advice, through to very detailed and finally a contract price to deliver the project.
PN527
In terms of when you actually get signed up to deliver that, does that happen before or after the signing up of the key participants in the - - - ?---Quite often it's concurrent.
PN528
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Might it be, Mr Moore, that another builder did the work, design and construct, or is there some circumstance that requires that it be Bovis Lend Lease in that particular precinct? For example, if there was a commercial arrangement with a particular entity for a particular piece of real estate, is it available to Bovis Lend Lease to enter into a commercial arrangement to dispose of that particular property, obviously with the appropriate approvals and not be a party to any of the building?---The land control goes back to Lend Lease Development. In terms of procuring the design and construction of the project, it's the intent to work with Bovis Lend Lease to deliver the project, because of the synergies of the two businesses working together and that seamless arrangement. We would therefore expect to deliver the majority of the projects at Victoria Harbour. Some examples of where we're not delivering all the projects would be the current mariner works where it's being controlled by a separate developer to Lend Lease Development.
PN529
Okay. Well, I think that answers my question. You would expect to be, but you wouldn't necessarily be?---That's correct.
PN530
MR DALTON: For Victoria Harbour Precinct?---For Victoria Harbour.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XN MR DALTON
PN531
For other precincts where you get Guernseys, that may be you get a particular building and other builders might get the next building?---NewQuay is a clear example. We were able to tender, negotiate, win five towers. The current project was tendered in one by a separate building contractor.
PN532
No more questions.
PN533
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We might adjourn for lunch at this point in time and re-convene at 2 pm. Perhaps you can attempt to make some contact during that period of time, Ms Walters.
PN534
MS WALTERS: Yes, your Honour.
PN535
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I should just remind you, Mr Moore, not to discuss your evidence during the break.
<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.41PM]
<RESUMED [2.02PM]
PN536
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think you'd finished, hadn't you, Mr Dalton?
PN537
MR DALTON: Yes, your Honour.
PN538
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Quigley, did you have any - - -
PN539
MR QUIGLEY: No, your Honour.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, thank you. Ms Walters?
<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS [2.03PM]
PN541
MS WALTERS: Mr Moore, can you turn to paragraph 2 of your statement. You say you're currently employed as the Regional Manager for Bovis Lend Lease, correct?---That's correct.
PN542
But that you've worked for - well, you commenced employment with Bovis Lend Lease in 1979 as a site engineer, is that correct?---At that time Bovis Lend Lease was named Civil & Civic and it changed its business trading name to Bovis Lend Lease.
PN543
And so in 1979 the company that is Bovis Lend Lease was entitled Civil & Civic?---Civil & Civic, that's correct.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN544
And when did Civil & Civic become Bovis Lend Lease?---My recollection was 1999, 2000.
PN545
Right. So in fact what you're referring to is the announcement in 1999 when the Lend Lease Corporation in fact bought the Bovis Group, is that correct?---In 1999 Lend Lease acquired Bovis. At that time Lend Lease still owned its subsidiary company of Civil & Civic. With the acquisition of Bovis, which was a global project management design and construction company, it merged the two entities to be a single subsidiary now referred to as Bovis Lend Lease.
PN546
For the last five years you've been Regional Manager. What was the role you performed prior to commencing in the role of Regional Manager?---I was an Executive Project Manager in the Victorian business for a period of months in 2001 and before that I was an Executive Project Manager in the Queensland business.
PN547
When you were Executive Project Manager for the Vic business, you refer to the Victorian business of Bovis Lend Lease, correct?---Correct, as Victoria and South Australia. It's the geographic representation.
PN548
Yes, the Executive Project Manager, yes?---That's right.
PN549
Mr Moore, paragraph 18, Mr Dalton has take you to this, you indicate that in 1997 developers put together proposals which were in the form, or included as part of that proposal, the master plan, that's correct?---That was the commencement of developers' responses. That was the commencement of the initial precincts and those precincts were bid over a period of time from '97 through to current day.
PN550
Right, and when did Lend Lease Development first submit its master plan? Well, indeed, proposal, tender for development of Victoria Harbour?---For Victoria Harbour in - it expressed in mid 2000. It prepared its proposal in late 2000, early 2001 for Victoria Harbour.
PN551
What do you mean by expressed interest?---The Docklands Authority had a two stage process where they would advise the broader market that a precinct was to come to the market for development responses. It would seek expressions of interest from interested parties for them to put forward their broad capabilities, to be a respondent. It would then prepare a list of developers, a short list of developers to respond with formal proposals.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN552
So when was the master plan that you've referred to, the detailed master plan first conceived by Lend Lease Development?---For Victoria Harbour, it would have been prepared through that bid phase of late 2000 into 2001.
