C2007/2984, Transcript of Proceedings [2007] AIRCTrans 440 (6 September 2007)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 17330-2

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT KAUFMAN

C2007/2984

s.170LW - prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
Dr Dario Toncich Dr Ebrahim Shayan
and
Swinburne University of Technology
(C2007/2984)

MELBOURNE

9.30AM, TUESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2007

Continued from 27/8/2007

Hearing continuing

PN1547

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Ginnane.

PN1548

MR GINNANE: Your Honour, just one development. On Friday, late on Friday we received the two witness statements in reply. The supplementary witness statements, which I think is A2 from Dr Toncich and a particular one from Professor Shayan as well. Then yesterday we received exhibit A3 that your Honour let in subject to our rights we’ve actually prepared – obviously it’s subject to your Honour’s leave to admit it, a further witness statement in reply from Professor Beynon overnight, which we’d seek leave to file and we seek leave on the basis, particularly with A3 matters that were just raised yesterday and the other statements in reply that we got at the close of business Friday, weren’t really the subject of your Honour’s directions for things in reply.

PN1549

We thought we should rather than seeing if we could ask orally to lead orally from the witness it is better to try and get something in writing. We’ve given that to our friend just in the hour before court this morning, so we would seek to file it your Honour and rely on it. If I can hand a copy to your Honour and indicate what it contains if we can hand that to your Honour’s associate. It probably also requires your Honour for me to put a few further questions to Dr Toncich because it does directly contradict some of the evidence he gave yesterday, particularly in respect of exhibit A3, the document that came in. I think Dr Toncich had done the night before and came in and so just to have principles of fairness I should at some point, it’s convenient I do it now before we open the case, put various propositions to Dr Toncich that are contained in this further statement, so that we comply with the cross-examiner’s obligations of fairness in putting it I suppose.

PN1550

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Ginnane. Mr Millar? Has Dr Toncich seen this letter?

PN1551

MR MILLAR: He saw it briefly for perhaps a minute before coming into the courtroom. Your Honour, the suggestion that this additional material arises out of the exhibit which was tendered yesterday A3 I think it was is with respect, misconceived, because all of that material was already before the Commission. It was simply put into a different and I suppose more easily digestible form in that exhibit. Having said that I hear what my friend has said, I don’t, other than making that observation, resist the application that he is making. Although I would hope that any further cross-examination could be conducted now rather than later on.

PN1552

MR GINNANE: I’m happy to do it now if Dr Toncich is available.

PN1553

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I’ll allow Mr Ginnane to file the witness statement in reply of Professor Beynon and to further cross-examine
Dr Toncich which we will hear now. Dr Toncich will you go back in the witness box, and you remain on your further oath.

<DARIO JOHN TONCICH, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH [9.33AM]
<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE

PN1554

MR GINNANE: Dr Toncich do you have a copy of the document that you produced yesterday which was marked exhibit A3?---No, I don’t can you give me a copy?

PN1555

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I can hand my copy to him unless you want me to follow it?

PN1556

MR GINNANE: It might be an idea to follow it so if there is another copy? Thank you?---Yes, that’s the document.

PN1557

Dr Toncich if I can just run through these subjects that you say comprised your workload for 2007 just doing it in the order that you have in the document, just to put certain things to you. I suggest to you that the workload for the first item, 5102 research project was 48 hours. It was an undergraduate subject in which you gave six lectures and 12 tutorials in semester one. Do you agree with that?---Well I’m not sure of the numbers, but whatever the numbers were. It doesn’t sound like an unreasonable number.

PN1558

Well?---Whatever the number is that’s on the faculty workload model as far as that subject is concerned that’s what this 106 has come from.

PN1559

I suggest to you that it’s not 106 at all but my question was asking you to agree that the appropriate figure was 48, which is less than half 106?---Well no I’m
not - - -

PN1560

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s just for the 5102 subject?

PN1561

MR GINNANE: Yes, just for the 5102 subject your Honour?---Well looking at the workload model which is the faculty workload model.

PN1562

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What are you looking at
Dr Toncich?---This is DT11.

PN1563

MR GINNANE: Dr Toncich by all means look at that, but I’m asking you to agree what your workload for that unit was?---Well I’m trying to work that out from - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1564

But didn’t you work that out before you compiled this document?---Well I had from this.

PN1565

Isn’t this document to be taken on your evidence as a statement of the actual hours that you worked in 2007?---That document is taken from this document.

PN1566

We may be able to shorten things?---Yes.

PN1567

Is this document not to be taken as a true statement of the hours that you were to work in 2007?---Let me answer it this way. That document is taken from DT11 which is the faculty’s document and as I think I said to you yesterday with the exception of the possibility of transcription errors, or calculation errors which I did, that document over a course of about five or six minutes, I’m assuming that the numbers in that document that you had yesterday should match with this document. So all I’m saying is that this is what the faculty has allocated in its 2007 workload model for the various subjects, right? Now the only other piece of information - - -

PN1568

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Toncich if I may interrupt you for a moment?---Yes.

PN1569

I’m just looking at document 11 and I’m not sure whether I’m reading it correctly or not, but on the second page there’s a subject HES5102?---That’s correct.

PN1570

That seems to have a weighted total hours of 53, is it?---That’s right and 53 in semester two.

PN1571

No?---Yes, if you go further down HES5102 has a further 53, so that’s 106, as per the faculty’s model.

PN1572

So that’s how you got your 106?---That’s where I got the 106 from.

PN1573

So the 106 was for HES5102 not for the combined subjects that are - - -?---That’s a very good question. Well - - -

PN1574

Well I hope I only ask very good questions, what’s the answer?---HET550 and HET556 are two subjects wherein the students sat in on the lectures so they’re included as part of the whole thing and it was intended as I understand it and this is what I was led to believe in the subject convenor’s course, that eventually those two subjects were all going to be folded in. I think HET550 and 556 are actually to do with the electrical engineering course and because of the amalgamation of various elements of the faculty, those particular subjects were currently conducted in a different way and this year I think was the first time the subjects were actually integrated into the faculty.

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1575

MR GINNANE: Dr Toncich the model DT11 has at the top, academic workload plan 2006?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1576

Someone has crossed it out and put 2007?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1577

Who crossed it out?---Me.

PN1578

Yes, okay I put to you that the model DT11 bears no relation to your actual work allocation for 2007?---Well that’s not correct, the 2006 figure is because the spreadsheet which was actually issued earlier this year was the 2006 spreadsheet and if you actually go into the spreadsheet it wasn’t actually possible to change the 2006 to 2007.

PN1579

Okay if we go into the next item there?---No, should – could I just add further to that?

PN1580

Yes?---This particular model the way the faculty is currently run this particular document DT11 was submitted to the academic group leader, Professor Nagarajah and he perused it, discussed it with me so he’s the person that’s effectively in charge of the various groups that do these subjects and then other elements in there for example, industry based learning supervision, in terms of things where you’ve got ambit claims for projects or research hours, for example, it – I contacted the Deputy Dean of the faculty Professor Wilson and last year I put down an ambit claim for 14 for industry based learning supervision I inherited another seven or eight from another supervisor. So I asked him this year, how do I calculate the workload model and he said well I think what we’ll do is work on last year’s numbers and I gave him the numbers and he said that was okay. Then subsequent to that it was sent to Professor Nagarajah and then subsequent to that to the faculty.

PN1581

It’s never been signed off by anyone from the faculty has it?---Well as I understand it - - -

PN1582

Dr Toncich it’s never been signed off to your knowledge by anyone from the faculty?---Professor Nagarajah - - -

PN1583

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Toncich that’s susceptible to a yes or no answer I would have thought?---Well not to my knowledge, but - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1584

That’s your answer, thank you.

PN1585

MR GINNANE: Dr Toncich these are the subjects that are on A3 in the first box down to the first line 5103, 550, 556, you had absolutely no involvement in them in 2007 did you?---5103 is the continuation of 5102.

PN1586

Well there were no student allocations, 5103 is an advanced research project?
---Well 5103 is the continuation of 5102.

PN1587

Well let me read what’s on your document?---Yes.

PN1588

5103 advanced research?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1589

In 2007 there was no student allocation to you for this subject in either
semester?---Well I think that’s what on the other document that you’ve got.

PN1590

Do you agree with me?---That’s what’s on the other document, yes.

PN1591

It’s got no connection with your workload for 2007 at all?---No, I think that’s incorrect.

PN1592

Equally 550, the next one that you’ve included there which is design and development project that was the subject taught by Mr Vu, V-u?---Yes.

PN1593

You had no involvement in it at all in 2007?---No, that’s not correct the students in 550 and 556 attend the lectures for 5102, so hence they are all lumped into the same area.

PN1594

Well?---But there’s no actual – in addition to that - - -

PN1595

No, no, just before you race on to something else?---Right.

PN1596

Mr Vu was the lecturer of the subject?---Yes.

PN1597

550 you had no lecturing responsibility in respect of 550 did you?---Let me - - -

PN1598

No, no, yes or no, did you have any lecturing responsibility for 550?---Okay, the student - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1599

Dr Toncich did you or did you not?---The students in 550 attended the lectures in 5102.

PN1600

The lecturer in 550 was Mr Vu and not you Dr Toncich?---We let students in 550 attend the lectures in 5102 as a result of the merging of final year subjects this year.

PN1601

You won’t answer my question Dr Toncich?---Well I have no formal.

PN1602

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that is a responsive answer.

PN1603

MR GINNANE: All right your Honour?---I have no formal involvement in that but I’ve not counted that in my workload either.

PN1604

You’ve included as 2007 workload for you?---I’ve included it as the subjects courses and hours in total, the total hours don’t change as a result of whether 550 and 556 are in there or not.

PN1605

Okay 556 a similar situation the lecturer is Mr George Banky?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1606

You had no involvement in that subject at all?---Unless the students actually take the projects.

PN1607

They didn’t?---No, but that’s not a - - -

PN1608

You understand the word yes Dr Toncich you had no involvement with that subject in 2007 did you?---Let me rephrase it.

PN1609

Would you answer that question?---Yes.

PN1610

Is the answer yes that you had no involvement with subject 556 in 2007?---In 2007 as per the workload model let me explain it again which is done at the beginning of the year - - -

PN1611

Would you answer my question Dr Toncich?---The answer to the question is at 2007 at the beginning of the year estimates are made as to how many potential students you will get, at final year project students, right? The workload model, the 106 hours is calculated on that. Now it may be that you end up in practise getting zero which is the case for 556 and 550 - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1612

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So the answer to Mr Ginnane’s question is you didn’t have any involvement in 2007?---Yes.

PN1613

MR GINNANE: There is no difficulty in answering that question like that is there?---Well I don’t think the answer - - -

PN1614

You can’t disguise that fact?---Well I don’t think the answer is that simple.

PN1615

Now 1305 the next one just keep going down the page, that’s a subject this year that initially you were to teach?---That’s correct.

PN1616

You didn’t teach after the notice of redundancy it was taught by Professor Brooks?---Yes, I think that’s correct.

PN1617

Okay, you go to the next one, 510 that’s taught module for system two?---That’s correct.

PN1618

It’s currently taught as a 12 week course with a teaching workload of 144 hours, not 156?---No that’s not correct because we run an extra week on that subject.

PN1619

Okay if we then go to the IBL’s the industry based learning all academics are expected to undertake supervision of students who are spending time in industry are they not?---How do you mean all academics, that’s not necessary – I don’t think that’s true.

PN1620

All right and for semester one you were supervising two students for a total of eight hours each for that system?---No, I don’t think that’s correct I put down for I think three mechanical engineering students.

PN1621

Can we deal with the reality of what actually happened? Are you supervising two students not three?---Let me go through this again. I don’t know how many students I ended up with through – at the end of the – well through – well sorry because of the redundancy thing. I don’t know how many were actually cancelled. I think at the beginning of the year I had seven I scheduled 14 which was what was in the model and that was what was approved by the Deputy Dean. I actually had - - -

PN1622

I suggest to you, you supervised two?---Well that may be the case, but that’s not what was - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1623

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Excuse me Mr Ginnane, is the answer to the question you don’t know?---I don’t know.

PN1624

Okay thank you?---Because the way the thing panned out was that I think I was allocated seven the workload was allocated as 14.

PN1625

You don’t know what you ended up with?---No and I don’t know what I ended up with as a result of the redundancy notes.

PN1626

Right thank you.

PN1627

MR GINNANE: Now if you go down the last box on this page, 513 masters project 240 hours in semester one you supervised one student and that gives an equivalent of 36 hours?---In semester one, I think I had two applied, one of them – two started one finished, so yes.

PN1628

So it amounts to 36 hours not 240?---Well again that is the projected load. You are talking about two different things. Are you talking actual and projected?

PN1629

What actually happened? What actually happened in 2007 not some modelling, some projection using earlier figures? What actually happened with your workload in 2007 that’s what I’m asking you about?---Right, well.

PN1630

Now the next area in that box is HIR514 you had no involvement with the master’s program in semester one in 2007 with that unit code?---That’s correct.

PN1631

Okay now the last two numbers, 5102 and 5103?---Well they are the same as before.

PN1632

We’ve dealt with those before?---Yes.

PN1633

Okay thank you. I think your Honour in respect of the other matters that Professor Beynon deals with in his statement I put them in one way or another to Dr Toncich yesterday, so I don’t think I need to – by that I mean we’d received the witness statement in reply by the close of business Friday and I had oral instructions which I put so I don’t think I need to take time to do that.

PN1634

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1635

MR GINNANE: It may be – so I think that concludes my further questions of
Dr Toncich except this.

PN1636

Dr Toncich I suggest to you that the hours the hours of work, hours of teaching that you were giving evidence about yesterday were based on model projections and didn’t represent reality of the hours allocated to you in 2007?---I would suggest that is exactly the same full staff, right.

PN1637

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s not the answer?---Yes, well that’s correct but that is true for all staff. So in answer to your question, yes that’s correct.

PN1638

MR GINNANE: And that your teaching load for 2007 considerably less than the figures you were giving to the Commission yesterday?---No, you don’t have the figures for semester two in terms of postgraduate students applying for projects nor the total that would be actually allocated in IBL in semester two.

PN1639

Thank you Dr Toncich your Honour I should just say – perhaps I can deal with it after Dr Toncich has finished. There is just one matter concerning Professor Shayan I should raise with your Honour but I will wait until Dr Toncich is finished.

PN1640

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Millar do you have any further questions?

<FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR [9.49AM]

PN1641

MR MILLAR: There are. There is an issue that arises Dr Toncich you said that the figures you were taken through this morning don’t represent the second semester workload?---Well the figures that are in what is it A2 the document?

PN1642

A3?---A3 right all of those figures I think I said yesterday are the ones derived from DT11 which is what was submitted at the beginning of the year to the academic group leader Professor Nagarajah and subsequently discussed with the Deputy Dean of the faculty and it was my understanding that had all been accepted. As I think I mentioned yesterday and if not I’ll say it again today the figures that actually appear on that workload model are a combination of actual hours, as Mr Ginnane has pointed out, plus projected hours and the projected hours which are common to all academic staff in the faculty, are based on estimates of what will be required for the workload for 2007. In the case of final year post – final year undergraduate projects, final year postgraduate projects, final year masters theses all of those are projections and that is how the modelling system works. So it’s no good coming back and saying well you didn’t get those numbers in practice when in fact, that is the way the workload model is allocated. Now it’s up to the faculty at any stage and that applies to every staff member in the faculty if they are not getting the full workload, they are welcome to allocate it at any point in the year. That is how the modelling system works it’s not a highly prescriptive thing. It’s a collection of projections plus actual hours. The actual hours as far as I can tell in terms of the actual lecturing are correct and the projected hours as of semester one are probably greater than the actual hours. But that does not mean at the end of semester two and I had several applications for master thesis minor thesis and several for minor, sorry masters project, that doesn’t mean that those numbers would not be exceeded at semester two. So I think the argument that because some of it is speculative as per the modelling process that’s in place in the university and applies to everybody in the faculty, the suggestion that well if you don’t actually match up with what is planned at the beginning of the year - - -

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FRXN MR MILLAR
PN1643

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Millar I think that is at a point that we are now getting into a submission rather than an answer to the question.

PN1644

MR MILLAR: Well I’ll ask a further question. The applications that you spoke about as being for the second semester were they applications of a type that you anticipate would have been – would have turned into actual workload for the second half of the year?---Well at least one definitely did, in fact two have actually approached me to do minor thesis with me. The first one was the one who was actually in the first semester who wanted to do a second thesis with me and there was another one who I don’t have the name of who actually emailed me a couple of weeks ago and I haven’t actually responded to that for obvious reasons. So I think those two would have been definite for the master thesis project. In semester one and this goes back to Mr Ginnane’s questions earlier - - -

PN1645

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Toncich we are talking about semester two are we not Mr Millar?---Yes, but I wanted to get to that point. In semester one is HES5102 I was actually approached by a couple of students who were dissatisfied with their current project in 5102 and asked me whether I would consider taking them in 5103 but by that stage the redundancy notice had been issued and obviously it wasn’t practical to go and do that.

PN1646

MR MILLAR: Now but for the redundancy notice what was your anticipated workload for the second semester?---The anticipated, you mean the actual or well which one?

PN1647

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He said the anticipated?---Well the anticipated.

PN1648

I would have thought the answer to that must be exhibit A3, must it not?---Yes, yes, I don’t see any change or any reason to change that and as I said earlier it may be in practise the actual ends up lower but it may also in practise that the actual ends up higher. So as the Dean and the Vice Chancellor would be fully aware, these models are speculative from the beginning of the year and estimates are made all the way through and some people end up winning and some people end up losing. That’s just the way the modelling works.

PN1649

MR MILLAR: Yes, thank you, your Honour nothing further.

PN1650

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ginnane?

**** DARIO JOHN TONCICH FRXN MR MILLAR
PN1651

MR GINNANE: I’ve got no questions.

PN1652

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, thank you Dr Toncich you are excused again thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [9.54AM]

PN1653

MR GINNANE: The only other matter your Honour is this about this statement in reply, in paragraph 9 of it, of this further statement, this hours given for Professor Shayan’s teaching commitment, now Professor Shayan didn’t give any direct evidence about those teaching hours. Professor Beynon has now provided information. It - - -

PN1654

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want to put these matters to Professor Shayan?

PN1655

MR GINNANE: It might be appropriate just to put them to Professor Shayan.

PN1656

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So that he’s got an opportunity?

PN1657

MR GINNANE: So that he’s got an opportunity yes.

PN1658

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Professor Shayan would you mind going back into the witness box so that some questions can be put to you to give you an opportunity to comment on them. You remain on the oath that you took yesterday.

PN1659

MR MILLAR: Sir, just before that’s put, can I say that looking at paragraph 9 of the further material that’s been provided today, I am not sure that the issue that my friend indicated.

PN1660

MR GINNANE: paragraph 10, did I say nine?

PN1661

MR MILLAR: You said nine.

PN1662

MR GINNANE: I apologise I should have said 10.

PN1663

MR MILLAR: Yes I won’t say anything.

<MOHAMMAD EBRAHIM SHAYAN, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH [9.55AM]
<FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE

PN1664

MR GINNANE: Professor Shayan I just ask you about your teaching role, just some further questions about that. The subject design of physical facilities is one of the subjects that you mentioned yesterday. The teaching load for that was 18 lectures, which is 72 hours of workload. Do you agree with that?---18 lectures?

PN1665

18 lectures, 72, one multiplies 18 by four and gets to 72?---No 18 means six sessions.

PN1666

Right?---Not it was - - -

PN1667

18 lectures I’m talking about not sessions, 18 lectures?---What do you mean by lectures?

PN1668

I mean by lectures, lectures?---No, because we talk about sessions every week has a session of three hours.

PN1669

18 sessions then?---No, it’s - - -

PN1670

How many sessions do you say it was?---12 sessions, altogether.

PN1671

And does one multiply by four to get the workload connected with such sessions, is it a factor of four?---The workload model is automatic, you put the number of sessions and it calculates it itself.

PN1672

Do you know what multiplier it uses?---I can’t recall that no.

PN1673

Okay then your contribution to the teaching of technology management which is another subject, which I think you mentioned yesterday, was three lectures
only?---Possibly I can’t recall that.

PN1674

Thank you Professor Shayan.

PN1675

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Anything else Mr Millar?

PN1676

MR MILLAR: No, your Honour.

**** MOHAMMAD EBRAHIM SHAYAN FXXN MR GINNANE
PN1677

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you Professor Shayan you are excused yet again.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [9.57AM]

PN1678

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Ginnane.

