AG2018/658, Transcript of Proceedings [2018] FWCTrans 263 (17 July 2018)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009                                                    

COMMISSIONER LEE

s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

Application by Maas Administraion Pty Ltd

(AG2018/658)

Melbourne

3.30 PM, FRIDAY, 6 JULY 2018

PN1

THE COMMISSIONER: Good afternoon everyone, it's Commissioner Lee. Mr Spence, you don't require permission, Civil Contractors is a registered organisation?

PN2

MR C SPENCE: We are, Commissioner.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: And Mr Syron, you are looking to intervene in the proceedings?

PN4

MR D SYRON: Yes, that's correct, Commissioner.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I might hear from you first on that point.

PN6

MR SYRON: Yes, no problem. Commissioner, I would, firstly, like to note that the CFMMEU were not at all involved in the bargaining process for this agreement.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN8

MR SYRON: However, the CFMMEU - I'll say "union" from now on.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN10

MR SYRON: But we did previously object to an application made by MAAS Administration Pty Ltd. I am not sure if you have had the opportunity to read over those submissions that we sent over to you yesterday in relation to that.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: I have.

PN12

MR SYRON: Look, I do note that there have been changes to the agreement, but I still - I would submit, Commissioner, that some of those issues highlighted in the submissions are actually still present in the proposed agreement made by MAAS Administration.

PN13

We would submit it would be appropriate, in the circumstances, for the Commission to exercise its broad discretionary powers under section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to allow the union to participate in these proceedings and make further submissions.

PN14

We have the capacity to represent the industrial interests of a substantial proportion of the employees that may be covered by the proposed agreement and we would submit that there are some - or there are significant issues to the application which, obviously, put into question whether it should be approved, Commissioner.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN16

MR SYRON: We would obviously come as a contradictor, as you pointed out, and obviously we believe that we have extensive knowledge in the industry to provide these submissions to assist the Commission in reaching its decision.

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, thanks, Mr Syron. Mr Spence, what do you want to say about this particular point?

PN18

MR SPENCE: Thank you, Commissioner, and I will follow my friend's lead and just refer to the CFMMEU as "the union", if I may, in this matter?

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: That will be easier for everyone, yes.

PN20

MR SPENCE: Thank you. The union has essentially not put forward a legitimate reason for why they should be involved and it is the applicant's submission, Commissioner, that they must do so. I would direct the Commission to the matter of CFMEU v Collinsville Coal Operations, which is C2014/1098.

PN21

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN22

MR SPENCE: Indeed, I believe my friend mentioned this case in his email to the Commission and he took the Commission's attention to paragraph 75 of the Collinsville decision. It is, of course, not argued by the applicant that the Commission has a very broad power to inform itself, and that is right and proper.

PN23

I would say it is interesting that paragraph 75 of Collinsville was raised in argument for the union to be heard in the matter because I think, to get an accurate picture of why the Commission said what it said at paragraph 75 in Collinsville, it is necessary to read paragraph 75 in the context of the preceding paragraphs, most especially paragraphs 65 to 70 of Collinsville, and I am going to, Commissioner, very briefly - I am aware of the time this afternoon - I am going to very, very briefly take you to that now.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN25

MR SPENCE: Essentially, paragraph 75 is merely a reiteration of the Commission's broad power to inform itself per section 590 and it's the applicant's submission that the Full Bench saw it necessary to make this affirmation of the Commission's power precisely because they had just dispelled in the Collinsville matter, quite forcefully, the very notion that there is some innate or inherent power for an employee association to be heard merely on the strength of who they are and what they do. In this regard, I would urge the Commission to have regard to paragraphs 65 to 70 of Collinsville, particularly paragraph 65 where the Full Bench stated - and I quote:

PN26

It is not enough, without more, to point to the status of the CFMEU -

PN27

CFMMEU now -

PN28

as an employee organisation with a history of representation at the workplace or in the industry.

PN29

I would say, with all due respect, my friend has not provided that "more" that the Full Bench directly refers to there.

PN30

I go on to say, Commissioner, in the matter currently before the Commission, as my friend has rightly pointed out, the union has not, at any stage, been a part of the bargaining. They have not been a part of it at any stage at all. Now, that is relevant. Again in Collinsville, at paragraph 72, the Full Bench stated, and I quote:

PN31

Whether an employee organisation which is not a bargaining representative has a right to be heard in relation to an application for the approval of an agreement will depend on the circumstances in each case.