PN553
But as you've indicated in your evidence it was open to, from 1997, that the Victoria Harbour precinct was open for proposals?---In 1997 developers put together proposals which was the commencement of the first precincts. The first precincts was the NewQuay Precinct, followed by the Yarra's Edge Precinct. So developers commenced putting forward proposals for different precincts in the Docklands area from '97. Lend Lease Development responded with its proposal for Victoria Harbour in 2000-2001.
PN554
You indicated in your evidence-in-chief, and I can assist, Mr Dalton referred you to paragraph 12 of your statement and has in fact taken you through the various project development areas and you indicated previously that Victoria Harbour was also one of the earlier project areas opened up for proposals?---Early, relative to the seven precincts, and by early, looking at the time frame of '97 through to current day, at 2000/2001, it was the third of those seven precincts. So therefore I call that early.
PN555
In your experience how long does it take for, or how long did it take for Lend Lease Development to put together their proposal?---I'm not aware of the exact timing, but from the indication of dates there, it would have been some four to six month period.
PN556
And in that original proposal, and I refer you to BL2, and the first map, and I think the first map is the multi multi coloured map, with the coloured - - - ?---Yes.
PN557
Can you indicate to the Commission, as part of that master plan, and you can see in the Lend Lease area here there's various allotments, so to speak. The third building along from the top right hand side which has been referred to in evidence as originally the third of the three NAB buildings which in fact now is the site of the Ericsson building, that's correct?---That's correct.
PN558
Yes, and can you explain to the Commission, in relation to the master plan that was originally put to the Docklands Authority as part of its proposal for the development, what use had been indicated in relation to that allotment?---I'm not aware of what it was at the time of the bid, master plan.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN559
So you've not seen a copy of the original master plan formulated by Lend Lease Development for the Victoria Harbour development?---I've seen a copy of it, but I can't recall what specific uses it had there.
PN560
You referred to commercial, residential as the plan, the original master plan had a concept of various mixed uses. You can't recall?---Correct.
PN561
And in your evidence, I believe it was - you were questioned in relation to compliance with the original proposal put and awarded by the Docklands Authority or subsequently VicUrban, we'll refer to them as one and the same, the Docklands Authority, and when asked in relation to how you were required to comply you indicated that there was some flexibility that you were able to approach the Docklands Authority or indeed, VicUrban, to revise that master plan, that's correct?---That's correct.
PN562
And have you been involved in any such approach to VicUrban?---No. That's a matter that's managed by Lend Lease Development as the developer because they have the connection with VicUrban.
PN563
Have you been involved in the development of a revised master plan?---I'm aware of revised master plans being developed. I'm aware of different options in the master plans. I'm aware that there's a third master plan that's being developed. I'm aware of different site options and site usages over the period of time, because, as the project management company, we have costed and priced different building solutions on different sites.
PN564
Yes. So indeed, Bovis Lend Lease as a subsidiary of Lend Lease, is involved in managing the project, that is, Victoria Harbour, correct?---No, we - - -
PN565
MR DALTON: I object to the question. This is not the first time my friend is putting the precinct area and using the work project. That's the direct thing that's in contention and it hasn't been accepted by the witness, so I'd ask that Ms Walters respect that and frame the question appropriately.
PN566
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I think that's really a point of issues, Ms Walters, whether or not it is a project. So you might just bear that in mind when you frame the questions.
PN567
MS WALTERS: Certainly, your Honour, I note the point made. I do refer to paragraph 6 of the witness' statement and indeed, the paragraphs in which those terms are used interchangeably in relation to Bovis Lend Lease's business. I'm not putting a question. I'm responding to the point just put, but I shall move on.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN568
You've indicated that Bovis Lend Lease is the project management company?
---Correct.
PN569
And that in the revising of any master plan, therefore you have involvement in that?---That's correct.
PN570
Okay, and Bovis Lend Lease is the project management company for the Victoria Harbour?---No, that's not correct. We get involved in the project in Victoria Harbour on a per project basis. The work is awarded to us on a per project basis. As part of our responsibility we provide design advice and master planning for the broader Victoria Harbour precinct. So as part of that service, we work with the development company to help them in their master planning of the site but it is the development company that is controlling the master plan.
PN571
Yes, but you provide advice to Lend Lease Development on the design of that master planning for the totality of Victoria Harbour?---On elements of the master plan, on a progressive basis.
PN572
Yes, so as an allotment becomes available for use or, indeed, revised use, as you've indicated in relation to the area that the Ericsson building is now being constructed, correct?---On a site basis, yes.