PN1679

MR GINNANE: Thank you your Honour, could we open our case and then we’ll proceed to call first the Vice Chancellor of the University, Professor Young. Then the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Science Professor John Beynon – whose surname is spelt B-e-y-n-o-n and then Mr Richard Williams, who works in the human resources section at the university. But just before doing that your Honour, an opening to indicate how our case is put.

PN1680

As we understand it the Commission is being asked to exercise it’s jurisdiction under section 170LW of the Act arising from a dispute about the application of the certified agreement. Now our friend identified three matters yesterday and with about one exception, all appeared to concern the application of clause 19, which is headed, redundancy academic staff. We are now just opening and will amplify this in final submissions, but in a sense your Honour clause 19 provides its own scheme of redundancy, or in a sense definition of redundancy, obviously one has to read the clause as a whole. But it commences by saying:

PN1681

Where the university makes a decision to terminate the employment of one or more academic staff for reasons of an economic, technological structure or similar nature including –

PN1682

And then four examples are given, then certain things occur. Now the university’s case is that certainly the decision to terminate the employment of the two applicants was due to reasons for structural, perhaps also economic, but primarily structural in nature and if one needs to look at any of the examples, I suppose one could look at (d) the changes in technology or work methods, but they are only inclusive definitions. So the structural change was the change in the research direction of IRIS.

PN1683

Now I think that everyone seems to agree that what’s called, critical mass has to be achieved and the rationale behind the change in research focus was to achieve such critical mass for IRIS rather than spreading it’s research activities. So the first issue as I understood our learned friend’s submissions whether the university has made a decision that could come within the wording of clause 19. Our case will be that it did make such a decision and a bona fide decision and I doubt that’s really disputed. It’s a decision that changed the structure of IRIS.

PN1684

Now I’ve mentioned IRIS a couple of times and we say that it is appropriate to consider the redundancies in the context of IRIS. Your Honour has heard that there was a fierce issue, a fiercely fought issue about whether IRIS should continue to stand alone, or be disestablished, or be incorporated into the faculty. It is a matter of the end decision continued to stand as a tier one research institute with staff allocated to it. Two of those staff were the two applicants, Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan.

PN1685

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: When you say staff allocated to it, that’s staff allocated to it from the faculty?

PN1686

MR GINNANE: No from the university the staff whose responsibilities are to work in the IRIS research university. Our case is that - - -

PN1687

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think Dr Toncich gave evidence that he is employed, his contract of employment was with the faculty. I don’t know if anything turns on it, but there seems to be a difference between you.

PN1688

MR GINNANE: I suspect primarily the contract of employment is actually with the university as all academics are. But certainly the employment responsibilities and focus of Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan’s activities were in IRIS and one only has to read the first two or three paragraphs of Dr Toncich’s statement about his history with IRIS going back over many years. Now the university has to show that the reasons for its decision to terminate the employment of Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan were for reasons that come within clause 19 and the evidence will show that.

PN1689

They were genuine reasons logically linked to changes in research focus. Your Honour has seen the website documents and heard various evidence about the significance of that. But our case is that the description of Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan work is aptly caught by the wording of the website entries for them. Dr Toncich industrial control and automation and Professor Shayan industrial engineering management. The change in focus can be debated but two things can be said about. The first is that it occurred after a quite considerable period of consultation. It occurred between November and February or March over a period of five months and secondly, the decision was to limit the areas of research that IRIS carried out.

PN1690

The second issue that my friend raised and our evidence addresses, is the selection issue. Now clause 19 deals with that issue particularly in the review process. Your Honour heard on 17 August from Mr Pope that by reason of clause 19.2 he had to consider four factors, the first of which whether a genuine decision was taken by the university that an academic position, or positions should not be filled by anyone and an interesting question will arise in final submissions your Honour as to how that part of the clause links into the definition of redundancy. Now it may well be argued and we are prepared to present evidence on the basis that there has to be a genuine decision about the matter and that it is part of our case that the academic position, or positions that the two applicants fill, were decided by the university not to be filled by anyone.

PN1691

The second point is whether fair and objective criteria were used to select staff to be identified as excess academic staff the employees. Your Honour, again this was a task that Mr Pope had to carry out as the reviewer. Our friend says that’s a matter that bears on the dispute that’s before the Commission because he says that it’s a dispute about the application of the agreement and we have addressed that as part of our evidence. Now the criteria that we use, if we were to look at the areas of research that were being discontinued. Now that’s simple to state, but it’s also on our case an accurate and fair and objective criteria.

PN1692

To take the contrary your Honour it would be unfair and non objective, if for instance as a result of discontinuing research in two areas, selections had been made of academic staff who had expertise, primary expertise in other areas. Now no doubt most engineering academics, perhaps take Professor Shayan’s evidence yesterday can help out and can teach in a number of areas. I suppose one has a constitutional law expert at Melbourne University that person may be able to teach legal method or introductory legal process or perhaps administrative law, if perish the thought the law school was going to discontinue constitutional law, it would be fair and objective in our submission to look at that person over someone whose specialty was in another area.

PN1693

The people selected were described certainly on the website and in some respects it is fair to say job description wise as research leaders in the particular areas that were discontinued. They were the principle, and indeed really on our case the sole researchers, sole researchers whose activities were devoted to the two areas of control and automation and industrial engineering management in IRIS. Again we emphasise the changes were occurring to IRIS. Indeed, it in a sense was a result of the submission that the applicants were part of to leave IRIS as a separate research institute that IRIS wasn’t amalgamated with the faculty. If that had occurred, perhaps but I suppose certainly different considerations might have applied.

PN1694

The third issue that our friend raised was whether the positions were really redundant. Was there work for them to do it was said and we’ve heard evidence and we’ve gone down the path of attempting to reply to the evidence about the nature of the workload that both of the applicants carried out. We submit however at the end of the case, the real issue is whether the position of the applicants, whether the applicants were terminated, because to quote again 19(a) the change in structure – a structural change and then if one incorporates what Mr Pope had to consider, clause 19.2 whether a genuine decision was taken by the university and an academic position or positions should not be filled by anyone.

PN1695

Now at the end of the day that’s the real issue. The fact that Dr Toncich had a workload teaching in metrology, undergraduate level and supervising master students as part of his overall task of being principal researcher or research leader in industrial control and automation, doesn’t detract from the university’s decision that it didn’t want the position that he occupied filled by anyone. Now your Honour is familiar with the cases and we’ll come to in final submissions about how one can still have a redundancy in the ordinary mean of the term, if the parcel of tasks carried out by someone are no longer required. We will refer your Honour again to those cases, but really our submission is that as it’s an LW dispute about the application of the agreement one has to look at what the agreement says.

PN1696

The parties have agreed about how they define redundancy. I think our friend also added a fourth issue and that was issues of consultation. That certainly an issue under (iii) that Mr Pope had to consider and we submit that there was genuine and adequate consultation. The February discussion paper made it very clear that manufacturing systems was an area that was likely to be affected by the changes and we’ll submit to your Honour at the end of the case, that the distinction between intelligent manufacturing systems and manufacturing systems is one without substance. Now the last point that my friend may also have raised and your Honour may need to consider is whether adequate consideration was given to measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of the termination.

PN1697

Our response to that your Honour has two parts. First soon after the decision was made the applicants sought to revoke the review process as was their entitlement. That took its course and was carried out we say in a proper manner. The second issue about redeployment to another position is one that was properly addressed we submit in the context of clause 19. Clause 19.2.1.4, but there’s also that requirement to given an opportunity to consult that appears at the end of the opening part of clause 19. Now what happened here was that there was the initial meeting of 30 April, to communicate the decision to terminate the employment on the ground of redundancy.

PN1698

There was then a request for the CV’s of the two academics to be provided. There was then the review process. There was then a dispute process instituted. There was wide circulation of the CV’s of the applicants only one position was identified, that was the position of TAFE teaching albeit TAFE teaching with a two year buffer in terms of maintaining remuneration conditions. The applicants perhaps understandably weren’t enamoured with that possibility. But really we say adequate consideration was given to measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects. Looking at the matter overall and that includes the review process, the attempt to identify other positions, and the dispute process.

PN1699

Now your Honour we’ll call three witnesses, the Vice Chancellor Professor Young will give evidence about the need to concentrate IRIS research and the fact that he was aware of the decisions being taken, they were made with his authority. Then Professor Beynon, the Dean of the Faculty will give more detailed evidence about the process, the process of change, what effect it would have on IRIS and why the position of the two applicants became redundant within the meaning of the certified agreement and finally Mr Williams will describe to your Honour the dispute process, the review process, and will give evidence as from the human resources or industrial relations matter. So we will first call Professor Young.

PN1700

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

<IAN ROBERT YOUNG, AFFIRMED [10.14AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINNANE

PN1701

MR GINNANE: Professor Young is your full name Ian Robert Young?---It is.

PN1702

Is your address (address supplied) and are you the current Vice Chancellor and President of Swinburne University of Technology?---I am.

PN1703

And commenced in those positions in December 2003?---That is correct.

PN1704

Have you made a witness statement for the purposes of presenting your evidence to the Commission in this matter?---I have.

PN1705

Do you have a copy of that there with you in the witness box?---Yes, I have a copy.

PN1706

Are the contents of that witness statement true and correct?---They are.

PN1707

I tender that if your Honour pleases.

EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR YOUNG TOGETHER WITH FIVE ATTACHMENTS

PN1708

MR GINNANE: Thank you Professor Young if you would stay there please.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR [10.15AM]

PN1709

MR MILLAR: Professor Young you would agree that termination of employment of senior academics is a very serious matter indeed for the university?---It is one that the university takes very seriously.

PN1710

Yes and that’s particularly the case when the termination concerns continuing tenured academics, that’s right?---We consider all staff to be important and we consider them all equally.

PN1711

I put it to you that it’s perhaps even more significant again when the termination of employment is concerned with a professor or associate professor?---Obviously the seniority of the positions means that it is a significant decision.

PN1712

Because it’s going to have an impact upon the stature of the individual, particularly with a senior academic and the university would want to tread carefully before proceeding to termination of employment?---Again the university would want to consider these things and does consider these things very seriously.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1713

You wouldn’t want to see a termination of employment for redundancy at that sort of senior level occur without being sure the university didn’t have a need for those academics?---I would want to consider the matter very carefully as the university has in this case.

PN1714

So before moving to a termination for redundancy you would need to conclude that the university had no use for the academics who were to be shed?---I would want to be sure that the university did not have a position for those academics that they could reasonably fill.

PN1715

When you say that you want to make sure that there was no position, you would simply look at what specific positions were available, or would you look at the duties they perform are and the potential needs of the university?---I would look at the skill base and the academic standing and the international reputation of the individuals involved and determine whether there was a vacant position which was consistent with that background.

PN1716

Now you’d also agree that you’d also need to look at the future requirements of the university that if there’s the prospect of further positions becoming available you’d want to satisfy yourself that the people you are about to shed are not the sort of people that could fill the new jobs that might be coming?---Provided there was a reasonable expectation that that would happen in a timely period, in a reasonable period of time.

PN1717

Now you wouldn’t want a termination to proceed, and I think you might have answered this, but unless all alternatives for how those academics could be used within the university had been comprehensively explored?---That’s correct.

PN1718

If it were shown that there were functions within the university that those academics could still perform you wouldn’t want a termination to occur in those circumstances would you?---Not if there’s a full workload for those individuals to perform.

PN1719

Now what about a partial workload for them to perform, if it were 80 per cent, would you still look at keeping them?---We would need to – I’m not sure if the individuals would want to go on to a fractional appointment, we would want our staff to be fully employed and at this level the most critical thing is that they are fully employed in research areas which are of international standing and can be supported by the university.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1720

So if there were a less than 100 per cent workload available, you would consider offering some sort of pro rata part time fractional appointment?---The university does on occasions have fractional appointments for academic staff.

PN1721

So in considering the alternatives for academic staff to redundancy looking at whether there should be an offer of a fractional position, would be something that the university should explore?---However, in the case of senior academic staff like this, particularly at the associate professor and professor level, the critical thing is that they are undertaking research in an area which the university can support which is of international standing. If the university cannot for whatever reason support those particular areas of research, we essentially have staff who become teaching only and we would certainly not have staff at such a senior level that were teaching only.

PN1722

Okay so was the answer to the question yes or no, if you had only a fractional position available, would you consider offering a fractional appointment to someone before proceeding - - -

PN1723

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before you answer that can I say something. Mr Millar it would assist me if I knew whether you were talking about teaching or research when you are asking that question, or a combination of both, because as I understand the professor he said that in a previous answer, that unless there’s a research function that can be supported the employment would not be considered and I don’t know whether you are talking about a fractional employment for research, or a fractional employment for teaching. I think it’s probably important. Mr Ginnane do you say want to say anything?

PN1724

MR GINNANE: It was covered by your Honour’s comment, if your Honour pleases.

PN1725

MR MILLAR: So Professor Young if you had, well we’ll take them separately. If you had someone who still had teaching duties that could be provided to the university and some research duties that could be undertaken at the university is your evidence that you would then consider it appropriate to explore a fractional appointment?---If there was a meaningful research position, then the university may consider a fractional appointment. The numbers we have in this particular category are quite small within the university and are usually in some very special circumstances.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1726

Yes and your evidence is that if the ongoing duties are solely teaching in nature you wouldn’t then look at a fractional appointment?---Certainly at not such a senior level. It would be more likely in a case like that that the university would employ sessional staff to meet those teaching requirements.

PN1727

Okay sir, I note that the next witness is in the courtroom there are some issues that I would like to cover with the Vice Chancellor that I would also be covering with the Dean.

PN1728

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I noted earlier that – I noted silently that nobody had asked for an order for witnesses out of court and I hadn’t made one. You are seeking that at this stage are you?

PN1729

MR MILLAR: I am, well yes I am.

PN1730

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ginnane.

PN1731

MR GINNANE: We are content to have Professor Beynon sit outside your Honour or go and have a cup of coffee for a period of time. As your Honour said thus far everyone has been allowed to sit in, but we are prepared to agree to that in the circumstances.

PN1732

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does that satisfy you Mr Millar?

PN1733

MR MILLAR: Yes, it does.

PN1734

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I assume Mr Williams is still in the court?

PN1735

MR GINNANE: I’m sorry we’d like to have Mr Williams in because he is our contact for operational matters at the university.

PN1736

MR MILLAR: The reason I didn’t ask yesterday is that I understood that and I’m certainly content for Mr Williams to remain.

PN1737

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well would Professor Beynon please leave the courtroom and not be within hearing range either please.

PN1738

MR MILLAR: Now you would also agree Professor Young that in looking at what an academic could offer for the ongoing needs of the university it would be appropriate to look at the needs of the full faculty concerned and not just any internal organizational units do you agree with that proposition?---I agree with that yes.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1739

Now you are undoubtedly familiar with the paper that was prepared by the Dean of the Faculty and the final paper which was dated April 2007, it’s actually attached to Professor Beynon’s statement as exhibit JB8. Now you are undoubtedly familiar with that document Professor Young?---I am.

PN1740

Yes and that was a document that was before you and formed the basis of the decision to declare the applicants position redundant?---It was the final paper in a series of papers in a lengthy consultation process.

PN1741

Yes now you will see on the third page of that document there is a section headed, research focus and there are five research activities listed and then that’s then followed by this sentence:

PN1742

These will be supplemented by the new manufacturing research strength of international standing recruited using strategic funding.

PN1743

Now you’re familiar with that part of the report?---I am indeed yes.

PN1744

It is clear that that is referring to the recruitment of new staff?---That’s correct, into this research strength.

PN1745

Yes into this research strength, has that yet been progressed?---No, it has not.

PN1746

Do you know what positions are involved in this proposal for new staff?---When the tier one research centres were developed as part of our strategic initiative I indicated that in fact to build these research strengths the university would invest somewhere between $5-600,000 in each of these new tier one research centres to build their strength. When IRIS was actually defined as a tier one research centre, it was determined that it’s breadth of activity was so broad, that to invest further money in that centre in its current form would simply be a waste of time with the diffusing the funds across a very broad range of areas. So that’s when we began the process of trying to focus IRIS into a particular area where we could build critical mass and once we actually had that critical mass, then to invest more funds to actually recruit new staff who have a research background in that area which has the new critical mass. So the intention once we’d gone through this process is indeed to invest more money into these particular research areas, to further build the critical mass we have in those research areas.

PN1747

Okay the description here is new manufacturing research strength of international standing, have you explored the nature of the positions that you would be looking to fill there?---We have not yet begun search, nor advertised for positions into these areas which you see here before you, those five areas.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1748

Now you are not able to exclude then are you that the new jobs that are to be created out of implementing this paper, may be jobs which the applicants could be able to perform?---I seriously doubt that. The applicants have a research background in one case, in automation and control which essentially is how you control machines within a manufacturing situation and in the other case, in manufacturing systems, how you control the whole production line, or model the whole production line. These are all areas about the rapid fabrication or building of components. So these are really quite different areas and the sorts of areas that we would be advertising and recruiting into are quite different in their research background to those of Dr Toncich or Professor Shayan.

PN1749

I put it to you that as you haven’t yet developed the position descriptions for the new jobs, you haven’t yet defined the level at which they will be recruited or the specific areas that they will be directed towards. It remains possible that the applicants may have something to offer to the needs of the university in these positions?---I seriously doubt that. The positions which we will be advertising will be at senior level, either associate professor, or professor and the whole reason for going through the restructure was in order to actually focus on areas such as these which are quite different to the skill backgrounds of Professor Shayan and Dr Toncich. So we know already that the areas we will be recruiting into are these five, which are all very closely related to each other so they’re quite different areas to the skill base of Professor Shayan and Dr Toncich.

PN1750

When is it anticipated that there will be development on this further
recruitment?---As soon as this case is completed.

PN1751

So what’s the connection between this case and the recruitment of further
staff?---We simply want to get stability within IRIS and to have a clear understanding of its way forward.

PN1752

So you can’t advertise for the new roles for the university to fill until you’ve seen the end of this case?---We could, we could advertise at any point. I felt that it was prudent at least to have this process complete before we actually begin on that next stage.

PN1753

Is there going to be then a further review of IRIS in the context of developing this paper?---That’s actually as flagged in here, once we actually have the new direction well defined and moving forward, the pro Vice Chancellor of research, Professor Andrew Flitman will undertake a further review aimed at trying to determine whether the research centre in its new structure is performing at the sort of international level that we would desire. So my anticipation is that that review would probably occur in 18 months to two years time.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1754

Now the changes that have led to the need for these redundancies are not – or the alleged need for these redundancies I should say has not been driven by financial exigencies, is that right?---That’s right.

PN1755

Swinburne is actually in an expansive mode at the moment isn’t it?---That’s correct.

PN1756

I think there was a recent campaign in the press or the press picked up on it about the university having unveiled it’s plans for major expansions?---That’s correct.

PN1757

Now if the suggestion were made that IRIS required funding from the university at the rate of something like $1m per year, that’s a relatively modest and unremarkable contribution would you agree with that?---It’s not an insignificant amount of money and what’s important in actually assessing whether that’s an appropriate investment by the university is the performance. The university is very happy to invest in areas that are performing at a world standard.

PN1758

Yes, yes, but the current proposals are not about saving money, that’s right isn’t it?---That’s correct the current proposals are about moving forward consistent with the university’s strategic plan, which is to be able to have focused research in particular areas which are tightly focused and are of world standard.

PN1759

Now on your understanding Professor Young this proposal is not a decision by the university to abandon the whole area of intelligent manufacturing systems, would you agree with that?---It is a decision by the university that we will not carry out research in that area.

PN1760

The same work though will continue elsewhere within the faculty, would that be right?---I’m not aware of research being carried out in that area in other parts of the faculty.

PN1761

Putting it another way, if a potential PhD student approached the university and said that they actually wanted to do doctoral work in dynamic modelling of complex processes, it’s most unlikely that that person would be turned away?---I think it’s very likely. The university regularly turns students away in areas which we don’t have an interest, or indeed the competence to be able to supervise the student.

PN1762

So it’s very likely you say that the university would turn away an approach for a study like that?---If it is an area which the university, a research the university does not support and I’m not sure of the details of the particular one that you actually quote, but if it’s an area, which for instance take the case of automation and control here in the future, if a PhD student applied to the university the university would naturally not take that student. We do this very regularly the university receives many hundreds of applications for research students each year that we don’t take.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1763

So your answer is that if it’s not something that the university does, then it would not take a PhD student in?---That’s correct.