PN32

In Collinsville, they actually had, I think it was, one member, maybe two, and they had been a bargaining representative and that wasn't contested in the Collinsville matter. In the matter currently before the Commission, it is not contested that they are not a bargaining representative, so the applicant's submission on that basis, given what the Full Bench said in Collinsville, Commissioner, is that my friend, the union, is in a weaker position in this matter than they were in Collinsville.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN34

MR SPENCE: The position of the current law is clearly laid out at paragraph 68 again of Collinsville. The Full Bench clearly laid it out, in a very succinct sentence, that there is no such express right to be heard in the Fair Work Act; it doesn't exist.

PN35

Finally, at paragraph 70, the Full Bench summed up the matter very well when they said - and I quote:

PN36

In similar vein, that an employee organisation has amongst its interests, objects or expectations, that it will obtain and maintain reasonable employment conditions for its members, is in the context of the bargaining framework established by the FW Act, an insufficient basis for there to arise a right, interest or legitimate expectation and thereby a conferral on the employee organisation of a right to be heard in relation to an application to approve an enterprise agreement.

PN37

I won't press the matter much further than that, Commissioner. We simply say that that "more" that the Full Bench rightly pointed to isn't in existence in this matter and, taken on its individual merits, as it were, as is envisaged by paragraph 72 of the Full Bench in Collinsville, they are in a substantially weaker position here.

PN38

I would submit, essentially, there is no compelling reason or argument as to why the Commission should allow their involvement to be heard in this matter.

PN39

I would also briefly note that it is arguably - and I express it as arguably, Commissioner - it is arguably a bit contrary to freedom of association. Section 366 of the Act, though that's referring to the general protections and is not strictly analogous here, does outline the Commission's role in upholding freedom of association under the Act, and that freedom is clearly spelt out to join or not to join an employee association.

PN40

Now, we don't know, and the Commission doesn't know either, and I don't think anyone here really knows, that any worker at MAAS actually wants the CFMMEU involved in this matter, and the fact that we don't know that, I think, should not be discounted, with respect, Commissioner, and I believe if an assumption on that question has to be made, it should be made on the basis that the workers have chosen, they have exercised their freedom of association not to join or involve, at least, a bargaining representative of the union.

PN41

May it please the Commission.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay, that's it? Mr Syron, anything briefly in reply?

PN43

MR SYRON: Yes, I think, as my friend has rightly pointed out in Collinsville in relation to how the Commission would refuse to allow an intervenor, if I may say, be involved in proceedings in relation to circumstances, depending on each case, I would submit to the Commission, Commissioner, that the circumstances of this case should allow the union to be involved, particularly when they deal with national employment standards that would directly affect workers in the building and construction industry in which the CFMEU has an interest in, of course, in those employee representational rights and, thirdly, in relation to the loaded rates that are contained in the agreement. So, I put to the Commission that it is especially relevant in these circumstances that the union is involved, considering the issues that this agreement presents.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Thanks for that.

PN45

Having considered the submissions of the parties and noting that the CFMMEU does not have a right to be heard is not in contest, it is not a bargaining representative, but, nevertheless, on this occasion, I will be assisted by the involvement of the CFMMEU in dealing with this particular application, and I have powers, as has been pointed out to me by both sides, to inform myself as I see fit, and I therefore propose to allow the CFMMEU to participate in further proceedings. That is my ruling on that point.

PN46

Now, having said that, up to date, the CFMMEU - I will start now to call it "the union" as well - have not been copied into correspondence that has been exchanged between the Commission and the applicant and so that will be provided to the union going forward, but probably just to bring you up to speed, Mr Syron, the first, and I think it's the only issue on which we have written to you, Mr Spence, is this issue of the notification of the vote.

PN47

MR SPENCE: Yes.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: No other issues have been raised, have they?

PN49

MR SPENCE: No, but - - -

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: No.