PN573
MS WALTERS: If I can beg the indulgence of the Commission, it was a document that I provided to Mr Dalton, and indeed, put to Mr Broadhead and provided to your Honour, it was the Docklands Authority Code of Practice.
PN574
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, which was CFMEU1.
PN575
MS WALTERS: Yes, CFMEU1. I'm wondering if either of you could provide a copy to - I refer you to - you've had a look at the document, Mr Moore?---Yes, I have.
PN576
Have you seen the document before, Mr Moore?---I'd seen the cover of the document before. I'm not aware of the details of the document.
PN577
Right. It's indicated that it's Docklands Authority's Code of Practice for construction work. So you agree it applies to any work carried out in the whole, in any Docklands project, correct?---Well, looking at the title of it, you could make that presumption.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN578
Yes. So it would also apply, as you indicate at paragraph 35 of your statement, it would apply to the construction of the Ericsson building, correct?---It would appear so.
PN579
Yes, and you indicate at paragraph 37 of your statement, Mr Moore, that "we" and by "we" I'm presuming you mean Bovis Lend Lease?---That's correct.
PN580
"Expect that Bovis Lend Lease will be selected to undertake future projects." What's the basis for that expectation?---Because Lend Lease Development have development rights and control over Victoria Harbour. They are the primary instigator of future developments on that site. Both businesses are subsidiaries of the Lend Lease Group. There are proven efficiencies for where the two businesses can work together.
PN581
One further question, Mr Moore. Mr Moore, I think it was when you were explaining to his Honour the nature of that flexibility referred to in terms of the master plan and where initially, for example, Lend Lease's Development has allocated a certain type of work and, indeed, made contract, and that's then revised, for example, with the allotment where NAB had the option, didn't take it up, and then we see the Ericsson building and the nature of that. You referred to clients of, or key clients of Bovis Lend Lease in the form of GP Trust, or is it GP Trust Development?---General Property Trust.
PN582
General Property Trust Development. What do you mean by key client?---I don't understand the context of your question.
PN583
Well, in relation to the NAB buildings, you're explaining that in fact NAB have a tenancy agreement with the general property trust who became the owner of the two NAB allotments, correct?---Yes. The structure being that Lend Lease Development sought a tenancy commitment for the site, which was National Australia Bank's agreement to lease. It sought an end owner for the completed project, which is General Property Trust, and for the delivery it sought the design and construct contractor, which was Bovis Lend Lease.
PN584
Yes, and General Property Trust is one of the key clients of Lend Lease Development, correct?---They, both clients and competitors, they had different positions in the property market. General Property Trust is an owner of projects, it's a developer of projects. Lend Lease Development is also a developer of projects.
**** GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE XXN MS WALTERS
PN585
So they're not related entities in any way, shape or form?---Today they are not. At the time of the National Australia Bank, General Property Trust was managed by Lend Lease.
PN586
That's all, your Honour.
MR DALTON: No re-examination, your Honour.
PN588
MR DALTON: Your Honour, that's the evidence of the company in this matter.
PN589
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Mr Dalton. Where did you get to, Ms Walters, as far as Mr Noonan was concerned?
PN590
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, I haven't received a return phone call. I put in two phone calls to get instructions from Mr Noonan and I will check immediately, but I would expect Mr Noonan will respond to my attempt to contact him. I'm in some difficulty in relation to this matter in that I would seek to get instructions from Mr Noonan prior to conceding to the deletion of that sentence in his witness statement, given that the purpose for seeking those instructions, as it is his evidence, was indeed, to get instructions as to the basis of his - - -
PN591
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. You haven't been able to get in touch with him as yet?
PN592
MS WALTERS: No. However, given that that is, in essence, the sole element that will require the parties returning to the Commission and we are at leave to - or for want of a better word - waste the parties' time, we're really open to, your Honour, if you have a view as to how we could best deal with this issue - - -
PN593
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, look, it seems to me that Mr Noonan has made a statement in his witness statement that, as I've said to you before, is going to need some backing up if it's to carry any weight and only he can provide that.
PN594
MS WALTERS: That's right.
PN595
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If the matter goes forward before, if we have to hear from Mr Noonan, before we've actually done that, and Mr Noonan does bring to light some other material, then that raises issues for the applicant which seems to me might - well, it would seem to me to be an impediment to taking this matter any further in the submissions until such time as we know what's going on with Mr Noonan. Because if Mr Noonan does raise some things, then that might raise some other issues in respect of the case that Mr Dalton wants to put. Mr Dalton, what do you have to say?