PN1764

But in answer to the specific question I think you were saying you don’t actually know about that particular area?---Could you just state the area again?

PN1765

Dynamic modelling of complex processes for example?---Dynamic modelling of complex processes is a very broad church. I mean I’m a civil engineer, you can model processes in civil engineering, you can model processes in the economy, so just saying a very broad thing like that is an extremely broad area of research and it’s applications in different areas would be quite different. So the way an economist applied it to the way a civil engineer applied it, would be very, very different.

PN1766

So you’d need to say a précis of what was proposed before you could provide a more informed answer to the question?---Typically a PhD student would either come without a firm project, that is asking the university what areas it can actually support or alternatively some PhD students will come forward with a specific project that they want to do and then the university would determine one, is there a scholarship to support that student and two, is this an area where the university currently undertakes research.

PN1767

Similarly a proposal in say, automation technology without more detail you would be unable to give any indication as to whether the university would want to accept that?---Well it would want to look at exactly what the proposal was from the student. But if it’s in the sort of areas that you are talking about here in automation and control within the manufacturing process for instance, that would be an area that the university wouldn’t support in the future and therefore, wouldn’t enrol a PhD student in that area.

PN1768

The evidence of the applicants is that in fact there is substantial duplication between the work being undertaken by them and others within the faculty, in particular Dr Toncich has given evidence that much of the work done within mechatronics would cover the same sort of work as he’s been doing. Are you in a position to offer a view on that?---I’m not sufficiently close to the discipline areas to make meaningful comment on that.

PN1769

And similarly Professor Shayan has provided a series of names, which he says, are people who are doing working in the same sort of area as he’s been working in. I take it there’s probably little point in putting those names to you, best left for the Dean?---That’s correct.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1770

Now in paragraph 10 of your statement you’ve said that:

PN1771

Neither Professor Brandt nor anyone else in IRIS came back to me with any proposals as to how IRIS it would change it’s research direction and structure.

PN1772

You did receive though submissions at that time from within IRIS as to the ongoing structure?

PN1773

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is from whom sorry?

PN1774

MR MILLAR: From within IRIS?---This actually – at this time here, this predates the first discussion paper by Professor Beynon.

PN1775

Yes?---Okay, so once the university had determined what the tier one research centres would be we allocated funding to all of those research centres with the exception of IRIS. I then began an informal process with the head of IRIS Professor Brandt suggesting to him that before the university would put extra funding into IRIS the research centre itself needed to actually come forward with some proposals as to how it would focus on those activities and in my submission here there’s an attachment of an email discussion between myself and Professor Brandt over an extended period of time, many months as I was encouraging him to come forward with a proposal which would be for a new focus research direction for IRIS. That did not eventuate and you’ll see there in his emails, he apologises on a number of occasions for not having done that. We talked about a number of possibilities around various areas including things like a focus around biotechnology at one stage. But as no proposal came forward at that stage I then through the Dean requested him to start a more formal process in terms of the first discussion paper.

PN1776

So when did you receive a submission within IRIS as to its future direction?---As a result of that first discussion paper.

PN1777

Now that response that you received was something that was intended to go to university council, do you agree with that?---No, that’ s not correct.

PN1778

That’s not?---No.

PN1779

Wasn’t the matter scheduled to go before university council on 6 December?
---No, it was never on the agenda. Let me explain that. When the – when Professor Beynon released the first discussion paper, I sent a copy of that discussion paper to members of council for noting. I regularly do this, I inform council of significant things happening around the university. That was simply all that would happen, it would not be discussed at council, nor would this be a decision for council, it’s a matter of management not of governance. Members of staff within IRIS for some reason thought that council was going to make a decision on the future of IRIS at that next council meeting and so one of the staff representatives on council, was asked to table a paper at council about the future of IRIS. This was a document written by staff within IRIS. When I informed the staff representative on council that this was not going to be discussed at council, he withdrew the paper and if you look at the agenda for council you’ll see that it’s not on the agenda.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1780

Yes, now in paragraph 13 you’ve spoken about feedback that had been received from three academics including the two applicants and you say it was not the sort of feedback we were looking for, what do you mean by that?---After the first discussion paper was distributed Professor Beynon and I then had a meeting with members of the faculty and a second meeting with members of IRIS and at that meeting with members of IRIS we gave everyone the opportunity for people who wanted to discuss things individually not in a group, to come and individually meet with Professor Beynon and myself and so Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan availed themselves of that opportunity. The reason for the meeting was exactly as we indicated to provide more feedback on the proposal. We’re looking for comments on the strengths or weaknesses of the proposal and although we had a general discussion about that the tenor of the meeting was largely one of I think, particularly Professor Shayan feeling that the process had denigrated his professional standing. So the focus of the meeting was largely about that rather than what we were looking for which was some meaningful feedback on both the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. What we were trying to do here was have a meaningful consultation process to come up with the best possible outcome for IRIS and for the university.

PN1781

Now both the applicants had provided written responses as well had they not?
---I’m not certain of that, I suspect that is correct, I can’t remember all of the written responses. I know that certainly Dr Toncich did and I presume that Professor Shayan did as well.

PN1782

The response by Dr Toncich well Dr Toncich had some clear ideas about the future of IRIS would you agree with that as the structure that should be adopted which he put to you?---Yes, is this the proposal around I think it’s called vertically integrated structure?

PN1783

It is?---Yes, I’m aware of that.

PN1784

That wasn’t the sort of feedback that you were looking for?---That was feedback which was – which was – which occurred as part of the consultation process. Here I’m speaking explicitly about that particular meeting.

PN1785

Specifically at that meeting?---Yes.

PN1786

Your concern was that feedback that you were being provided with didn’t cover any alternative proposals?---At that meeting.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1787

At that meeting?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1788

But outside of the meeting you were aware of alternative proposals having been provided?---That’s correct.

PN1789

Subsequent to that there were various changes made to the proposal as it then was including the – including dropping the proposal that IRIS be disestablished?
---That is correct.

PN1790

There were problems with the procedure that had been followed to that point, if the university were to go down the disestablishing route, do you agree with that proposition?---No, I disagree with that proposition.

PN1791

You are aware of submissions having been made by Dr Toncich on the fact that this is a matter which should have been pursued through the board of
research?---If I am aware of those comments, if you read university’s research - establishment of research centres policy the last section of that is about the disestablishment of research centres and what it indicates there – I haven’t got it in front of me to actually quote it – but words to the effect that if a research centre is to be disestablished then that would be brought forward by the relevant deputy vice chancellor in consultation with the Dean or by the board of the chair of the board of research. That is brought forward to the executive group of the university for decision, I chair that particular group, and it comes there after having been to the board of research for discussion. The board of research is in fact an advisory body to the executive group of the university. Now of course if the university is going to do that, if the university is going to disestablish a research centre, that’s the process, the first thing you’ve got to do this is a major organizational change, the first thing the university must do is go out and consult with staff within the university that it is going to disestablish the centre. If we didn’t we would be in breach of our enterprise agreement. So the Dean was in fact doing that, the fact that he decided not to go down that path is a clear indication that the consultation process brought forward reasons why he shouldn’t do that. That this simply wasn’t the best way forward for the university or for this particular – so the process was absolutely consistent with the university’s policies.

PN1792

This wasn’t brought forward by the Deputy Vice Chancellor though was it?---But in consultation with the Dean and the Dean leads the process.

PN1793

Who is the Deputy Vice Chancellor?---Professor Dale - - -

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1794

MR GINNANE: Can I object it is cross-examination and my friend has a reasonable width, but this issue of the procedures and regulatory framework of disestablishing a centre that ultimately was never disestablished, seems a long way from any relevant issue that your Honour has to determine, so we would object on that ground, the grounds of relevance.

PN1795

MR MILLAR: The relevance sir is that consultation has been raised as an issue. My client’s object to the lack of consultation by the university. In response to that the university has said well we’re open to suggestions to alternatives and point to the fact that they changed what the university was seeking from disestablishing the centre to modifying it. What the applicants say to that is that that’s something you had to do anyway. It’s not something that makes the university amenable to consultation, what it is - - -

PN1796

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It’s a long bow but I’ll allow the question.

PN1797

MR MILLAR: Yes, thank you, your Honour.

PN1798

The Deputy Vice Chancellor is who?---Professor Dale Murphy.

PN1799

Was this something that was being pursued by Professor Murphy or was it outside of the scheme that you’ve described ?---Professor Murphy was involved in discussions with Professor Beynon and myself and indeed he was at a meeting where we actually reviewed the final paper and determined our way forward.

PN1800

It would be fair then to say it was the Dean in consultation with the Deputy Vice Chancellor in the way you’ve described it?---The two – look the three of us discussed the process.

PN1801

Now you’ve said in paragraph 19 you had no plans to close IRIS, but the proposal as it then stood was to close IRIS wasn’t it?---That was certainly the proposal in the Dean’s paper. This is a discussion paper, the Dean has views, I have views, we felt it was appropriate for him to put forward those views and to canvass opinions both within the university and also by external industrialists as a way forward.

PN1802

Now there’s been reference in I think reference in your paper and certainly in fact, I don’t want to mislead you, reference to the Swinburne consultative committee perhaps it hasn’t been referred to in your paper, but certainly the process through that committee has been referred to by the other witness for the university are you aware of that?---Yes, I’m aware of that.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1803

Now you’ve subsequently taken action haven’t you because that committee was improperly constituted?---No, no it wasn’t improperly constituted. We had some discussion with the NTU about the election process for that committee. The NTU wanted it was an essentially first past the post election process, the NTU which is the principal union wanted a preferential system of voting and so the university decided in consultation with the elected members and indeed with the relevant union that in fact because we wanted to ensure that there was no dispute about the representation on that committee that we would in fact, in the future – we haven’t done this yet – but in the future we would have a new election which would be a preferential system.

PN1804

So that those who had previously been elected to the committee, the NTU representatives that had previously been elected had their positions declared vacant - - -?---There are not NTEU representatives – these are representatives of staff.

PN1805

I’m sorry, the staff representatives, I’m sorry?---That’s correct.

PN1806

Staff representatives had their positions declared vacant and was subject to
re-election?---They decided that they would resign so that there could be a new election.

PN1807

Because of questions that had been raised about the electoral process that put them there?---That’s the – because in the discussions between the individuals, the union, and the university it was determined that it was perhaps preferable to have a preferential system rather than a first past the post.

PN1808

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Millar is this an appropriate time to have a short break?

PN1809

MR MILLAR: Yes, it is.

PN1810

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: We will adjourn for approximately
10 minutes.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.57AM]
<RESUMED [11.13AM]

PN1811

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr Millar.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1812

MR MILLAR: Professor Young in your witness statement you’ve referred to the RQF study that was pursued and which in many ways was the genesis for the changes that have subsequently occurred, is that a fair description?---One of the reasons. The university has had a policy around this for many years to be focused in research but certainly the RQF sharpened our focus on these areas.

PN1813

The RQF study that was undertaken was not one that involved the work in which the applicants are engaged, do you agree with that?---Perhaps as a point of clarification. The RQF, the research quality framework is the process by which the federal government will distribute research funding to universities from next year. So that’s a process that will begin next and that’s a process of the government basically moving from funding the quantity of the research done to the quality of research. What Swinburne along with many other universities did was we actually ran some RQF trials to actually determine how our particular research areas might be viewed by experienced reviewers who had undertaken similar activities in the UK previously with a very similar system. So we went through a mock process essentially to look at how well we were prepared.

PN1814

In answer to my question that process is not one that involved the areas in which the applicants were engaged?---IRIS was – each of the tier one research centres was asked to put forward a portfolio of their research activities so they were asked to identify now which were their research strengths and to put these forward in their submission to the RQF and IRIS in their deliberations decided not to put forward for whatever reasons, the particular areas of the two applicants.

PN1815

IRIS is a unit which doesn’t have any separate discretionary budget of it’s own do you agree with that?---I’m unaware of the financial arrangements within the faculty.

PN1816

It doesn’t have a discretionary workload model, it simply is the same as the faculty?---Again I’m unaware of those details of the management internally.

PN1817

Similarly with the research performance model for IRIS?---Again I’m unaware of the details. There is – I mean in terms of – when you say a research performance model, the university regularly reviews the performance of disciplines and groups within the university and when we do that, we would review IRIS as an entity because it is a research centre.

PN1818

When you say as an entity, the staff within IRIS are staff within the faculty are the not?---They are staff employed by the university and IRIS is a research centre within the faculty, but staff are identified as being part of the research centre, IRIS.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1819

But the staff are actually regarded as part of the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences, do you agree with that?---Operationally, yes they are part of the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences.

PN1820

Well more than operationally, in terms of the way the university portrays the staff to the outside world they are part of the faculty?---Certainly if you go to the faculty website you’ll see IRIS listed under the faculty as one of the research areas, and you will seer the staff listed with the staff of the faculty.

PN1821

So the staff are included within the faculty on the web listing that you refer to?---I believe that’s correct.

PN1822

If I could hand a document to the witness, are you familiar with that
document?---I am indeed, yes.

PN1823

Is that the document you were referring to?---Referring to that yes.

PN1824

That is the staff listing that is found on the Swinburne website?---That’s correct.

PN1825

You agree with the proposition that the staff of IRIS are simply integrated within the faculty listing for with the faculty generally?---They are listed here with – along with all other staff within the faculty.

PN1826

Yes I’ll tender that sir.

EXHIBIT #A8 WEBSITE OF THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCES

PN1827

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you go to that next question I’m also looking at exhibit R3, does IRIS have a separate website, does it?---It does yes.

PN1828

Yes, thank you.

PN1829

MR MILLAR: If I can clarify that, it’s a separate page on the Swinburne website?---There are two ways you can access the IRIS research, the IRIS page. You can actually access it from the top level university website under research centres, so you can go directly to IRIS. Or alternatively under faculty site there will be a number of research centres within the faculty of which one of those is IRIS. There are other tier one research centres within the faculty as well.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG XXN MR MILLAR
PN1830

Yes, yes and would the staff of other research centres being included within the staff listing here for this faculty?

PN1831

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry could you repeat that please Mr Millar?

PN1832

MR MILLAR: Would the staff of the other research centres be included within the faculty staff listing here?---I’m trying to find the ones in the photonics area and I don’t see at least the head of it here.

PN1833

So no, or not necessarily?---I would have assumed that all staff within the faculty whether they are core staff within the faculty or whether they are in one of the research centres would normally be listed amongst this full list of staff.

PN1834

Yes, but your evidence I think is that assumption isn’t necessarily borne out by what you see here?---No, I’m sorry, here he is the director of CMP, Professor Mingu that’s who I was looking for and the director of KOS, Professor Haniford, yes so they appear as though they are all listed here.

PN1835

So you would agree though with the proposition that within a formal sense within the university the applicants are members of staff in the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences?---Yes, that’s correct.

PN1836

Yes nothing further sir.

PN1837

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you, Mr Ginnane.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE [11.22AM]

PN1838

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don’t know why it’s been a year since we’ve been in this building and we still haven’t managed to get decent lecterns, I apologise.

PN1839

MR GINNANE: Professor Young you were asked some questions by Mr Millar about the possibility of redeployment of staff to other positions for instance, teaching positions. You gave answers saying that at a particular level of professor and associate level, it was critical that any employment had a research function of international standing. Why is that at those particular levels?---One of the critical elements of employing a professor, they must be able to profess, that is they must be of international standing in their particular research areas. So it’s almost unheard, very, very rare exceptions, but almost unheard of to have a teaching only professor. So certainly at professorial level, or associate professorial level it’s just almost incomprehensible in a research university to have staff who wouldn’t be undertaking high quality research.

**** IAN ROBERT YOUNG RXN MR GINNANE
PN1840

Those comments apply to professorial level and associate professorial
level?---That’s correct.

PN1841

The associate professor also has to have research standing at that level?---That’s correct.

PN1842

Then following on from that would it be appropriate to redeploy such people at such levels to help out teaching, as teachers in other areas of the faculty, or in related areas of the faculty?---We would normally not have staff at such a senior level involved in teaching only positions. My guess is that the applicants themselves would find that unsatisfactory.

PN1843

You wouldn’t normally do that for the reasons you’ve just given a moment
ago?---Yes, correct.

PN1844

All right well then with a professor, or associate professor what is the balance between teaching and research? What’s the more important, is one more important than the other, are they related?---I mean certainly when we are making appointments at that level, or promoting people to that level, although we look at their quality of both their research and teaching, it is predominantly the research which is critically important to those levels.

PN1845

Is that the same in other Australian universities?---I believe that’s the case with Australia.

PN1846

And internationally?---And internationally, that is the international norm.

PN1847

Thank you Professor.

PN1848

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you Mr Ginnane. Professor you may be excused thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.24AM]

PN1849

MR GINNANE: Our next witness your Honour is Professor Beynon.

<JOHN HOWARD BEYNON, AFFIRMED [11.24AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINNANE

PN1850

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I might indicate I propose to take a luncheon adjournment around 1 o’clock today, if it helps.

PN1851

MR GINNANE: Professor Beynon is your full name John Howard Beynon?---It is.

PN1852

Your address is (address supplied)?---Correct.

PN1853

You are the dean of the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences at Swinburne University of Technology?---Yes.

PN1854

You took up that position in September 2005?---I did.

PN1855

Have you prepared witness statements for the purposes of providing your evidence in this matter before the Commission?---I have.

PN1856

There are two witness statements, I think the second of which was prepared or completed this morning but prior to that is there a first witness statement with I think?---11 attachments.

PN1857

11 attachments?---Yes.

PN1858

Are the contents of that first witness statement true and correct?---They are.

PN1859

I tender that your Honour.

EXHIBIT #R5 PROFESSOR BEYNON FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT NOT SIGNED TOGETHER WITH ITS ATTACHMENTS AND DATED 22/08/2007

PN1860

MR GINNANE: Then secondly Professor Beynon did you this morning prepare or complete this morning a further witness statement in reply to evidence given by Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan?---I did.

PN1861

Are the contents of that further witness statement true and correct?---They are.

PN1862

I tender that your Honour.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XN MR GINNANE

EXHIBIT #R6 SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR BEYNON NOT SIGNED BUT DATED 22/08/2007

PN1863

MR GINNANE: Will you stay there please Professor Beynon.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR [11.28AM]

PN1864

MR MILLAR: Professor Beynon you would agree that the applicants in this matter hold positions within the faculty, the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences?---They come under my jurisdiction.

PN1865

But they hold positions within the faculty?---Yes, by virtue of IRIS being within the faculty.

PN1866

But well quite independently of IRIS being within the faculty, they are actually members of the faculty of engineering and industrial services you agree with that?---The faculty of engineering and industrial sciences.

PN1867

I am sorry, sciences?---We like to be of service but we also - - -

PN1868

So they are members of the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences?---Yes.

PN1869

I separately put to the Vice Chancellor the staff listing on the website it sounds as if I need to put it to you, you would agree that - - -

PN1870

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He has agreed Mr Millar that they are members of the faculty.

PN1871

MR MILLAR: Yes, yes he has. I was simply going to say you would agree that they are set out in the staff listing, the applicants are set out in the staff listing as being members of the faculty?---I don’t recall the details of that listing.

PN1872

But it’s consistent - - -?---I don’t have our website.

PN1873

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It also speaks for itself Mr Millar.

PN1874

MR MILLAR: Yes your Honour.

PN1875

Now when you refer in your materials to the concept of a particular staff member returning to the faculty you would agree that that’s something of a – returning to the faculty from IRIS you would agree that that’s something of a tautology they are already within the faculty?---No, I wouldn’t.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1876

So you think there is a distinction between being in the faculty and being in IRIS?---Yes, I would.

PN1877

You do?---Yes.

PN1878

Okay?---Would you like me to explain?

PN1879

Well yes please explain?---IRIS is one of three university tier one research centres within the faculty that the faculty hosts. They not only have some responsibilities towards the faculty in the way they conduct their business. But importantly they have to report to the university in the performance of their activities as a university centre. So it is important to know who is in that centre and who is being reported upon. So the membership of IRIS as indeed with the other two, tier one centres within my own faculty, would report to the university as separate entities within that regard.

PN1880

Yes, but IRIS doesn’t have a separate discretionary budget does it?---It has a budget allowance for – well it has it’s own research grants and contracts which are peculiar to IRIS. It also has since most of its activities in a separate building. There is a separate budget allocation for the running of that building.

PN1881

MR GINNANE: Professor, could you please speak up one level, we are just finding it a bit hard to hear. The microphone is not an amplifier, it’s a
recorder?---I see okay, thank you.

PN1882

MR MILLAR: You would agree that well I’ll go back a step I was asking you about the budget and you pointed to the fact that there was a separate budge presumably for the maintenance of the building?---No, no not for the maintenance of the building, that’s conducted separately from the faculty for the university’s facilities unit. There is a budget in support of the staff in that building to do with stationery and various other items of running. The discretionary budgets for spending will come from research grants, contracts and other money earning activity that the institute has achieved.

PN1883

IRIS has no separate or discretionary workload model, it simply follows the workload model of the faculty, you agree with that?---Yes, that was quite deliberate because of the research intensity across the whole faculty. We tried for reasons of equity to apply the same expectations of workload on all the staff.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1884

There is no discretionary research performance model, it’s simply that which applies to the rest of the faculty?---The same model of a research performance is applied to our staff as is applied to the remainder of the faculty staff.

PN1885

I put it to you that the main feature which distinguishes IRIS staff from the rest of the faculty staff, if there is any distinction, is simply the building in which they sit?---No, no as I said earlier, they are members of IRIS and there activities are reported to the university as a tier one research centre against that list of people and their activities.

PN1886

But they are formally engaged by the university as staff members of the university?---Correct.

PN1887

Yes, and?---They are university the employees that’s quite correct.

PN1888

Then they are engaged through the faculty of engineering and industrial sciences?
---Yes, a recommendation to appoint leaves the faculty with my signature on it.

PN1889

In terms of the faculty say the telephone listing they would appear within that?
---We have a university web based system for telephones and that’s the official one. We also as a faculty put out a list for the convenience of faculty staff. It’s an unofficial list.

PN1890

They appear in that?---They would appear in that, yes it would seem iniquitous to leave staff off, it would be an inconvenience to – it would seem iniquitous to leave some staff off as an inconvenience.

PN1891

Indeed, indeed. Now would you agree that within the faculty there are and that’s outside of those engaged in IRIS there are academics doing much the same work as the applicants, would you agree with that proposition?---Well I’m glad that you acknowledged that there are staff engaged in IRIS thank you for that.

PN1892

No, I prefaced it by effectively adopting the way you are describing it, but you would agree that within the wider faculty there are those doing much the same work as the applicants?---I think I need an explanation for what you mean, much the same work.

PN1893

Sure, sure?---It’s too broad a statement for me.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1894

Would you – are you familiar with the work of Dr Peter Higgins?---Reasonably familiar.

PN1895

He is undertaking research in aspects of scheduling, would you agree with that proposition?---I’m not aware of his scheduling work, I’m actually more aware of his human factors research, his human factors, the interaction of people with technology.

PN1896

Which the interaction of humans with technology did you say?---Yes, and the reason that I am familiar with that particularly is that he he’s been trying to engage colleagues in building up a research activity in that area, so that appears to be his main focus of interest.

PN1897

I put it to you that the work that he is undertaking sounds substantially like industrial engineering, would you agree with that?---No.

PN1898

You don’t?---No. It would depend on how broad your definition of industrial engineering was of course.

PN1899

Yes, yes, okay well I put it to you that his work is substantially similar to the work being undertaken by Professor Shayan?---I would disagree.

PN1900

Professor Rad a new appointment, he is engaged in fuzzy logic work would you agree with that?---I don’t know if he is – I don’t know that level of detail.

PN1901

Would you agree that he’s engaged in modelling work?---I would expect he is given that many staff are involved in such activity.

PN1902

Would you agree with the proposition that there are parallels between that work and the work being undertaken between Professor Shayan?---No, it’s in a completely different area.

PN1903

How do you say it’s in a completely different area?---Modelling is a general term for describing usually computer based descriptions of reality and so the term modelling can apply to a wide range of applications and I believe the application areas are different. I would need to look in greater detail at their curriculum vitae to make an accurate comparison.

PN1904

Well Professor Shayan has a particular interest in and is active within dynamic modelling of complex processes would you not agree that that sounds quite close to the work that Professor Rad is doing?---That’s a very general phrase that - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1905

Yes?---That isn’t sufficient to make me change my view, no.

PN1906

But it could be, there could be a parallel there depending upon the definitions that you adopt would you agree with that?---There could be a parallel there if it were the case in that strict sense the way you’ve said it, I believe you are correct yes.

PN1907

Now Professor Masood he has had several joint projects in the past with Professor Shayan would you agree with that?---I don’t know how many but they have worked together on projects, yes.

PN1908

You do you say that Professor Masood’s work is continuing within the university?---Yes.

PN1909

Now Dr Abdekhodaee, are you familiar?---Yes, he goes by the - - -

PN1910

I’m sure I’m doing a great injustice to the Doctor’s name, Abdekhodaee, I think that’s the one that was spelt out in full by Professor Shayan yesterday you would agree that he has been specifically appointed to cover areas of management similar to the areas industrial engineering management, similar to the areas that Professor Shayan had been engaged in?---He was engaged to teach the two main undergraduate modules in engineering in management for engineers. To help you he goes by the first name, Amir.

PN1911

Sorry?---His first name is Amir, it’s a lot easier than his surname. A-m-i-r.

PN1912

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He is engaged to teach two
modules?---Two modules in management to our engineering undergraduates.

PN1913

MR MILLAR: They were subjects which were formerly in which Professor Shayan formerly had involvement?---No they were formerly taught by sessional staff.

PN1914

Would you agree though that there are parallels between the work which he is to perform and Professor Shayan has been performing?---Yes and indeed it is a subject of discussion in the witness statement.

PN1915

Yes and would you agree that or would you have any knowledge of him having been appointed to supervise a PhD student, formerly supervised by Professor Shayan?---I believe he was yes, but I couldn’t give you the name of the student.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1916

Yes, now with Dr Toncich do you agree that there is substantial overlap between the areas that he’s been working in and the area of mechatronics?---There would be some overlap, yes.

PN1917

Now his evidence was that mechatronics effectively involves the same sort of work as is involved in industrial control and automation, would you agree with that proposition?---There are common issues, yes.

PN1918

Now would you agree that there is ongoing work within the faculty concerned with issues such as intelligent systems for process supervision and fault diagnosis in dynamic physical systems?---The phrase is not directly familiar to me, perhaps you could say where that comes from.

PN1919

Well before I tell you that does that sound like the sort of thing that the faculty would continue to conduct research into?---Could you repeat the – it was rather a long expression?

PN1920

Yes, it is, it is an intelligent system for process supervision and fault diagnosis in dynamic physical systems?---It doesn’t sound like robotics and mechatronics which is the area that Professor Rad is active in. It doesn’t sound quite like that.

PN1921

How did you know I was talking about Professor Rad?---He was the last name you mentioned, I presumed you were following that same theme, I beg your pardon if that was not the case.

PN1922

I don’t think I mentioned Professor Rad, how did you know - - -

PN1923

MR GINNANE: You did mention Professor Rad it went back to Professor Shayan some time ago.

PN1924

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In relation to fuzzy logic Mr Millar.

PN1925

MR MILLAR: Yes, yes, I would be surprised if that was the – it was Professor Masood and Dr Abedekhodaee since then, but anyway be that as it may. Professor Rad you are quite right in pre-empting where I’m heading.

PN1926

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What’s the phrase which is what the Professor asked you to explain?

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1927

MR MILLAR: I’ll give everyone something to refer to rather than going from my version of it. I’m handing up a staff profile of Professor Rad and if you look through his selected recent publications the last one on the first page is the one that I was reading out to you. Would you agree that as that reads it’s in substance something that Dr Toncich would have also had an interest in pursuing within industrial control and automation.

PN1928

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just before you answer that question. This is in relation to the publication by Professor Rad, are you suggesting that that is something that Professor Rad is teaching at Swinburne University?

PN1929

MR MILLAR: I’m suggesting and I’ll go through several of them, that these publications as have been put on the website are indicative of the research areas in which Professor Rad is active and that there is.

PN1930

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well they are indicative of the research areas in which Professor Rad has been active or had been active and has written papers about and indicative perhaps of his areas of expertise, yes.

PN1931

MR MILLAR: Yes and that it bears out the proposition that there are substantial parallels between ongoing work and work which has been undertaken by the applicants.

PN1932

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well that’s a leap you may need to persuade me about in submissions Mr Millar but I’ll allow you to pursue that line of questioning.

PN1933

MR MILLAR: Thank you, your Honour.

PN1934

If you go to the last one on the first page Professor Beynon and can you confirm for me that as that reads:

PN1935

An intelligent system for process supervision and pulp diagnosis in dynamic physical systems –

PN1936

Does seem to bear substantial similarity to the work which Dr Toncich has been carrying out in industrial control and automation?---I can’t be sure of that without knowing the details of the work within that publication.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1937

But you can’t exclude the parallel?

PN1938

MR GINNANE: Well your Honour that’s an unfair question, the witness has given his answer.

PN1939

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN1940

MR GINNANE: The witness has given his answer.

PN1941

MR MILLAR: If you go to the second page, the top of the page, iterative feedback tuning for positive feedback time delay controller, again are you able to comment on whether that is within the field that Dr Toncich has been formerly engaged?---There certainly appears to be a control element in that from the nature of the title, and I perhaps also ought to add that both of those publications report on work conducted some years ago when Professor Rad worked at the university in Hong Kong, he is a fairly recent appointee to the university.

PN1942

When was he appointed?---He was appointed last year and began work this year.

PN1943

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you tendering the staff profile?

PN1944

MR MILLAR: Yes, I will.

EXHIBIT #A9 WEB PAGE PROFILE OF PROFESSOR AHMAD RAD

PN1945

MR MILLAR: Are you suggesting Professor Beynon that Professor Rad who has obviously a track record of research in the areas that have been set out on the Swinburne website has departed from his previous areas of interest into new endeavours?---He will certainly have some shifts in his research activity yes, that’s to be expected.

PN1946

Are you able to illuminate us on what those shifts are to your knowledge?

PN1947

MR GINNANE: I object to all this, the document says right at the top areas of expertise in research. There are high areas that seems to make it plain where Professor Rad is saying or marketing his research areas, so my friend can ask questions about those, but this speculative questioning when the document itself states the areas, seems pointless in our submission.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1948

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just re-ask the question?

PN1949

MR MILLAR: Yes, your Honour.

PN1950

You’ve just given evidence that Professor Rad will effectively change or develop his areas of expertise going into the future, are you able to inform us what your knowledge is to those expected changes?---There would be two reasons that I would expect somebody who had moved institutionally into the country, to have some modification of their research activity, particularly in engineering they often need practical laboratory facilities to undertake their research. Certainly in this case, left those facilities behind so we would have to build up new facilities. It’s very unusual for people to replicate exactly the facilities that they had been using before, so they will typically use the opportunity when changing institutions perhaps to move into a different area, more suited to facilities that they can secure locally through grants and contracts. Also that when academics change institution they often see it as turning over a new leaf and perhaps exploring new areas as research. They see it as a shift in their direction. So for those two reasons I wouldn’t necessarily extrapolate that what he had done before in Hong Kong would be directly correlating with what he would be doing at Swinburne.

PN1951

No, but I think what you are saying is that those who had previously had an interest in the topics of the type explored in these recent publications may be able to adopt their or adapt I should say, their skills to be of ongoing benefit to the university do you agree with that proposition?---I’m sorry I got a bit lost in the question, do you mind repeating it?

PN1952

Yes of course. From what you’ve said, drawing on the experience of Professor Rad, those with a track record of expertise in areas of the type shown in the selected recent publications in this list, may be able to adapt their expertise to be of continuing benefit to the university?---I think that is a long way of saying that they bring expertise with them based on their track record, and we would hope that we would benefit from that expertise that they bring, yes.

PN1953

Well that’s not quite what I asked. What I was asking was whether?---I hoped it was.

PN1954

Whether someone with an interest in the sort of publication, or the sort of areas of expertise that Professor Rad evidently holds, is going to be of continuing benefit to the university?---We have employed him on the presumption that he will be of benefit to us yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1955

Now then just continuing very quickly over the page, online identification of continuous time systems with unknown time delay, which is the second last article listed. Again, the sort of thing that Dr Toncich was similarly involved in pursuing you would agree with that?---Again I couldn’t tell without looking in detail at
the - - -

PN1956

But it might, you can’t exclude?---I can’t exclude it without looking further.

PN1957

No and similarly finally, an approach to time fuzzy controllers based on reinforcement learning for autonomous vehicle control, I put it to you that that is substantially similar to the sort of work that Dr Toncich has been undertaking, industrial control and automation?---I really can’t say without looking at, in detail at the publications that Dr Toncich has written and also a detailed look at that publication.

PN1958

I put it to you that each of those articles that I’ve just taken you to could easily fall within the concept of industrial control and automation?---Depending on the content, it’s possible they could, yes.

PN1959

Now the first publication listed there a genetic fuzzy controller for vehicle automatic steering control which I think is similar to the last one on the list, although that perhaps shows my ignorance in not perfecting the subtle differences between the two. That’s something that’s been published since Professor Rad arrived at the university?---The publication of course is very different to the initial submission of the article to the journal which will have happened in Hong Kong. It takes some time for these journals to finally issue the publication, so it certainly doesn’t represent work done at Swinburne, there hasn’t been enough time for that.

PN1960

Are you saying that article doesn’t appear to be the sort of work that you’ve employed him to do?---No, I would presume since he’s published it, he’s done it.

PN1961

But no your evidence I think went beyond that. There was a strong suggestion that this was the sort of work that he did in Hong Kong?---Yes.

PN1962

And that by inference I’m unable to assist my clients by saying it’s the sort of work that he’ll be doing with Swinburne, I think that was the way in which you answered it. What I’m asking you - - -

PN1963

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that right?---I’m sorry I was going to ask for a clarification I’m sorry I get rather lost in the detail.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1964

Well ask for clarification.

PN1965

MR MILLAR: You have suggested in answer to the question I put to you about this being published since Professor Rad started at the university that the work was done before be arrived at the university?---Yes.

PN1966

The submitted publication from his prior institution?---Correct.

PN1967

What I’m asking you is whether this would fit within the areas of research which you would expect him to be pursuing at the university now that he’s arrived?
---Not necessarily this particular area, its representative of his expertise. But as I mentioned earlier I would expect him to be embarking on new research topics.

PN1968

When you look at the areas of expertise which he professes, autonomous systems, mat building and localisation of local robots, intelligent control, time delay systems and system identification, they are very similar are they not, to the concept of industrial control and automation?---The main one particularly of course is the middle one intelligent control, yes.

PN1969

But all of them could fit within an umbrella of industrial control and automation would you agree with that proposition?---In a broad definition, yes.

PN1970

The first article listed in Professor Rad’s staff profile, would you agree, could also be seen as something that Professor Shayan has had a particular interest in, that opal is a genetic fuzzy controller for vehicle automatic steering control, would that also not conceivably fit within the concept of industrial engineering management?---No, not at all it’s a different area. If you are referring to the Ky Lin Rad Shayan paper a genetic fuzzy controller?

PN1971

Yes?---No, that’s not industrial engineering management.

PN1972

I will seek instructions on one point. Now the fuzzy controller reference is that not something that could fit within Professor Shayan’s expertise in dynamic modelling of complex processes, which I think you described before as being a broad description?---The only possible connection would be in the use of the fuzzy method which is a general mathematical technique developed some 50 years ago, which is applied to a wide range of engineering applications it’s just a mathematical formulation.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1973

Yes, I see?---It doesn’t mean that one can apply it to this area if one has expertise in it in another area.

PN1974

Now you - - -

PN1975

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before you leave that Mr Millar.

PN1976

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN1977

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it, I’m a little puzzled as to how you are putting this, I just want to understand it. Will it be your submission that these areas of Professor Rad has been involved in and he is now employed to perform are areas, or functions to which the one or both of the applicants would have been directed? That they should have got this job instead of Professor Rad is that going to be your submission?

PN1978

MR MILLAR: The submission will be that the university is continuing to do the sort of work that my clients are performing.

PN1979

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well I’d invite Professor Beynon’s response to that I would be assisted by that I think, unless you have any objection to - - -

PN1980

MR MILLAR: No, of course not and I’m quite - - -

PN1981

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Professor Beynon you heard what Mr Millar said?---Yes I did.

PN1982

That seems to me to be the nub of the question?---Yes, robotics and mechatronic, if I may give a little background it may be helpful. Robotics and mechatronics is one of our main undergraduate engineering programs and we decided that since it had been successful that we would invest in new staffing in that area and put out an advertisement in fact we put out an advertisement for several professors of engineering, one of which was in the robotics and mechatronics area.

PN1983

When did you do that?---I think the advertisement went out in April 2006 and Professor Rad, whose background is in fact electrical engineering, robotics and mechatronics actually spans the disciplines of electrical and mechanical engineering. Professor Rad comes from the electrical end of the spectrum and he was appointed to provide professorial leadership into that group. After many delays he eventually became employed this year.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1984

I think Mr Millar was suggesting or intends to suggest that the work that he is doing is work that was previously done, or perhaps is still done by the two applicants?---No, they’ve not previously had an involvement in that program to any sizeable extent. I mean you can check my statement for the detail of that but essentially we are fully staffed in that area now.

PN1985

MR MILLAR: But that’s a different proposition though Professor Beynon whether you are fully staffed to the question whether they’re undertaking the same work or substantially similar work in the faculty as has been undertaken by the applicants in the past which is really where my directions have been heading? Would you agree with the proposition that there is work being done within the faculty which is substantially similar to the work which has been undertaken to the applicants in this case? If you need to divide between the two applicants in answering please feel free?---Yes, I think I would need to divide between the two. I would not have made the connection between the robotics and mechatronics activity. The work of Professor Shayan, there is connection between the work of Dr Toncich and this area, particularly in the aspect of control.

PN1986

Now Professor Rad’s been appointed to a continuing, ongoing tenure position?
---An ongoing position, yes.

PN1987

Now based on what we’ve just been through would you agree that the decision that the university has taken is not one to abandon at faculty level the whole area of intelligent manufacturing systems, would you agree with that?---No, I wouldn’t.

PN1988

So your contention is that anything to do with intelligent manufacturing systems, the university now won’t touch?---What do you mean by won’t touch? Do you mean by teaching or research?

PN1989

Well both, let’s put it another way. If a student potential doctoral student telephoned and said that they wished to undertake doctoral studies in intelligent manufacturing systems would you turn them away or not?---I would have two reactions. One given the – I would need to know more detail of what they meant by that because these words can be interpreted differently in different places. If it were in an area that we are not pursuing with research, such as in Professor Shayan’s area, I would turn them away yes. We will only take on students we feel we can do the work properly.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN1990

Yes, but if for instances a student wishing to pursue say the fuzzy controllers for autonomous vehicle type issue, which is something that is in Professor Rad’s background, would you be accepting a student to do work of that type?---I would need to discuss it with Professor Rad, find out the details of the work, whether it was to do for example, with the mathematical method or whether it was to do – I would need to know more details of the specifics.

PN1991

And the - - -?---Quite difficult to answer a general question.

PN1992

Yes, of course, without a full synopsis of what is proposed it is difficult to answer in the abstract. But I put it to you that a student approaching the university to do work which was formerly within the scope of Dr Toncich’s work would not necessarily be turned away by the university?---It would depend on the definition of the work being done.

PN1993

Yes, so there would be – well within the research activities that have been listed by Dr Toncich on your website and I’ll read them to you, computer control and communications, automation technology, flexible manufacturing systems, computer numerical control, scheduling and simulation, there would be potential research topics there that would still be offered by the university?---Not – well the list was read out rather quickly, but could you go through it again?

PN1994

Yes?---I don’t think I have a copy.

PN1995

Yes it would be useful. Thank you.

PN1996

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You are looking at R3 are you?

PN1997

MR MILLAR: I’m looking at R3, yes?---And the question was whether these would be continued?

PN1998

I will go back a step to ask it more clearly. Your evidence is that these research activities will no longer be posted by IRIS is that your evidence?---That’s right yes.

PN1999

What I’m putting to you is that those research activities within the scope of what the faculty will be prepared to accommodate into the future?---Well they are somewhat different to those for example by Professor Rad. Flexible manufacturing systems for example, is not an area that I think he is familiar with which is a particular area of his.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2000

Yes, there are some differences, I am not saying that the two are necessarily wholly interchangeable but there are substantial parallels between what
Dr Toncich has been doing in the past and what the faculty will do in the future, in particular through Professor Rad to say that these research activities are not necessarily being abandoned by the faculty?---The parallel comes in the word control engineering which is an aspect of robotics and mechatronics and features in Dr Toncich’s work, it is part of the activity of robotics and mechatronics.