PN596
MR DALTON: I can't really anything more other than if Mr Noonan does seek to raise other matters to back that statement up, then it begs the question why that material wasn't included in his statement originally, but, your Honour, that really doesn't answer the issue directly.
PN597
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It doesn't further the matter, no.
PN598
MR DALTON: I don't have anything further, other than to say, obviously, the earlier Mr Noonan can respond to this, the better. We may not lose today and tomorrow, if that be the case.
PN599
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No. But it does look as if we're going to lose today, at least, or what's left of it.
PN600
MS WALTERS: Your Honour, unfortunately I'm in a situation where I can't guarantee when I'm going to get those instructions, but as I have indicated, Mr Noonan takes his role very seriously and I do expect to get a response from him.
PN601
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand. Well, the other thing that can be done, if it is necessary - if Mr Noonan is of a view that he has something further to back that statement up with, because it's highly likely that Mr Dalton will be quite probing of that particular statement in cross-examination, so Mr Noonan should be made aware of that, and if he is of the view that he can back it up, then arrangements could be made to hear his evidence via video, if he's in Perth, assuming the availability of the equipment, so that we don't put the parties to more inconvenience because I'm aware that - I think you're down from Sydney at the moment, aren't you, so it's an issue obviously as far as you're concerned.
PN602
There is a three hour, I think, time difference between Perth and here which should mean that Mr Noonan, if he was to give evidence, should be able to make himself available, I would have thought, by 8.30 Perth time, which would be 11.30 our time tomorrow.
PN603
MS WALTERS: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
PN604
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll check the availability of the necessary equipment or I'll have that checked and I'll have my associate advise you. In the event that we are going to go forward with Mr Noonan's evidence and we can do it on that basis at 11.30, we can convene at 11.30 in the morning, we can hear Mr Noonan's evidence, it would seem that we should be able to still complete the matter quite readily tomorrow. I wouldn't have thought submissions would take all that long. In the event that Mr Noonan decides that there's not anything more than what is already in the statement, and you've already heard my views on that, that being the case we can convene at 10 am in the morning.
PN605
MS WALTERS: Yes, certainly, your Honour, as indicated in those circumstances it will be a question of weight that is attributed by your Honour in relation to that, and given, if my calculation as to the time difference are correct, it may be, in terms of reasonable hours over in - no, it's the other way. Certainly, your Honour, we will indicate to Mr Dalton or preferably Ms Deboos and yourself as soon as I've either been able to obtain those instructions or not, as is the case, what the circumstances are.
PN606
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, my associate will, in the meantime, make sure that the equipment is available at both ends. We would likely need to convene in a different court room, but that is neither here nor there, and that would be for Mr Noonan to give his evidence at 8.30 Perth time or 11.30 Melbourne time tomorrow. So in the case that he is giving his evidence, that's when it will occur.
PN607
MS WALTERS: Yes, your Honour.
PN608
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In the case that he isn't going to give any further evidence than what he's already given in the witness statement, then the thing that will happen then is that that particular sentence will be given no weight, or will in fact be excised from the statement along with the other reference that I've already alluded to, I think, on the transcript, and we will proceed on that basis at 10 am tomorrow morning. I hope that's all clear with everybody else. All right.
PN609
MS WALTERS: Thank you, your Honour.
PN610
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you'll be in touch, Ms Walters, with my associate to let her know which of those two scenarios is going to pertain and you will also let Ms Deboos know - I don't want to get Mr Dalton and Mr Quigley out of bed early if - - -
PN611
MS WALTERS: No, I'd be loathe to, your Honour.
PN612
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. We'll adjourn, thank you.
<ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2006 [2.31PM]
LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs
STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD, SWORN PN11
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON PN11
EXHIBIT #BL1 STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MARK BROADHEAD WITH ATTACHMENTS PN21
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS PN76
EXHIBIT #BL2 THREE MAPS PN82
EXHIBIT #CFMEU1 MELBOURNE DOCKLANDS AUTHORITY CONSTRUCTION CODE OF PRACTICE PN99
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DALTON PN278
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN290
LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS, SWORN PN290
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON PN290
EXHIBIT #BL3 STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE VINCENT CROSS PN297
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS PN310
EXHIBIT #CFMEU2 COMPACT DOCUMENT WITH AMENDMENTS PN326
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DALTON PN382
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN384
GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE, SWORN PN433
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR DALTON PN433
EXHIBIT #BL4 STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY ROBERT MOORE PN442
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS WALTERS PN540
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN587
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AIRCTrans/2006/1260.html