PN2001

Yes now turning to Professor Shayan the research activities we are going to have the same issue as well.

PN2002

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That’s the other page of R3?

PN2003

MR MILLAR: The other page yes. Professor Shayan has some six research activities set out there, are you able to say whether those activities will continue to be offered by IRIS into the future?---No, they won’t.

PN2004

And what about the faculty?---First look through this list, my first ever look through this list, but looking through this list now, aside from taking out individual words and saying they are the same words that can appear elsewhere I would say they don’t look like the ones that are likely to be pursued by others in the faculty.

PN2005

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry I didn’t hear the last part of
that?---They don’t look like ones that would be pursued by others in the faculty. Clearly there are some words in here that would be shared by others but that doesn’t mean that they are the same in detail.

PN2006

MR MILLAR: Logistics and control, not something that has a part in the future of the faculty at Swinburne?---Logistics normally is applied to things like movements of goods, either around a factory or around a part of a country to do with handling of goods, arriving at the factory on time, arriving to the shop on time. So it tends to be that sort of activity.

PN2007

And what - - - ?---But that's not one that we pursue that I'm aware of.

PN2008

Simulation of flexible production facilities, that's the sort of thing that would go on within the faculty, isn't it?---Not that I'm aware of, no. It's organic. It would tend to imply production facility, that phrase, again, without being sure of the detail, but if that - production facility phrase implies some combination of equipment within a factory or part of a factory and how each of those parts connect with each other.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2009

And dynamic modelling of complex processes. I think your evidence
before - - - ?---That's a very general phrase.

PN2010

That's a general phrase?---Dynamic means it moves. Complex means it's complicated. So complicated systems that have motion. It's far too general a phrase to - - -

PN2011

So depending on the activities that are within that expression, there may or may not be a role for work of that nature in the future of the - - - ?---Given the nature of engineering, where most things involve movement, that covers a huge amount of territory, so potentially, yes, it is a very, very broad definition - broad phrase.

PN2012

Now, Dr Ghotb is also working within the faculty, isn't she?---Yes, she is.

PN2013

And her work is in areas with substantial overlap with what's here, isn't it?---Do you have her web page perhaps for me to check that?

PN2014

No. But if you have a look for instance at the first publication listed below Professor Shayan, you'll see her name included there?---Yes.

PN2015

MR GINNANE: The one in 1999?

PN2016

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN2017

That - - - ?---That is the same person, yes.

PN2018

That's something that is an ongoing area of - well, the sort of issue that was looked at in that paper, is that an issue that would be an ongoing research activity within the university?---It's not one that I would be interested in encouraging, no.

PN2019

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, we couldn't hear the answer?
---I'm sorry. It's not one that I would be interested in encouraging.

PN2020

MR GINNANE: If we could ask generally through you, your Honour, for the Professor to speak up perhaps twice as loudly as you are, it's hard to hear.

PN2021

THE WITNESS: I do beg your pardon. I'm naturally quietly spoken.

PN2022

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Professor, I'm starting to get concerned that it won't even transcribe properly, so please, do your best, if you could?---I'm sorry.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2023

My concern is that I'd like to be able to hear you.

PN2024

MR MILLAR: Now, Dr Ghotb has been engaged in working in similar areas to Professor Shayan in recent years, is that - - -

PN2025

MR GINNANE: Well, your Honour, I object to that question. In fairness my friend should put the areas. To say similar areas, what's that mean to engineers? There are areas that my friend wants to put to Professor Beynon, by all means, but - - -

PN2026

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Beyond that, I'm querying the relevance of it. Does it matter that Dr Ghotb has been engaged in similar areas to Dr Shayan in previous years?

PN2027

MR MILLAR: It matters a good deal.

PN2028

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Tell me why.

PN2029

MR MILLAR: For two reasons. One is that the evidence that's already been received by the Commission that Dr Ghotb conceivably was part of a pool that should have been considered in the application of proper selection criteria for who was to be made redundant. Secondly - - -

PN2030

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You'll need to go much further than to demonstrate that in the past he did work that was of a similar nature to that of either of the applicants to make that point.

PN2031

MR MILLAR: And secondly, sir, it goes to the question of whether the type of work that has been conducted by Professor Shayan is continuing with the university. If somebody is doing the same sort of work as Professor Shayan who is continuing with the university, it seems - - -

PN2032

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Because she wrote an article in 1999 and co-authored it with him. I just don't see it.

PN2033

MR MILLAR: Well, I was attempting to turn to the more recent past and that's when my friend objected to establish their working - - -

PN2034

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I was about to interrupt you anyway, I must say, for the reasons that I've just advanced.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2035

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN2036

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Go ahead. But just be aware that I'm finding limited utility in this as presently - - -

PN2037

MR MILLAR: I hope to persuade you, your Honour.

PN2038

Now, Dr Ghotb has been involved in recent times in working closely with Professor Shayan. Would you agree with that proposition? Sorry?---I would welcome seeing what you're basing that on. Since they are married I know they work closely on many things, yes.

PN2039

But Dr Ghotb has been - well - - - ?---I'm not familiar in detail with her publication list to make comparisons with.

PN2040

I should say in explanation that she doesn't seem to have a page on the internet in comparison with many others, but like many others on the faculty listing, I offer that as explanation, I don't have a page to give you?---We have put out many reminders to colleagues to please put up their web page details.

PN2041

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm really not interested in this part of the discussion, gentlemen.

PN2042

MR MILLAR: No, I understand that, your Honour, but the witness did ask for the page. I don't have it.

PN2043

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just move on, please.

PN2044

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN2045

Now, do you know anything of Dr Ghotb's ongoing research activities within the university?---Not in detail, no.

PN2046

Now, would you agree with the proposition that she'd worked - she has worked quite closely with those attached to IRIS, those in the faculty attached to IRIS, would you agree with that proposition?---I'd certainly agree in 1999 publication, yes, because you've presented it here. Since I don't know her work in detail, it's hard for me to comment on more recent past.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2047

Now, the proposal that you came up with, the paper that you arrived at in April of this year is one which anticipates growth within IRIS, do you agree with that proposition?---Yes.

PN2048

And you've said that, "The strategic funding" - this is - if you have your paper, on page 3, that's exhibit JB - - - ?---JB8.

PN2049

JB8, thank you. Exhibit JB8, you say at point 5 on the third page:

PN2050

The strategic funding that had been allocated to IRIS will be used to recruit new manufacturing research strengths of international standing thus following the purpose for research directions.

PN2051

?---Yes.

PN2052

And you expand on that below by saying, "These will be supplemented," below the listing 5 -

PN2053

search activities by the new manufacturing research strength of international standing recruited using strategic funding.

PN2054

Has a decision been made on the type of staffing needs that are to be met through this funding?---Do you mean by level of appointment?

PN2055

Yes?---Yes. We would expect such appointments. Indeed, it applies to all tier 1 centres that they be senior academics, typically professorial level. People who are capable of generating new activities and bringing in grants and contracts.

PN2056

And has it been decided in what areas that will be?---Well, the areas that are described three are the areas we wish to pursue and we're looking to appoint people who will build on those areas.

PN2057

You say that - - - ?---That's the idea of the focused approach that we've taken.

PN2058

Yes, and the areas that you've specified there will be supplemented by new manufacturing research strength. Is what you're saying that you anticipate that the new recruits will be within those five categories?---They will compliment those groups to build on those strengths that we already have, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2059

So they will compliment the groups. They may be outside those groups?---I actually expect them to be within those groups.

PN2060

But they may not be, and no decision has been taken at this stage?---We haven't made an appointment and that would be the decision, of course.

PN2061

Have you advertised?---No, we haven't advertised.

PN2062

Have you prepared a position description for the sort of roles that you're looking to fill?---Position description for professorial appointments, we have, yes, they're a standard form and we haven't advertised them and, of course, one of the reasons is because of this case going on.

PN2063

Sorry. You have a standard position description for professorial appointments. But the standard position description for the sort of job that you're looking to fill here? I'm just not sure what you mean by that?---Most of the position description comprises fairly standard material to appointments and we have those through professorial appointments both within tier 1 centres as well as normal - - -

PN2064

But the parts that you're missing of the position descriptions are really the parts that matter, they're the variables, depending upon the role that you're looking to fill?---Yes, and what we would use would be this material in here.

PN2065

And what I'm putting to you is that no decision has been made specifically as to the type of area that you're looking to make these appointments to?---It very much has been taken. It is the research areas that we want to focus on.

PN2066

Well, what, are you looking for - how many people are you looking for, or you don't know yet?---We're looking for one appointment initially and possibly two by next year. It will depend on how much investment we receive through the strategic funding process.

PN2067

And you're looking for someone with expertise in all five of these areas or one of them, or something outside?---The most likely one is number 3, materials.

PN2068

Most likely, but not necessarily within that category, because no decision has been made yet?---Correct.

PN2069

Now, you say that there's a possibility of a second appointment and a second appointment will presumably be in some other research activity different from the first?---Not necessarily, no. Materials is a very broad field. It covers what everything is made from. So there's plenty of scope in that for more than one appointment. Indeed, in some universities there can be a whole department just devoted to the study of materials.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2070

Now, at this stage you would confirm that you don't know precisely the sort of appointment that you're looking to make and whether it's one or two appointments. You'd agree with that?---The decision, the final decision would normally be taken at an interview panel meeting, with candidates having been - - -

PN2071

Before you get to that stage you're going to have to work out what sort of job you're looking to fill?---Yes.

PN2072

In order to put out some sort of intelligible advertisement?---Yes.

PN2073

Can you exclude that the sort of qualities that you'd be looking for in the new positions would necessarily be qualities that the applicants in this case could not fulfil?---I can - if I got the drift of your question, which again - could I exclude it will not be the areas that the two applicants are in. It will be in these areas.

PN2074

But are you able to exclude that the applicants might not have anything to offer, and I think your complaint before was probably well grounded in that there are too many negatives in there.

PN2075

MR GINNANE: That's a long question. I mean, can the witness get a question he could answer?

PN2076

MR MILLAR: Of course, of course.

PN2077

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think that's coming.

PN2078

MR MILLAR: That was a side remark and a self effacing one which probably didn't require a response.

PN2079

But the question I'm putting to you is whether you can exclude that the applicants may have had something to offer with the positions, if and when they're decided upon and when the areas of expertise involved are decided upon?---I can exclude that, yes.

PN2080

You can definitely exclude that?---Yes.

PN2081

Well, from - - -

PN2082

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I ask a question here, please? You've indicated under the heading Research Focus, the research activities that IRIS is going to focus on. Could you just tell me whether either of the applicants is a person who could provide the expertise required for that research purpose?
---No, they couldn't, and that was the basis of their redundancy because they didn't fit the focus areas. That's why I claimed that they would be excluded.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2083

I think I was trying to ask the question that Mr Millar asked, without the negatives. Yes, Mr Millar?

PN2084

MR MILLAR: Thank you, your Honour.

PN2085

Could I put it to you that until such time as the positions have been arrived at and you know precisely what you're looking at, no definitive answer given to that question?---You're implying that we don't know what we're looking at. We know very well what we're looking at and that is a focused researched activity within IRIS as described in this document. The advertisement for new appointments, or indeed direct approaches for new appointments would be made on that basis without those focus topics in mind.

PN2086

Yes, but my - - - ?---That's perfectly straightforward.

PN2087

But my point to you is that at this stage you haven't yet worked out the sort of position you're looking to fill and it's premature to rule anything in or out?---The uncertainty I indicated was the number of positions because that will depend on the ongoing strategic funding commitment made by the university. My understanding is that that will be to the level sufficient for two professorial appointments, but I can't swear to that for next year.

PN2088

Now, you agree that the RQF process are followed and that you address in your witness statement is not one that involved an examination of the applicants' areas?---Yes.

PN2089

You say in your statement that IRIS isn't operating or hasn't been operating profitably, that's in paragraph 7. The decisions which have been taken are not related to financial exigencies, though, are they?---Not directly. It's not the driving force behind it, no.

PN2090

No, no. The - - - ?---Though one would hope that the institute were more profitable than it is.

PN2091

Yes, yes. Now, the picture that you have portrayed to Mr Pope was one where you highlighted the loss to him of the alleged sum of a million dollars a year by IRIS, do you remember having that discussion with him?---Yes, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2092

And by loss, I take it you mean that the funding that IRIS was securing or the faculty employees engaged in work of IRIS was not fully paying for the costs of those engaged in IRIS. Would you agree with that?---Yes. It's actually made up of parts but, yes.

PN2093

So the university was funding essentially the operations of IRIS to the tune of a million a year, a million dollars a year, do you agree with that?---It's actually somewhat more than that, but yes.

PN2094

But - - - ?---Sorry, just to correct you.

PN2095

Yes?---Some of the money was from other parts of the faculty, typically the teaching programs which are undergraduate teaching programs provided some cross-subsidy.

PN2096

Yes?---It doesn't just come from central sources.

PN2097

No, no. So the central funds being drawn upon may in fact be somewhat less because other funds are accessed from within the faculty as well as those funds that have been centrally?---Yes.

PN2098

Now, Mr Pope has said that there was a report or he's quoted you as saying that there was a report that said that the faculty - I'm sorry - IRIS was losing something like a million dollars per annum. Does that ring bells with you?---No.

PN2099

That discussion, and you didn't provide him with a copy of that report?---No.

PN2100

And you haven't provided the Commission with that report?---No.

PN2101

Now, paragraph 10 of your statement you talk about a meeting that didn't have an agenda and you saw that as being a good thing, did you, that those attending the meeting were able to freely express their views?---That was the intention.

PN2102

Yes, and there was - was there information provided by you at the meeting as to the type of proposal that you were looking at?---Yes. It was based on the November discussion paper. That was the basis for the meeting.

PN2103

And Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan participated in that meeting?---That's my recollections. We didn't keep an attendance list.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2104

Well, not only attended but participated, do you remember them putting forward views at that meeting?---I remember Dr Toncich saying something and I can - I don't doubt it, I don't question that. Can't swear to that.

PN2105

Now, the Vice Chancellor has said of that meeting that Dr Toncich and Professor Shayan gave feedback at that meeting but it was not the sort of feedback you were looking for. Do you agree with that statement?---I'm not wholly sure what he's referring to but I can certainly try and provide an observation, but I might be stabbing a little bit in the dark. One of the issues of the original paper in November, which is JB2, was to ask on the final page:

PN2106

This paper wishes to engage the community on what these areas of focus may be, but the threshold requirement should be internationally competitive -

PN2107

and certainly one of the things that I was looking for in that meeting was to hear views on which areas we should be focusing on within IRIS. It's pure speculation on my part as to whether that's the aspect of Professor - what he's referring to.

PN2108

Now, in paragraph 14 you've referred to an area of manufacturing systems. Where did that title come from?---It's a phrased I used for that purpose.

PN2109

And you would agree with the proposition that as a formal classification within the university that expression had no real meaning, would you agree with that?
---You don't have formal definitions of that ilk.

PN2110

But the concept of manufacturing systems is not something that was reflected by any organisational structure within the university?---Yes, I - - -

PN2111

There's no such group as manufacturing systems, you'd agree with that?---No specific group of that name, no. I was trying to, to some extent, protect the identity of the staff within those areas.

PN2112

To some extent protect the identity of the staff, I see. So that the staff who were affected wouldn't know what you were referring to?---No, I'm quite sure that the staff would - the basis of the document was to indicate areas that we might promote in the future, might focus on and therefore by default, if you like, others are not within that consideration. What I wanted to avoid was being so specific in a discussion paper that it was effectively a list of individuals who, since there was mention in their potential redundancies, might be made redundant. I felt that that would be unfortunate for it to be so easily identifiable in a discussion paper.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2113

Yes, although microwave engineering would have had no such ambiguity?---Yes. Unfortunately it was hard to avoid completely without leaving the paper - - -

PN2114

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think I'm being fair to Dr Toncich when I say that in his evidence he said that he didn't know what manufacturing systems referred to. He was familiar with intelligent manufacturing systems and didn't know, and I think he put to you that he didn't know what manufacturing systems meant. What do you say to that?---I have some sympathy with that view given the general nature of the phrase and he was deliberately chosen to be of a general nature without avoiding - to avoid being too specific.

PN2115

And how could he then comment on his area of intelligent manufacturing systems if it wasn't clear that that's what you were referring to?---Because the ones that I was referring to, your Honour, in a positive sense, were the ones listed as ones that would be receiving support into the future.

PN2116

Where do I find that?---In JB2, at the foot of page 4. Under Proposed Changes.

PN2117

I'm sorry?---JB2, the November discussion paper, page 4, it's a very small - it has a section headed Proposed Changes.

PN2118

Yes, thank you.

PN2119

MR MILLAR: I'm sorry, sir. I can't find that page reference.

PN2120

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: JB2, page 4.

PN2121

MR MILLAR: JB2, page 4?---At the foot of the page, there's a section that begins Proposed Changes.

PN2122

Yes, yes.

PN2123

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

PN2124

MR MILLAR: So when you use the expression Manufacturing Systems, you agree that the omission of the word "intelligent" is something that does make it a much less understandable term, you agree with that?---It makes it less specific, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2125

Yes. Manufacturing systems could refer to any system of manufacturing?---Yes, but one would presume it would refer to the areas in that field that were conducted within IRIS.

PN2126

Now, from what you've said, that you wanted to protect those whose jobs were to be made redundant or you wanted to protect from ease of identification those employees who would be made redundant?---Should they be those areas, yes.

PN2127

Should they be those areas?---And given that that was not necessarily the case, then it would - that's the problem. If you identify it too well, then people presume that the decision's been taken.

PN2128

Yes, and your evidence is that it hadn't?---It hadn't.

PN2129

Now, in paragraph 18 you refer to the Swinburne Consultative Committee meeting to consider the process that had been followed. You've attached the minutes. You've said in here - sorry, it's not what you said. JB3 encloses the minutes. If you turn to the meeting of 4 May - - -

PN2130

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, JB4?

PN2131

MR MILLAR: Yes, JB4. You've said there, "Minutes of meeting 507" - - -

PN2132

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, where?

PN2133

MR MILLAR: It's the last - I think the last set of minutes in JB4.

PN2134

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, the second last page.

PN2135

MR MILLAR: Yes. It's been said there that the university reported - this is under paragraph 1 IRIS -

PN2136

The university reported that three ongoing academic positions had been declared redundant as a result of the changes. The university confirmed that those academic staff in IRIS on university funded contracts would have their contracts honoured.

PN2137

Now, what was actually meant by those academic staff employed on university funded contracts?---I wasn't at that meeting.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2138

No?---But I presume it's referring to the ones whose contracts were not ongoing, as opposed to the three ongoing positions. It's not just the three ongoing positions. There were also some fixed term contracts, funded through the university and I presume that sentence refers to those.

PN2139

Yes. But as you weren't at the meeting to ask someone who was, I take it, you're saying?---Yes. But it seemed reasonable.

PN2140

But in terms of a concept, the concept of university funded contracts, you say it's referring to centrally funded ongoing - I'm sorry, centrally funded fixed term contracts. Is that what you're saying?---There are many staff at the university who are on fixed term contracts, yes. It seemed an unusual form of appointment for us.

PN2141

Yes. That wasn't my question. The gist of the sentence is going to academic staff in IRIS employed on university funded contracts. Is that a - - - ?---I'm sorry. I'm not clear what your question is.

PN2142

Well, is that a specie of contracts that means something to you?---Yes. The distinction - I presume the distinction is being drawn. We have many staff who are on fixed term contracts. Some will be funded by research grants and contracts through external bodies, such as the Australian Research Council, and others will be funded from university funds not connected with such external income.

PN2143

Yes?---And so I presume the distinction is being drawn that university funded contracts is referring to fixed term contract people whose contracts are not funded through external sources such as an ARC fund.

PN2144

Yes, I see. Well, I'll explore that with someone who was at the meeting. Are you aware - just before we move on from those minutes - whether the university has reported back subsequently on what's happening with the affected students?---I'm not on that committee and when I put this witness statement together that was the last set of minutes available on the internal staff website. So I'm not aware, no.

PN2145

So even though - well, you've attached the minutes to your statement transparently, you only attended two of those meetings?---Yes. The minutes were available to all staff.

PN2146

Yes, I see.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2147

MR GINNANE: I should say, Mr Williams is our third witness, your Honour, who was at the meeting.

PN2148

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. I appreciate that, thank you, Mr Ginnane. I assume that that was to whom Mr Millar was referring.

PN2149

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN2150

Now, you then refer in your witness statement at paragraph 19 to the manufacturing systems versus intelligent manufacturing systems debate. I probably don't need to go further on that. In paragraph 20 you've spoken about the formulation of JB5. You summarised the submissions that you'd received in JB5 and you say this in relation to the detailed written response that had been received by Dr Toncich, "A dour presentation that is negative about Swinburne and its prospects" - - -

PN2151

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Where are you reading from?

PN2152

MR MILLAR: I'm sorry. This is JB5, there is a cover sheet, then is Confidential Reponses to IRIS Draft Forward Plan.

PN2153

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN2154

MR MILLAR: And I'm referring to page 2 where Dr Toncich's name has been circled.

PN2155

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN2156

MR MILLAR: And the comment is:

PN2157

A dour presentation that is negative about Swinburne and its prospects with no recognition of recent advances at university and faculty level.

PN2158

It was indeed a detailed written response that had been received, wasn't it?---It was.

PN2159

And a good deal of work had gone into it, do you agree with that?---Yes.

PN2160

Your comments, they were quite dismissive of the content. I put it to you that what Dr Toncich had provided was a clear view of the future directions for IRIS. What do you say to that?---A couple of comments. To pick up on an earlier point. These were the responses since the document was issued on 13 February. It wasn't meant to be a summary of everything that had been received up until that point. It was since the previous paper. I felt that much of - and the summary was attached to the statements for the others at the meeting, so they weren't relying on my summary to make their own assessment of these documents. I felt that it was addressing structural arguments about how the institute should be organised and indeed, the faculty and indeed the university, rather than addressing the issue of research focus on which disciplines we should be focusing on.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2161

And for Professor Shayan, you said on the first page that you explained that, "Discipline performance is not identical to individual's performance, and the topics for support are ones judged have more prospects." Can you explain what you say you said to Professor Shayan?---The judgment that I made through this process was to find research topics that IRIS could focus on that would become of - if they weren't already - of international standing. Part of that can be to do with whether that's an area of interest to the outside world in terms of securing grants and contracts. It's somebody may be an expert in a particular area, but if nobody else in the world is interested in it, it's not one that we're likely to be able to grow into a major activity. So part of it is a judgment on the disciplines that are worthy of pursuit in that broader sense of securing external income, and part of it, of course, is to see what has been done and whether there are people there who are likely to be able to contribute to that. So there is a performance element in this, but it's not the whole story.

PN2162

Sir, I'm conscious of the time. Did you wish to go through to 1, or would it be convenient - this would be convenient.

PN2163

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If this is convenient to you, Mr Millar, we'll adjourn until about 2.15.

PN2164

MR MILLAR: Yes.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.53PM]
<RESUMED [2.15PM]

PN2165

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Professor, you remain on your former oath. Yes, Mr Millar?

PN2166

MR MILLAR: In evidence before lunch I asked you a question about what forms of expertise held by Professor Shayan would be ongoing requirements of the university. I think you said in answer to a question that logistics or a variation upon that concept was something that didn't have a future with the university. Do you remember giving that answer, in the systems management?---I can only speak for my faculty.

PN2167

Yes, speak for your faculty, yes?---Yes.

PN2168

And your answer - - - ?---Sorry, just to interrupt. That's an area of research concentration.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2169

Yes, because you said that was to do with the supply, potentially to do with the supply of goods and - - - ?---That was an example I gave you.

PN2170

Would supply chain management be an area of research interest that you say has no place in the faculty now?---It has no place within IRIS, the nature of the review. Within the faculty more broadly, I'm not aware of it as being an area of research.

PN2171

But if it were within the faculty, would you agree that that would add force to the suggestion that the sort of research work that Professor Shayan has been doing is a continuing requirement of the university?---It's not a requirement of the university, no, and a lot would hinge on the support that would be given to research activity. One of the features of this whole review has been to focus on research areas where the university can provide support for that research, active support. There is a certain amount of latitude given to academic staff to undertake research activity at their own discretion, but that's quite separate to the areas of research that are considered worthy of support for developing international strength in those areas.

PN2172

Yes, yes. I'll hand up to the witness a document that has been obtained over the lunch adjournment?---Thank you.

PN2173

Do you recognise that document?---I know where it comes from. I haven't - I recognise what it is, yes. It's the personal web page for Amir Abdekhodaee.

PN2174

Found on the Swinburne website?---Yes.

PN2175

And that is the person who we spoke about this morning and you said, quite helpfully, he's usually known by his first name, Amir?---Yes.

PN2176

You would note there that his major research interests are expressed to be Engineering Management and Engineering Education and then the second one listed is Supply Chain Management?---Yes.

PN2177

Then Operations Management, Application of Operations Research Methods to Transportation Problems and Discrete Event Simulations?---Yes.

PN2178

Would you agree with the proposition that there are apparent parallels between what Dr Abdekhodaee has professed interest in and those of Professor Shayan?
---There are some parallels, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2179

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could I just ask you. Is Dr Abdekhodaee involved with IRIS?---No, he's not, no.

PN2180

And when one looks at a web page like this and sees Major Research Interests, is he engaged in research on behalf of - or is he engaged in research as well as teaching students?---He is engaged in both, your Honour, yes.

PN2181

Thank you.

PN2182

MR MILLAR: When was he appointed?---He was appointed last year. I can't exactly remember the date when he started, forgive me, but I think it was the middle of last year.

PN2183

Middle of last year?---I could be wrong on that.

PN2184

Just to clarify, he was appointed to the role of senior lecturer within the faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences?---Yes.

PN2185

But not within IRIS?---No.

PN2186

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you proposing to tender this document?

PN2187

MR MILLAR: I'll tender that, sir.

EXHIBIT #A10 WEB PAGE FROM THE ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCES WEB PAGE PROFILING DR ABDEKHODAEE

PN2188

MR MILLAR: Sorry, your Honour, I just need to seek instructions.

PN2189

In the witness statement of Professor Shayan he's enclosed in his curriculum vitae, which is ES1, and I'm not sure, do you have - - - ?---I have a copy of his CV in my own, which is JB11, if it's the same one. I can't vouch for that but I presume it would be.

PN2190

He has included a number of entries which are papers which have been co-authored with Dr Ghotb. Now, you'll find, I think there were some questions that were asked of you earlier about a research paper that Dr Shayan had produced in conjunction with Dr Ghotb and it was pointed out, quite correctly, the dated one in particular from 1999, at page 8 you'll see of the CV, if you have the same version - do you have the full version?---I have publications in mine which start at page 9. Perhaps I ought to use the same one.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2191

I'd better hand up the same document.

PN2192

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What should I be looking at? I'm looking at JB11 at the moment.

PN2193

MR MILLAR: It's the witness statement of Professor Shayan, exhibit A2, I expect.

PN2194

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Am I looking at page what of his CV?

PN2195

MR MILLAR: Page 8 of the CV.

PN2196

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.

PN2197

MR MILLAR: You'll see at entry 13 and entry 21, I've got 13 and 21, you'll see references to the papers of Dr Ghotb?---Yes.

PN2198

You'll see also, sorry, flicking forward, page 7, you'll see outlines 1 and 5 amongst the most recent production, publications listed, some joint publications with
Dr Ghotb?---Yes.

PN2199

Would you agree on the basis of that material that there seems to have been significant recent collaboration between - professional collaboration between Dr Ghotb and Professor Shayan?---Yes.

PN2200

And you would agree that there seems to be not insubstantial recent duplication or parallels, to use the same term, between the search efforts of Dr Ghotb and Professor Shayan?---They've collaborated on the same work, yes.

PN2201

Yes, and Dr Ghotb's work within the university is continuing?---She was not under review.

PN2202

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't follow the thrust of this, Mr Millar. I'm reluctant to interrupt too much, but what's the point? Are you suggesting that Dr Shayan's wife should have been sacked instead of him or because her work is ongoing that there's work for another person or what?

PN2203

MR MILLAR: No. Simply that it is wrong to say that Professor Shayan's work within the university has come to an end.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2204

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You will need to persuade me that the fact that he and Dr Ghotb - how do I pronounce it, I want to get it right?

PN2205

MR MILLAR: I'll take it straight to her.

PN2206

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll try. Is it the fact that - I don't understand how you're putting the fact that Dr Ghotb has ongoing work, some of which may, because she's co-authored articles with Dr Shayan, the work of the nature that Dr Shayan did, how that demonstrates that his work is ongoing? I just put you on notice, while you've raised it.

PN2207

MR MILLAR: Of course.

PN2208

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's a matter for submissions. I've read the - - -

PN2209

MR MILLAR: I readily accept, your Honour, that it's not as strong as the material concerning Dr Abdekhodaee, but it nevertheless shows that there is - for somebody with whom Professor Shayan has been working closely is continuing and has an ongoing role with the university and from that the submission will be made that there is an inference that so too would Professor Shayan's work quite conceivably be ongoing.

PN2210

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Thank you. I understand to what you're directing this evidence now, thank you.

PN2211

MR MILLAR: Now, returning to your witness statement, at paragraph 23, you've referred to the compilation of this table which you've attached as JB6?---Yes.

PN2212

Now, this is a very important document, would you not agree, JB6, because in that document you've set out your detailed considerations as to who you would recommend was to stay and who was to go. Would you agree with that proposition?---It summarises information, yes.

PN2213

It summarises information?---It is a summary table, yes.

PN2214

It is a summary document and who prepared this document?---I did.

PN2215

Now, you've set out in here the information that you've used in assessing who was to be affected by the redundancies and who was not. Would you agree with that?
---Some of the information, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2216

And the information that you've relied upon includes the publications, PhD students grant and contract income?---Yes.

PN2217

You've set out here. Now, your basis for deciding who was to stay and who was to go was based largely upon consideration of those factors, is that right?---No.

PN2218

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just break in there too. The first column is recommended for continuation and I take it that's the course that's recommended or not recommended, or the research activity - - - ?---The research activity, yes, your Honour.

PN2219

Does it follow that the staff associated with that research, if the research is not recommended for continuation it would be made redundant?---Yes, it is.

PN2220

Thank you. Yes, Mr Millar? I just wanted to clarity that.

PN2221

MR MILLAR: No, I understand, your Honour.

PN2222

Now, you say that publications PhD students and grant and contract income were not the basis for your recommendations or - - - ?---You used the word "largely" and I was - - -

PN2223

You were - - - ?---It's a combination - - -

PN2224

You were a bit guarded about that word?---I'm a bit guarded about that because it's a combination of these, what I would call metrics, and also my belief, my professional judgment as to which areas could be developed into research - - -

PN2225

Yes?---As I discussed earlier this morning, in terms of areas that I felt would be productive in grant and contract income, where there was some commonality between themes across some members of IRIS.

PN2226

Well, tell us about your use of the metrics, as you've described them, which by that I assume you mean the last three columns?---Yes. The measures in the last three mean columns.

PN2227

Yes. How did you apply those metrics to the process?---Well, part of the judgment of finding an area of research strength, one of course looks for - since the research is led by academic staff, one looks for people around who want to build that. If somebody has a decent, however one defines that, research performance, then we can have some confidence that they will be able to provide a foundation for growing research concentration. If someone's research performance is modest, then it doesn't encourage one to believe that they could form the foundation for investment and growth in the research area. So there is an element of performance in the judgment.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2228

I'm intrigued by the use of the word "someone" which you used several times there. Would I accept from that that what you were looking at was the research process of an individual rather than of a particular area?---No. I've tried to explain. I'm looking first at the areas that I believe can work together and form a combination that has less breadth than IRIS had before because I believe that IRIS had far too broad a range of disciplines that it was attempting to research into, so that needed to be narrowed down. That would require cohesiveness between certain areas, so I'm looking for that. That's a judgment about the disciplines. But then I say that in finding those areas, if they're to be built upon, particularly by university investments with the strategic funding, then one would want to do that where academic staff who have a good research track record are involved, rather than ones who have not demonstrated particularly strong research performance.

PN2229

Yes and so if one looks at the publications column which is what you're talking a bout and the assessment that's been made into the research performance, I assume?---Yes.

PN2230

If Dr Toncich had have recorded, let's say, 25 publications in his column - - -

PN2231

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: There are two columns. Could you explain to me the significance of the two columns under Publications and the number of columns under Students and Grant Income?---Your Honour, unfortunately the Department of Education Science and Training doesn't have a simple approach to collecting such statistics.

PN2232

Why am I not surprised?---The first column is journals which are considered
the - generally speaking considered the most prestigious publication. They're peer reviewed, archival material. The desk publications is account of journals and books where books are given, I believe, a rating of 3 compared with a journal article.

PN2233

So that's the second column?---That's the second column, yes, and both of those are used as part of the calculation by DEST for support of research in the university.

PN2234

Yes, thank you?---As described in the paragraph that's tabled Salstrum.

PN2235

MR MILLAR: Now, if Dr Toncich had recorded in the first column there publications record of, let's say 25 journal articles in the relevant period, that would have had a bearing upon the ultimate decision that was made?---It would have come after a consideration of the discipline. I was concerned that the discipline didn't have a fit with the areas I felt did form a coherent record.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2236

I see?---25 would have been - what was the period - three years would have been a reasonable publication rate. Not spectacular by any means.

PN2237

No, although, well, it would have put him at the top of the ladder for those that we see listed here, but in any event might one have expected that to bear upon the decision that was taken?---In a secondary manner, yes.

PN2238

Well, ultimately he either loses his job or he doesn't. Might that have been expected to bear upon the decision that was made?---In the secondary manner, I mean in the sense the primary manner was to narrow down the number of research areas upon which IRIS would concentrate in the future. That was the primary objective and that was where I started to look for those - to look for that - so that's the primary task I had. That area didn't fit with that and then I - and then the evidence of the research activity by Dr Toncich within that area didn't add weight or provide any sort of sense that there was a compensation - that somehow there was a compensation, that he may not have fitted, but he was an outstanding research performer. But it would have had to have been a lot more than what he was demonstrating.

PN2239

So I think what you're saying is the publications' history was looked at as a consideration going to whether you should change your mind as regard redundancy, is that what you're saying?---It wasn't about changing my mind. It was making my mind up.

PN2240

Yes. Helping you make your mind up - - - ?---As I state in the witness statement, that it was a combination of the judgment of the areas and these measures of metrics.

PN2241

Let's use an even more extreme example. Let's say Dr Toncich had 50 publications over the three year history. Would that have impacted upon the decision that you made?---I would find that surprising given the grant of a contract income because - - -

PN2242

Found that surprising given?---The grant of a contract income, that he could have produced so many publications without securing greater research funding.

PN2243

Yes, yes. But let's say he - - - ?---So picking out one statistic in isolation.

PN2244

Yes, okay. Well, let's say - - - ?---After an appropriate - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2245

Let's say he had a - so you're saying a higher journal article output is likely to have attracted a higher grant income contract?---It works both ways. Often to conduct the research one requires assistance, equipment, facilities, whatever, paying for post doctorate research associates, they have to be paid out of earned grants and contracts. So that generates the research, under the supervision of the academic member of staff and therefore generates the publications. The publications would generate a reputation in the field which would then of course give confidence to those in the field that one was worthy of further investment in one's research and the combination of the publications and grant income indicate that this is not the case in Dr Toncich's circumstance.

PN2246

What I'm struggling to understand is how the last three columns, major columns, impact upon the analysis, and clearly they do from what you say, and I think I'm not doing you an injustice in saying that a high level of publications, for example, may have saved Dr Toncich from termination of employment. Is that - - - ?---If he'd been a research star, is that what you're asking?

PN2247

Yes?---It may have done, yes.

PN2248

And similarly with Professor Shayan?---Sorry, are you asking me about the last three columns or - I wasn't clear if you had a question about the last three columns, you said, so I didn't want to - and I - - -

PN2249

I think your quite astute summary of my question was something I might repeat. If the last three columns showed that Dr Toncich had been a research staff, might he have stayed and the answer to that is yes?---I think - - -

PN2250

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Does that mean that the research activities of industrial control and automation would have continued?---I think what would have happened is I would have looked for a different cluster of research strengths to focus upon. Something else would have to have gone. If I'm to narrow down by recommendation the number of research areas that are pursued, I have to make a judgment on which are the ones to be pursued and which are not and I've done that based on integrity of those subjects, how they fit together and also, to some extent, the performance of the people working in those fields. Now clearly if there were a group of people who were very strong in both grant and contract income and in terms of publications, and I could see a way that that could come together. It might have been a different grouping that was recommended for concentration. But my aim was to find a narrower range of disciplines that would be pursued in IRIS into the future and I had to use my judgment and also the measures available to me to make that call. I don't expect people who have suffered by this decision to like my judgment, but it was a judgment genuinely made.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2251

MR MILLAR: So in going through this process you've said you were looking to cut back on the number of research activities, that's right?---To narrow down the range of research disciplines that were being undertaken within IRIS, yes.

PN2252

And feeding into your decision as to which ones were recommended for continuation and which ones were not was the research record - - - ?---The track record.

PN2253

Of the individuals who were leading those particular research activities?---Yes.

PN2254

Now, I should ask you more clearly again, the questions I put to you before about Dr Toncich would similarly apply for Professor Shayan, would they not, if he had a record suggesting he was a research star, the outcome of the process might have been different?---Yes. In fact technically his discipline I feel is somewhat further away from some of the others. But that would have required quite a different approach to the grouping of disciplines, but that's my personal view of the way the subjects fit together. I could see a happier match in the group that I recommended than with some of the others.

PN2255

Yes. So is what you're saying that Dr Shayan would have had to shone even more brightly as a research star than the others in orders to justify inclusion continuation?---Shine even more brightly. I'm not quite sure what that means.

PN2256

It's perhaps an inept continuation of your analogy. You said if Dr Toncich had been a research star, things might have been different. You seem to be suggesting that Professor Shayan's case for continuation was not a happy fit, I think was your suggestion?---Possibly more difficult to find coherence with other areas.

PN2257

And what I'm saying to you is that would he have had to have performed even more strongly in research in order to change the outcome?---I really - I'm not sure I know to be honest. There may have been other solutions that we could have tried to find. I don't know, it's - - -

PN2258

Yes. Which could have included a spot within the faculty, if his research record was sufficiently strong as to warrant his continuation, you would have found a way of doing it?---That would have been difficult because we don't have a teaching need for his area of expertise. That would have been problematic as a solution.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2259

Yes, but if he had a research record which was suitably impressive you would have found a way to keep him on?---You're saying if he weren't the person he is, then it would have been a different circumstance, yes, that's true.

PN2260

Now, one thing, with the publications record that you've set out here, for instance, if we got to Professor Massud's figure of 24 publications, did you go through those and check whether each one of the 24 were related to computer integrated manufacturing?---No, I didn't.

PN2261

That's just the raw figure attaching to Professor Massud's name?---It's the official figure.

PN2262

It's the official figure attaching to his name for the number of publications?---Yes.

PN2263

And the grant and contract income figure, that's the figure which includes ARC grants that are provided?---Yes. In the footnote NCG, it refers to National Competitive Grant.

PN2264

And - - - ?---And that for engineering would almost certainly mean the Australian Research Council. It could mean the National Health and Medical Research Council, but for our faculty it would normally mean - yes.

PN2265

Yes, I see. And again that is the figure attaching to the individual academic?
---Yes.

PN2266

He has - and I'm not sure if it's a he - he or she would have secured that level of grant or contract income?---Yes. It lists the number of applications that they made for such funding over the period, the amount of money won and success rates are far from 100 per cent, so that's to be expected. There's a difference between the number of applications and the number of grants won, and the final column is the total grant and contract income which includes the Nationally Competitive Grant and any other sources of income typically from industry.

PN2267

How are ARC grants included here, if somebody is - is it a second - it's not a supervisor - it's a second investigator, if a person is a second investigator on an ARC grant, do they receive an allocation of the funds on that figure, or you don't know?---I can't remember. I can't remember. It's some time ago since I compiled this information.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2268

Now, on the publications figure in this exhibit you're aware that Dr Toncich disputes the publications figure that you've used?---Yes.

PN2269

And do you accept his criticism?---The data that I used since I felt it might be important data were the officially recorded figures by the university's research office which at the time was called the Office of Research and Graduate Studies and that's the figure that's returned to the government as part of our reporting to DEST for securing of our funding. It's far from unknown for staff to forget to submit publications to that office and so there could well be a difference between this official figure and their actual number. Indeed, for other staff in the table as well. But I felt I had to use the official figures.

PN2270

Now, in this document, you've listed on the last line, I think it's Dr Lu - - - ?
---Professor Lu.

PN2271

Professor Lu, I'm sorry, already in the faculty?---Yes.

PN2272

Saying no, that takes us back and similarly with Dr Piovanetti further up t he page. You've listed already in the faculty. I put it to you that as I said earlier, this is something of a misnomer as all the staff are already in the faculty?---Not at all. The Piovanetti - Pio as he is known to us, P-i-o - his transferred to the faculty happened before I joined Swinburne, but he was in IRIS and then moved into the faculty and - - -

PN2273

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you just explain that because there seems to be an issue made of that. Everybody's in the faculty. IRIS people are employed specifically for IRIS, but they're assigned to the faculty as I understand it. What's the difference between already in the faculty and somebody who's in IRIS?---Okay. The phrase I think I've used in the witness statement is that the faculty hosts the research - these Tier 1 research centres of which we have three. So that there are specific staff associated with those research centres, but as the faculty that hosts those centres, we oversee some of their activities including the telephone list as was mentioned earlier.

PN2274

So they're involved with those research activities but not specifically assigned to IRIS or IOS or whatever?---They are assigned to IRIS, yes. So, for example, within IRIS there's the director of IRIS. If one of the members wants to make a travel application, that is, first signed by the director of IRIS who oversees that centre, and then would come to the faculty office for the Dean to sign and our check is normally just to see that there is money in the grant or whatever to allow for that.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2275

MR MILLAR: Now, the document that we've just been looking at - - - ?---Sorry, should I explain Professor Lu?

PN2276

Yes, please. Well, yes, go on, yes, please?---Professor Lu was in the faculty - - -

PN2277

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: L-u?---L-u.

PN2278

Yes?---Professor Lu was the faculty member of staff and was invited by the director of IRIS, Professor Brandt, B-r-a-n-d-t, to participate in some of the IRIS activities and - but hadn't - his affiliation hadn't been changed to become a member of IRIS but he has featured in some of the submissions including the RQF trial document submitted by the IRIS staff.

PN2279

MR MILLAR: When you say affiliation hadn't been changed, you really mean his office hadn't been moved?---Actually his office has moved in the period, but it's by the by.

PN2280

To IRIS?---But not into that building, no.

PN2281

But - - - ?---But I don't just mean the office move at all, no.

PN2282

Yes?---I mean that he - - -

PN2283

So if he wanted to change affiliation, what more has to happen other than an office move?---He would have to be a member of IRIS as opposed to being someone who's associated with it and collaborating in research.

PN2284

And as a member of IRIS is he paid any more?---No.

PN2285

The same income. If they generate research funds in IRIS, can IRIS spend those funds as they wish or does it have to go through you to - - - ?---No, they spend it as they wish. The only check that we would make at the faculty office is that the money is there to be spent and that it is spent according to the terms and conditions of the grant.

PN2286

And you sign off though on any expenditure?---And that is my responsibility to ensure that that is done, but I don't make - I don't place, if you like, value judgments on whether it's a good activity in terms of that, travel, or whatever the expenditure might be.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2287

Yes, but the expenditure - - - ?---They have independence in that.

PN2288

But the expenditure needs to pass through your office, sorry, yes?---Yes.

PN2289

The expenditure needs to pass through your office?---Yes. It's effectively a delegation from the university's finance office.

PN2290

Now, paragraph 25 - I should say before I move on from 23 about the table. The table is a document, JB6, which you provided together with JB5 on a confidential basis to Mr Pope, is that right?---Yes.

PN2291

Now, you told him that it was to be - that you were providing it to him on the basis that he wasn't to show anyone else?---Yes. JB5, if I remember - yes, JB5, I mentioned the summary and showed it to him and he asked me if he could have a copy, or he could have it in copy and I was somewhat - I didn't realise he would be requesting documents but I said, yes, that's fine. Since it had not been a summary intended for wide circulation I asked him if he could keep it confidential. It was just call on the moment. And JB6 I felt because it could be used to drawn comparisons between colleagues within the unit I felt that it wouldn't necessarily help staff relationships if that was effectively pinned up on the board.

PN2292

Yes. So you provided that to him on a similar understanding of confidentiality that he wouldn't show anyone, yes?---Well, I presumed that he would use the information in his report, yes.

PN2293

Yes, and you presumed he would use that information, because the information you've set out in JB6 is a particularly important document in saying who is to go and why?---Partly why.

PN2294

Yes?---Not wholly why.

PN2295

Yes. And that was a document which you've already confirmed you provided to him on the understanding that that was to be used by him in the undertaking of his review?---Yes.

PN2296

You said that, and you've also confirmed that you provided that document to him on the understanding that it wasn't to be shared with the staff affected, nor with the staff more generally?---I'm not sure I thought that far. I was thinking more in terms of it wouldn't just be them released for open circulation.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2297

You certainly didn't want it on the staff noticeboard?---Yes.

PN2298

But you provided it on the assumption that the person reviewing the decision to make the decision at the university to make the applicant's employment redundant or to take that information into account and it wouldn't be provided to the applicants?---I was providing it to him to indicate part of the process that I had gone to in making my decision. That's the basis I did it on, not that I provided the information.

PN2299

Yes, yes?---No more, no less.

PN2300

But you would accept the fact that it then meant that the reviewer of the decision had access to information about the decision which had been taken which was not disclosed to the applicant seeking the review?---The information - - -

PN2301

I think that's a yes or no?---Table, yes, was not provided, yes.

PN2302

Yes, thank you. You've said in paragraph 25 of your statement that your work with Dr Toncich and Dr Shayan was substantially associated with their research areas and students who were carrying out research in those areas. Now, there's been material put before the Commission by both Professor Shayan and Dr Toncich that both their research and teaching loads were to continue. Dealing first with the teaching loads, do you accept the evidence that's been given as to the continuation of the subjects in which they have formally been involved into the future? Or perhaps you haven't heard all of the evidence on that?---No.

PN2303

You've seen - - -

PN2304

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think if you're going to ask a question like that you need to specify what evidence it is that you're asking him to agree with.

PN2305

MR MILLAR: Yes, your Honour.

PN2306

Dealing with Dr Toncich, he's given evidence that his workload for 2007 has been set at a total figure of 1,584 hours, 823 hours of which is in teaching. Now, I can hopefully provide a copy. We'll see if we have it. This is document A3, exhibit A3. I'll see if we have a spare copy. Here we are. And you're presumably familiar with this document Professor Beynon?---Yes, I saw it yesterday.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2307

As you've provided a witness statement in reply?---Yes.

PN2308

Well, first of all if we can confirm the subjects that are listed there. Of the subjects HES5102, 5103, HET550 and 556, firstly, can you confirm that they are ongoing subjects?---They're ongoing subjects.

PN2309

Yes, and can you confirm that they involve - they have involved Dr Toncich in the teaching of those subjects?---No, I can't confirm that.

PN2310

You can't confirm that?---No.

PN2311

Because you don't know?---Well, I've actually checked for these modules as to the teaching and have spoken to the program coordinator for Electrical Engineering involved in HET550 and HET556 and he told me that Dr Toncich was not involved with the delivery of that subject and told me who was and I managed in the brief time available to speak to one of those members of staff, Hai Vu, who was not aware of Dr Toncich, his identity and checked his lists to see if he was involved in teaching the subject and he said not.

PN2312

Not involved at all. Is that the material that you set out in your witness statement?---It is.

PN2313

You were in the hearing room this morning, were you not, when you heard Dr Toncich responding to what was put?---Yes.

PN2314

And his evidence clearly is that the figures that are set out in exhibit A3 are correct?---Yes.

PN2315

MR GINNANE: I object to that. I don't think he said that. I think he qualified it in a number of ways, your Honour.

PN2316

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you want to ask a question rather than just making an assertion? Dr Toncich said what Dr Toncich said.

PN2317

MR MILLAR: He said what he said. Well, I suppose he's responded to the allegations that have been made by this witness. We'll just seek instructions on one point.

PN2318

Your Honour, I think the response was in relation to the subject I've just took you through that the students from HET550 and 556 came into the lectures offered in the first two subjects that are listed. You heard him provide that explanation this morning. Is that consistent with the information that you gleaned from the university office involved?---The - when I spoke to Hai Vu, who is the lecturer
for - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2319

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You'd better spell that for the record, if you would?---Sorry. It's an entertaining faculty of staff names.

PN2320

Yes?---H-a-i, first name, and V-u. In fact he's in the Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies. When I spoke with him about this on the telephone he checked the list of staff involved with the delivery of this module and could not find Dr Toncich's name and indeed, didn't know of Dr Toncich at all. They had to spell the name twice.

PN2321

MR MILLAR: So this is in relation - - - ?---So he was not aware of this.

PN2322

To 550 and 556?---No. Only in relation to 550. George Bankey who is responsible for 556, I wasn't able to speak to personally, but the program coordinator for who oversees these modules within the Electrical and Electronic Engineering program, ..... also said that Dr Toncich was not involved in these two modules.

PN2323

550 and 556?---Yes, and that's the evidence - the statement I've given here.

PN2324

The explanation which has been provided is that 5102 and 5103 included students who came from those other subjects, what I'm suggesting to you is that it's entirely consistent with the information that you've put before the Commission to say that Dr Toncich did do the hours that he's claimed or was allocated with the hours that he's claimed for the subjects that he's listed?---I can't say it wouldn't have happened because I wasn't there. I would have expected the lecturer responsible for the module to know that.

PN2325

But you haven't spoken to anyone involved in 5102 or 5103, I think is your evidence, is that right?---5102, I have spoken to Aaron Blicblau, A-a-r-o-n, and then the surname, B-l-i-c-b-l-a-u, who is the convenor for - I've got to be careful. I think it's for both. Yes, I think it was for both of these, yes. Aaron Blicblau was a convenor for both. I spoke to him personally and followed up details a couple of times on the telephones for what I'd reported in A and B.

PN2326

You've also dealt with HES1305?---Yes.

PN2327

HIR510?---Yes.

PN2328

Would you agree that those two subjects are continuing with the university?
---HES1305 is, yes. HIR510 is being taught, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2329

Yes, and the work load attached to the six subjects I've just run through could be expected to continue indefinitely into the future?---You've asked me the modules. The work loads, I have some differences with the work loads that are given there.

PN2330

Okay. Well - - - ?---In terms of the hours.

PN2331

Yes. If - - - ?---As in my witness statement.

PN2332

Yes, I've seen your witness statement. If we start with the continuing nature of the subjects, you would agree that there is the need for the skill set involved in taking those subjects into the future?---With the possible exception of HIR510 which, as we focus IRIS' research activities, we will be looking to also focus the associated master's program, advanced manufacturing technology, so that we can provide a master's program built on the strengths of our research activities. If we are ceasing research in a given area, then we are very likely to change the modules associated with that.

PN2333

But the broad topic involved, Computer Systems and Manufacturing, is sufficiently general, one would have thought, to guarantee a spot no matter how it's described, in the future offerings?---Not necessarily, no.

PN2334

No. Computer Systems and Manufacturing?---No. One can deal with computer systems as an isolated discipline, or one can - since computers are ubiquitous in their use in manufacturing, one could disperse the issue amongst the manufacturing specialities and she'll have - as ubiquitous why isolated in the separate module. So I think it's a technical discussion which would be had in a different forum.

PN2335

At this stage, though, the subject is continuing?---It's a master's so it has been taught now, yes.

PN2336

And discontinuance of subjects like that would be something that would have to go to the academic board?---Correct.

PN2337

And as yet that issue hasn't been to the academic board?---No, it hasn't.

PN2338

IBL1 and IBL2 are - well, they're ongoing in the sense that it's an ongoing expectation of academics within the faculty?---Across the whole university, it's a major feature of the university, the program, yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2339

And the master's project, master's thesis research project and advanced research project listed there, one would expect would involve ongoing teaching requirements?---Yes.

PN2340

Now - - - ?---But not of the numbers of hours that are quoted in A3.

PN2341

Now, would you agree though at the very least with the proposition that the figures shown there are a bona fide reflection of the rejected figures at the commencement of the year for Dr Toncich?---They are - perhaps it would be helpful to explain how the word load is put together. It's not a complicated explanation. We first of all take the research performance figures similar to what we were talking about earlier in that table of publications, students and grants and contract, and we put that - we use that information to assess research performance and preload that information into individuals' work load model. That is then sent to the academic for them to complete their teaching duties. They put in the numbers for the teaching duties and then discuss them with their academic leader and that's then agreed and that's submitted as what is expected to be the load for the coming year. Should that load vary because of the number of students allocated for projects or whatever, one is expected to accommodate that. The whole purpose of the work load model is to provide an equitable distribution of activity. It's not some sort of game where you try and front load it with things that you're not going to do and so end up with a lot of free time. It's an honour system, if you will, but you're meant to correct that information as it goes along, and what surprised me about this table was that this was provided after the completion of semester 1 when those figures would have been accurately known because they'd been taught. So I was disappointed to see that it had given us a projection when in fact the taught hours were known at that point.

PN2342

But your - - - ?---In many of the cases.

PN2343

Yes. You do agree with the proposition though, and I think it must be a yes from what you've said, that the total hours shown here reflect a bona fide reproduction of the projection of hours at the beginning of the year?---I don't have the original document on which that was based to compare, so I can't vouch for that, I'm afraid.

PN2344

Well, you've seen Dr Toncich's witness statement, his initial witness statement and his subsequent one. I don't need to take you to it, but in that initial statement he attaches the raw data or in fact the semi processed data upon which that figure is based. Do you agree that that represents a faithful reflection of the calculations done at the beginning of the y ear?---I simply can't remember the numbers in that table to make that comparison and vouch for it under oath.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2345

But nothing you've said attacks the validity of that figure as an accurate projection?---It doesn't - nothing I've heard - presuming that they are the
same - that means that the projected figure was agreed with the academic leader, that's all, but it's based on the academic staff providing the information in the first place.

PN2346

And you'd agree that sometimes the reality will be higher and sometimes it will be lower?---My experience is that it's almost always lower because staff naturally are cautious in what they do. They're not likely to underestimate their teaching. They're more likely to over estimate. That would be natural.

PN2347

So it would unremarkable for Dr Toncich to come in with a figure, an actual figure which is lower than that?---In January as a prediction, yes. But if it's what actually happened then it should have been adjusted.

PN2348

And as a projection for the second half of the year, you've heard the evidence that if duties hadn't been taken away from him because of the process we're going through, he would have come in with that figure - - - ?---No, no. No, it wouldn't have happened that way. I'm sorry to interrupt. HES5103, for example, the allocation has been made for the whole year already. That's made at the beginning of the year so there wouldn't be anything coming up in the second semester. That's already been done at the beginning of the year so that the work load of HES5102, that box on A3, would only be 48 hours for the year and that would have been known at the end of semester 1, which finished several weeks ago.

PN2349

Okay?---And there could be no more to that.

PN2350

I'll just seek instructions on that point. In any event 5102 and 5103 are subjects that will continue on into next year?---Sorry, is that a question?

PN2351

Yes?---Yes, they will.

PN2352

Now, the witness statement number 5, Professor Shayan, also refers to a number of subjects - - - ?---Sorry, are you referring to the witness statement, the most recent - the more recent one?

PN2353

Yes. Do you have that?---Yes, I do.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2354

That doesn't look like the one - is that the reply that you're looking at?

PN2355

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It's one page from memory?---No, I don't have his. Sorry, this is my reply I'm looking at. I beg your pardon. I only have my own witness statements here.

PN2356

MR MILLAR: You said in your statement that you're replying to that, your statement of reply that was handed up today. You don't have a copy with you?---I have my reply, yes.

PN2357

Yes, but it's in reply to Professor Shayan's second statement?---Yes, I don't have a copy of that with me.

PN2358

No, but you have seen it?---I have seen it, yes.

PN2359

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Sorry, what am I looking for now?

PN2360

MR GINNANE: A5.

PN2361

MR MILLAR: That's A5.

PN2362

MR GINNANE: We've got a copy we can lend you that's got that - - -

PN2363

MR MILLAR: I'll hand up my clean copy to him. I'll hand it straight back. If I can hand that up to the witness?---Thank you.

PN2364

The witness statement in reply of Professor Shayan refers to three subjects in paragraph 2?---Yes.

PN2365

HIR521, Design of Physical Facilities. Would you agree that that is an ongoing subject?---Yes, it's currently on the list, yes.

PN2366

HIR506, Technology Management, would you agree that's an ongoing subject?
---It is at the moment, yes.

PN2367

HIR516, Manufacturing Management Systems. Is that an ongoing subject?---I'm hesitating because I'm not sure if it's being taught at the moment. If I could
just - I'm sorry, I'm not sure whether I can recall whether that one is continuing at the moment in this semester. It's a lot of modules to have to remember.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2368

Yes, of course, of course. It may be, you're not sure, yes?---Yes, I'm not sure.

PN2369

Now, Professor Shayan has also gone on to describe his ongoing research and in particular the ARC Linkage grant with Moran. His evidence yesterday was that there was some delay with the payment of funds for this, but that it's anticipated that the payment will come through in September. Are you familiar with the circumstances of this funding?---Yes, I am.

PN2370

And would you agree that it's likely that funding to the tune of, I think some $80,000 ARC money and $17,000 company money will be coming through to the university?---This is an ARC Linkage program which means that the funding for the grant comes jointly from the ARC and from the company with which one is collaborating. It began last year and Moran has been unable to fulfil its side of the commitment. If that remains unfulfilled we have to return the ARC money that's already been provided to the university. So the payment by Moran is very important to the whole grant because it may require other money be returned. The latest information that we have from Moran, which I believe was in an email of 2 August, which Professor Shayan would have seen, I presume he's referring to, actually speaks about - apologises for the lack of payment and says that funds may become available in September/October when they would consider the possibility of arranging a payment plan. It doesn't actually promise payment then. It promises consideration of a payment plan, which has left us with some uncertainty as to whether they will pay and has been a concern to us.

PN2371

Certainly, but an expectation that they will from the - - - ?---No, not necessarily. It's not always the case that the companies pay.

PN2372

Now, Professor Shayan is the chief investigator on that grant?---Yes.

PN2373

What's to happen to it if he goes?---It'll finish this year and we - the member of staff associated with it, assuming that we don't have to send the ARC money back, in which case we would have to deal with their contract. They would certainly stop work on the project, so that's a possibility, and it's one that's currently being considered by the university research office. If it were to continue, the post doctoral research associate would have to be supervised by another person to see out the remainder of the work were Moran to come up with the money. That has to be our fall back position.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2374

Do you know who the second investigator is, the second chief investigator?---Not offhand, no.

PN2375

You say that it's currently in - or it's said here that it's currently in its second year, but do you know when this project is to end?---I think it's due to finish at the end of the calendar year.

PN2376

So at the moment the project is continuing without Professor Shayan?---Yes.

PN2377

And the funding from that project would be sufficient, assuming it comes through, but it would be sufficient to meet the lion's share of the costs of Professor Shayan's employment, would you agree with that?---It brings no income towards his employment.

PN2378

But in terms of the money coming into the university from the grant and the money going out of the university to employ Professor Shayan, the majority of the cost of his employment would be met by this sum, wouldn't that be right?---No.

PN2379

Well - - - ?---No, the grant is used to employ another person, another member of staff to conduct the work. The only other - and so essentially that grant money is used spending on that person, equipment, travel, whatever. The money that the university receives from the Federal government, through DEST, is related to the formula I referred to earlier to do with grant and contracting, and in this case would - it's a complicated sum unfortunately but it would be a small fraction of the total grant of the order of $10,000.

PN2380

Now, Dr Shayan - - - ?---Sorry, Professor Shayan is not - therefore not employed on an ARC Linkage grant. He's a chief investigator. His time is considered to be ..... to the project.

PN2381

Now, Professor Shayan - I should say Professor Shayan's evidence also is that the Moran grant also has various payments in kind being received from Moran by the university and that that in kind contribution has in fact been made. Are you familiar with that, or you don't know?---No, but as far as ARC is concerned, they're most interested in the cash.

PN2382

Of course, of course, that's - - - ?---And that's the moot point. If the cash is not received, the whole grant has to go back.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2383

But the university has benefited from the contribution of the kind - or from the in kind contributions made by Moran?---It would not - I am not aware of the details of the in kind contribution. In kind, of course, means there's no money there, but I would presume that Moran are supportive of the work in that sense. I have no reason to doubt the desire of the company to support the work but they simply - - -

PN2384

Subjects such as furniture frames - - -

PN2385

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Millar, this evidence was given by Professor Shayan. It was not - I think I'm right in saying he wasn't cross-examined about it. It's there. What purpose does it achieve to have this witness, even if he does know, which he doesn't appear to know, merely confirm Professor Shayan's evidence?

PN2386

MR MILLAR: I'll move on. There's evidence of ARC Linkage grant with alloy fab two year project due to commence now. Do you agree with the contention that there are funds of approximately $60,000 per year coming in under this grant?---Yes.

PN2387

That's yet to come in, yes. He's also set out the contention of having three PhD students, five masters' theses and projects due and one IBL undergraduate student. Do you agree with that contention?---I couldn't swear to the exact numbers, but I have no reason to doubt it.

PN2388

You would agree then that there are ongoing students within the university with research and supervision needs which were formally met by Professor Shayan for whom other arrangements have had to be made?---Yes.

PN2389

Would you agree with the contention that he's made there about his - that having had 11 applications for new PhD students?---Again I can't check the number, but I don't have any reason to doubt it.

PN2390

It sounds an unremarkable number in the - - - ?---We receive many applications for PhD students, yes, most of whom don't turn up, of course.

PN2391

He's also given evidence there about having been on the editorial board of four international journals?---I have looked at those, yes.

PN2392

You don't quibble with that?---I could actually only find three that published journals but one seemed to be more involved in organising conferences. I don't feel strongly about the point.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2393

Now, Dr Toncich, turning to ARC grants also, has given evidence that he had two pending ARC grant applications. Does that sound familiar to you?

PN2394

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Again, Mr Millar, were these matters put into contention by Mr Ginnane? If they weren't, why are you seeking to strengthen Mr Ginnane's case?

PN2395

MR MILLAR: We're certainly not seeking to do that.

PN2396

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That's what you're doing.

PN2397

MR MILLAR: No. I was going to draw out from this witness the contention that I'm seeking to put that there is ongoing work for Dr Shayan, but I'm happy to move on.

PN2398

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Dr Toncich.

PN2399

MR MILLAR: Sorry, Dr Toncich, but I'll move on, your Honour.

PN2400

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you want to draw that out, by all means, but there's probably a better way to do it, but you run your cross-examination in your own way.

PN2401

MR MILLAR: Well, you would accept then that there are live ARC applications that have been made by Dr Toncich?---I have no reason to doubt it.

PN2402

No reason to doubt it, but you've got no knowledge either way as to whether it's - - - ?---I would have to go and check that information, yes, in our records.

PN2403

And - - - ?---We make many applications in the year. The success rate is quite low for these grants, so staff are encouraged to make many applications, and high quality applications if they can, try and maximise our chances of winning the funding, which is highly competitive.

PN2404

Yes. Now, in paragraph 27 of your statement you've referred to the academics who have been affected by these changes and you've made a reference to some other academics whose employment has been affected, and particularly you've referred to Professor Tran and other academics on fixed term contracts who would not have their contracts renewed. You would accept, would you not, that there were other academics within the - and I'll just find the exhibit I wish to put to you. Might the witness be provided with, I think, it's exhibit R1. It's the organisation chart or series of photographs.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2405

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: R1 is the witness statement of Mr Pope.

PN2406

MR MILLAR: I'm sorry, it must be R2.

PN2407

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, yes. Yes. I've got some highlighting under some names but that's all right.

PN2408

MR GINNANE: I'm sorry, your Honour. We can provide an additional copy.

PN2409

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think it's all right, Mr Ginnane, thank you.

PN2410

MR MILLAR: Yes, you've got that there. Now, you would agree, would you not, that that listing of those within IRIS shows a number of other staff members within IRIS whose employment was not terminated. Would you agree with that?
---Are you referring to the front page, this one?

PN2411

The big - - - ?---This seems to list most of the staff now, so certainly.

PN2412

Yes. That lists those - - - ?---Yes, there were some staff continuing.

PN2413

If you go into the page headed, Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, which I think is the following two pages in?---Yes.

PN2414

Starting on the front page, I should say there's a team leader listed, Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, Professor Nagarajah and then on the third page there's also Professor Massud listed and neither of those two professors have been selected for redundancy?---Correct.

PN2415

Yes, and - - - ?---I'd also point out that Professor Nagarajah doesn't appear on pages 3 and 4 under that heading. One of the difficulties of the IRIS website is that it's not always so consistent in its listing of staff.

PN2416

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Could we spell that surname again?
---Nagarajah, N-a-g-a-r-a-j-a-h.

PN2417

MR MILLAR: I'm not sure that there's a first "a". According to the operational chart, it's just "N-g"?---That's a mis - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2418

I'm sorry?---The name is complicated enough with the "a".

PN2419

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, so where does that leave us? What's the spelling?---N-a-g-a-r-a-j-a-h.

PN2420

I'd like the transcript to be as accurate as it can.

PN2421

MR MILLAR: Now, you would agree though that he's shown within the IRIS operational chart as being in Intelligent Manufacturing Systems?---On that page, yes, but not on pages 3 and 4.

PN2422

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: What do I draw from that, Professor?
---That the IRIS website is not - not unusually - is not wholly self consistent.

PN2423

And what is the actual position, are you aware?---I would refer to the sheet that
I - one of the reasons that I put that list in to the table, JB6, was to use the phrases from their personal web pages feeling that that would better reflect the activity than an organisational chart that may or may not be out of date. There Professor Nagarajah appears under Robotics and Non Contract Inspection.

PN2424

Then that's a continuing research activity?---Yes. Given that the IRIS organisational chart was not self consistent, I felt it unhelpful to rely upon it and particularly since I was planning to re-organise IRIS I didn't feel too obliged to stick to the organisational chart that was presented on their website.

PN2425

MR MILLAR: So you didn't include Professor Nagarajah in your considerations?---Yes, I did. He's on page 2 of JB6, penultimate entry.

PN2426

I see, but not within the Intelligent Manufacturing Systems - - - ?---No, I think my list is more consistent with the pages 3 and 4 of R2.

PN2427

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which is right? Your list or the web page?---I - since I'm considering a new organisational structure, your Honour, I prefer to go to the individual areas associated with particular academics and then consider how to regroup them. But in fact the listing that I've used, I would have to double check it, is the one on pages 3 and 4 which I believe to be more accurate.

PN2428

Have you finished with that exhibit, Mr Millar?

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2429

MR MILLAR: Yes, I think I have.

PN2430

Now, you did provide an explanation as to the absence of Professor Nagarajah from the analysis. Professor Massud - - - ?---Sorry, he's not absent from the analysis. He's in the analysis.

PN2431

I'm sorry, but he's absent from the analysis as to Intelligent Manufacturing Systems?---He's not under that heading, no, but he's in the analysis.

PN2432

Then Professor Massud, you decided should not be terminated?---Yes.

PN2433

And you did so on the basis of Professor Massud being in a position to make a continuing contribution to the university. What was the basis for that decision?
---Because of his other research interest in Rapid Prototyping and Fused Deposition Modelling which is also listed on JB6 against his name, which fits with the final list for the research areas to be concentrated upon.

PN2434

Just taking you through JB6, you've referred to Professor Massud and then you've included his other research interests on top of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, is that right?---Yes, because he lists two types of activity. The second two phrases, Rapid Prototyping and Fused Deposition Modelling fit with other members of staff's activity, in particular Professor Brandt's activity on page 2 described as Laser Technology.

PN2435

Yes?---They are coherent areas and a part of the final grouping recommended for continued support.

PN2436

So you made the decision that he was to continue based on the fact that you perceived he had an ongoing role within the university?---Within IRIS.

PN2437

And that was despite the fact that Computer Integrated Manufacturing was something which was to, in itself - or was that discontinued?---If that aspect of his work had been the only aspect, then he might well have been considered for redundancy. But since he had this other area of work - - -

PN2438

The other aspects of his work were sufficient to save him?---They were, yes.

PN2439

Now, then in paragraph 34 you've referred to the discussions that you had with Mr Pope?---Yes.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2440

You had a private consultation with Mr Pope?---Yes.

PN2441

You passed on the confidential documents that we've run through before. Paragraph 37, you make reference to teaching out of certain subjects in which the two applicants had an involvement and you say that that's the reason for the engagement of Dr Overmars?---Yes.

PN2442

Now, you agree then for the time being there is a continuing need for the university to have the skills supplied by the applicants?---I can't say whether 510 will need to run again next year or beyond that, but it certainly is running this semester and that one needs to be taught, yes.

PN2443

So for the remainder of this year at very least, there is a continuing need to have the skills that have been formally provided, or in this case by Dr Toncich, that the university has had to source from elsewhere?---Because we couldn't be sure that the staff would be available, that Dr Toncich would be available for the semester.

PN2444

Now, this subject, though, is - - -

PN2445

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can I just ask you there, if you hadn't sacked Dr Toncich, he'd be available, wouldn't he?---Yes. It was more to do with having served a - since the discipline - it's very hard to have an abrupt cut off of all teaching activity on a particular day. We have students who are part time students and when ceasing Masters' programs it can take some time to finish off and - - -

PN2446

I think that's Mr Millar's point?---Yes.

PN2447

Given that there was a teacher required, you could have kept Dr Toncich on until at least the end of the - - - ?---Yes.

PN2448

I think that's why he's put ting that?---But having served the - sorry, your Honour. Having served the redundancy notice the final 22 weeks' notice period requires that Dr Toncich apply to stay for that period, and since he has not done that and can indeed choose not to do that at any moment, that involved some risk in the provision of staffing for this, so we had to cover that.

PN2449

MR MILLAR: I see. So you say that Dr Toncich has expressed a lack of willingness about staying in the employment of the university - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2450

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, that's not what the witness said. Don't misinterpret the answer, please, Mr Millar.

PN2451

MR MILLAR: Well, it was put - - -

PN2452

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: He said there was no certainty that Dr Toncich would wish to work out his 22 weeks' notice period.

PN2453

MR MILLAR: And so they've had to engage someone else. Now, I put it to you, as I put it to you before, that there is at very least for the remainder of this year a continuing need for the university to have the skills which were formally provided by the - or at least Dr Toncich in this case - - -

PN2454

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Or at least those teaching skills required for that subject. Is that what you mean?

PN2455

MR MILLAR: Yes.

PN2456

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not his research skills?

PN2457

MR MILLAR: Well, there was a need to have skills provided that he is not providing, Dr Toncich is not providing, that has led the university to have recourse to an external provider of the same services.

PN2458

So you would agree that for the second half of this year the university has had to obtain services from someone outside of the university to provide - - -

PN2459

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: To each the subject that Dr Toncich would otherwise have taught? Is that what you're saying?

PN2460

MR MILLAR: Yes, yes, it is, sir?---Yes.

PN2461

Yes, that's right. And that subject is an ongoing one?---For this year, certainly.

PN2462

No decision has been made about 2008?---No.

PN2463

And again, that is a decision that would have to go to the academic board, if it were to be discontinued in the next - - - ?---It would first be discussed within - in the discussion had by the program coordinator for the master's program in consultation with the Faculties' Academic Committee, which is chaired by the Deputy Dean. It would then go to the Deputy Dean's Committee, then to the Divisional Advisory Committee, then to Academic Board. That would be the sequence and depending on the magnitude - - -

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2464

Mostly probable - - - ?---Not at all.

PN2465

Mostly probable that it would be discontinued for next year?---No, not at all.

PN2466

What, are you saying - - - ?---That's a perfectly routine - it may sound rather elaborate, but it's a well oiled machine, to go through those, and the speed depends on the magnitude of the change, to be classified as minor and major changes.

PN2467

Yes. Having said that you would expect that at this stage the subject is to be offered for next year? I mean nothing is certain in terms of the offerings from year to year, but one would expect it's an ongoing subject?---On the premise that you've just given that nothing is certain, yes, it is possible.

PN2468

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have no reason to believe that it will be discontinued for next year?---No. There is no active move to discontinue it at the moment.

PN2469

MR MILLAR: Yes. It's been a long standing part of the university's offerings as far as you're aware?---I don't have the records going back too many years.

PN2470

Now, you agree in paragraph 37 of your statement that resorting to a sessional replacement for the module in the case of the redundancy was not unusual practice other than redundancy being a relatively rare reason for staff shortage. You agree, do you not, that there is something irregular about what has happened here, redundancy giving reason to a staff shortage?---By regular, I'm not quite sure what you're implying. Could you perhaps - - -

PN2471

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Not usual?---Not usual, correct. It is not usual for redundancy to be the cause of a need for sessional teaching because redundancy is relatively rare.

PN2472

MR MILLAR: Yes, relatively rare is the reason you've used. Paragraph 40 you've confirmed that the finances didn't play a part in which disciplines to support?---Not in the specifics of the disciplines. They indicated that IRIS needed to change and improve its performance overall, but they weren't a guide to which disciplines to support, no.

PN2473

You suggested that you weren't sure whether Dr Toncich would be staying the distance for the second semester as being a reason why you didn't want to engage him as a lecturer for the subject which you deemed as sessional, that's the import of what you said, isn't it?---To go beyond the redeployment period into the notice period of 22 weeks the enterprise bargaining agreement requires that the members of staff applies to the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Higher Education, in this case Professor Murphy, to stay that period and that had not been done, so I couldn't be - we couldn't be sure that he would stay for that period.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2474

Although having said that, you're aware, of course, that he's taken this proceeding as an expression of his desire to stay working for the university?---But my main responsibility is to ensure that there is somebody in front of the students teaching them.

PN2475

Yes?---And I had to make sure that that was provided.

PN2476

And if the timing of the termination had have awaited the end of the year you could have had him teach the students and not have the added expenses of a sessional?---What do you mean by - I'm sorry, the timing, what's - - -

PN2477

Well, if you had have waited until the end of the year, the second semester, before doing this - - - ?---I - - -

PN2478

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: "Doing this" being making him redundant?

PN2479

MR MILLAR: Yes, yes, your Honour?---Then I fear we would have lost more time in the process of rejuvenating IRIS and its research activities. I would remind you that I extended the consultation period considerably to - in response to people's desire that there be more consultation. To delay the process a further six months would have lost yet more ground in reshaping IRIS. So I felt that in a changed process, the quicker we could go through that, providing we went through the right process, the consultation, the quicker would be the better. We would move on to the new period.

PN2480

So in your view the shedding of staff is part of the rejuvenation which IRIS needs?---The rejuvenation is through the focus of the research activities into a narrower group, or of the focus group. That's the rejuvenation. The consequence of that has been redundancy for three members of ongoing staff. I don't take that lightly.

PN2481

Yes, yes. Now, Associate Professor David Liley has filed a witness statement in this proceeding where he gives evidence of being present at the meeting with you, he referred to in paragraph 2 of his statement?---I don't have his statement, I'm sorry.

PN2482

No, no.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2483

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I'll give you a copy.

PN2484

MR MILLAR: Do you have it there?---Yes, yes.

PN2485

He says in paragraph 2 that he was asked to be present, he was asked by the applicants to be present at the respective meetings with you and a member of Human Resources. His role was to act as witness at those meetings. They were handed a letter which says they'd been made redundant. During the respective meetings both of the applicants asked you to explain the basis for their respective redundancies despite the fact that they both had ongoing post graduate supervision, research and teaching duties as attested by the fact of the work load model. You avoided responding to those requests, instead choosing to reiterate that their redundancies were based on changes in the strategic direction of the faculty in those meetings. In neither of those meetings were they asked for their curriculum vitaes. Do you have any recollection of that meeting?---Yes.

PN2486

And do you agree with the version of events that's been set out there, do you agree with that?---My recollection is that there was some discussion of curriculum vitaes but I don't remember - vitae, sufficiently in sufficient detail to contradict this, but it's quite a while ago.

PN2487

Do you recollect at those meetings both of the applicants asking you for an explanation as to the basis of their respective redundancies?---Yes, and I referred to the forward plan, the final document because that my guidance from Human Resources was that this meeting was to hand over the redundancy notice. The consultation, if you like, that had gone on in the previous several months resulting in that final statement was the explanation of why redundancies were necessary and that this wasn't a meeting to discuss that issue again, and so I followed that advice.

PN2488

So you followed that advice. You didn't provide them with reasons for - - - ?---I didn't discuss those points with them, no.

PN2489

Other than referring them to the documents that had already been provided?
---Yes.

PN2490

And at no stage did you refer to or provide them with details of exhibit JB6, the table that we've looked at before?---No, I didn't.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON XXN MR MILLAR
PN2491

Yes, nothing further, your Honour.

PN2492

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you retrieve Mr Liley's statement, please.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE [3.58PM]

PN2493

MR GINNANE: Professor Beynon, just on that last point, did you give the two applicants a copy of the forward plan in the meeting?---I did, yes.

PN2494

Now, one other matter, you were asked a lot of questions about Dr Amir Abdekhodaee whose web page was tendered as A10?---Yes.

PN2495

And the sort of work he's doing. You've given evidence about requesting Professor Shayan to undertake some management subject teaching. Do you recall that in your statement?---Yes, I do. I'm just - - -

PN2496

And he declined that, I think as he said yesterday, do you recall that?---He - yes, he - - -

PN2497

Does Dr Abdekhodaee have any connection with that teacher responsibility?
---Yes, because of that - - -

PN2498

Can you just explain that to his Honour?---We had sessional teaching of these two undergraduate modules in management for engineers and - - -

PN2499

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This was at TAFE level, was it, rather than university level?---No, no, university level, Bachelor programs in Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering as well.

PN2500

MR GINNANE: So you had sessional teachers and did you want a change from that?---We had to change from that because the sessional teachers were withdrawing their services.

PN2501

All right. Is that what was offered to Professor Shayan?---That was what offered to Professor Shayan and - - -

PN2502

And I think that he's agreed that he declined that?---That's right and so - - -

PN2503

And how did Dr Amir Abdekhodaee - - - ?---We then advertised the position to employ somebody to undertake that teaching.

**** JOHN HOWARD BEYNON RXN MR GINNANE
PN2504

And was he engaged then on an ongoing basis?---He's engaged on an ongoing basis so that we wouldn't - - -

PN2505

When did this occur? When was Dr Amir Abdekhodaee engaged?---Last year.

PN2506

Before the November discussion paper came out?---Yes.

PN2507

Approximately when? The first half of 2006 or - - - ?---I'm sorry, I can't remember the detail, no.

PN2508

They're the only questions in re-examination, your Honour. Could Professor Beynon be excused?

PN2509

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.01PM]

PN2510

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Ginnane, do you want to call your next witness today or should we commence in the morning?

PN2511

MR GINNANE: I think, your Honour, if we call him first thing in the morning we should still finish our submissions, finish the case in the day. I'm in your Honour's hands. He will be relatively brief from my perspective, sir.

PN2512

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, well, we might leave it till tomorrow. What's your preference, Mr Millar?

PN2513

MR MILLAR: Tomorrow, your Honour.

PN2514

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, I thought you looked a bit weary. Well, we'll make it again 9.30 tomorrow, I think.

PN2515

MR GINNANE: If your Honour pleases.

PN2516

MR MILLAR: If your Honour pleases.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 29 AUGUST 2007 [4.01PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

DARIO JOHN TONCICH, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH PN1553
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE PN1553
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR PN1640
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1652
MOHAMMAD EBRAHIM SHAYAN, RECALLED ON FORMER OATH PN1663
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE PN1663
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1677
IAN ROBERT YOUNG, AFFIRMED PN1700
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINNANE PN1700
EXHIBIT #R4 WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR YOUNG TOGETHER WITH FIVE ATTACHMENTS PN1707
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR PN1708
EXHIBIT #A8 WEBSITE OF THE FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCES PN1826
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE PN1837
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN1848
JOHN HOWARD BEYNON, AFFIRMED PN1849
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR GINNANE PN1849
EXHIBIT #R5 PROFESSOR BEYNON FIRST WITNESS STATEMENT NOT SIGNED TOGETHER WITH ITS ATTACHMENTS AND DATED 22/08/2007 PN1859
EXHIBIT #R6 SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR BEYNON NOT SIGNED BUT DATED 22/08/2007 PN1862
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MILLAR PN1863
EXHIBIT #A9 WEB PAGE PROFILE OF PROFESSOR AHMAD RAD PN1944
EXHIBIT #A10 WEB PAGE FROM THE ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIAL SCIENCES WEB PAGE PROFILING DR ABDEKHODAEE PN2187
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR GINNANE PN2492
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN2509