PN51

MR SPENCE: But there are some other, dare I say, lists of issues, but this is the threshold issue, Commissioner, yes.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: The threshold issue. So, the short point is this: it seems that the state of the notice in terms of what was put to employees was a letter on 11 January which says - addressed to MAAS Administration employees - that bargaining has been completed for the - and it sets out the name of the agreement and encloses a copy of the agreement post bargaining - and then it says, relevantly:

PN53

In the coming weeks, we will be voting on this agreement. You will receive a ballot paper in the mail that will have a stamped return addressed envelope with it for you to return your vote to us in the mail.

PN54

And the question that I have raised with you, Mr Spence, is I am not at all certain that that satisfies the requirement to take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant employees by the start of the access period for the agreement for the time and place at which the vote will occur and the voting method that will be used. It certainly advises them of the voting method. The question is over the - and the place, of course, follows from the voting method, so there is no need to - there is no place as such, so it is really about the time.

PN55

MR SPENCE: Yes.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: And the next thing that they received, again if I have got this right, is on 22 January they received another letter which said - or it could have been an email, it doesn't matter:

PN57

Recently received a copy of the MAAS Administration Enterprise Agreement. We are now completing the ballot to vote on the proposed agreement. Can you please fill in the enclosed ballot paper and send it back to us using the stamped return envelope we have enclosed. The voting will close on Wednesday 14 February and any votes received after this date will not be valid and will not be counted in the vote.

PN58

MR SPENCE: Yes, that's right, Commissioner.

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: So it appears, and I am just reframing for the benefit of Mr Syron and myself, so we are all on the same page.

PN60

MR SPENCE: Yes.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: It appears that the 22 January letter opens the voting.

PN62

MR SPENCE: That is the case, Commissioner.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, so the access period, as was recently made clear in a Full Bench decision, started seven plus one day before that. The 11 January letter, in any case, is more than enough time before that and, to be clear, if the 11 January said - instead of saying "In the coming weeks" said "On 22 January we will be voting on this agreement, you will be sent a ballot paper and the voting will be open for this period of time", we wouldn't be having this conversation.

PN64

MR SPENCE: Mm.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: But the question, the very real question, is whether, simply saying "In the coming weeks" is notifying employees of the time.

PN66

MR SPENCE: Yes, Commissioner.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: My preliminary view is - which I am happy to be persuaded - but my preliminary view is that it doesn't and it is really a question of does that point want to be pressed, do you want to withdraw the application and do it again where this point won't be in contention and, if you want to press it, have you got a view as to the way in which we should deal with the matter? Do we need a hearing date and written submissions, whatever?

PN68

MR SPENCE: Thanks, Commissioner. The instructions are to press the matter. We do believe we have taken all the reasonable steps. In fact, in answer to your first question, Commissioner, yes, the applicant does wish to press the question.

PN69

In answer to your second question, Commissioner, the way forward to do that, I propose written submissions would probably be suitable. I am happy to give a brief oral submission now, if you wish. It is not an incredibly complex story that I can put. I think in, you know, four to five minutes I could outline it pretty succinctly, and we have got the benefit of the applicants on the phone as well and also my friend from the union, you know, can ask any questions in the next half hour to an hour. I am happy to proceed on that basis, Commissioner; that does save a hearing date.

PN70

Commissioner, to put it in a nutshell, I don't believe there will be any evidence or arguments adduced by written submissions and a set hearing date that probably couldn't be dealt with in the next hour between Mr Syron, myself and the applicants.

PN71

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure. Mr Syron?

PN72

MR SYRON: Commissioner, I'm a bit lost at the moment. I've got letters here that are dated differently to the ones that you have just pointed out. The ones that I've got are 8 December 2017. I got sent those from Member Assist, so I am not quite sure - - -

PN73

MR SPENCE: What were the dates on those ones?

PN74

MR SYRON: 8 December.

PN75

THE COMMISSIONER: You, I don't think, have, Mr Syron, the letters that I referred to.

PN76

MR SYRON: Okay, okay.

PN77

THE COMMISSIONER: The gate was not open to you until this afternoon, so the only thing you have got are the F16, the F17 and the agreement.

PN78

MR SYRON: Yes, correct.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: My one concern about the proposed process, Mr Spence, is I think the purpose of letting Mr Syron in is to assist me mostly in the way of a contradictor, to the extent I want to be able to make a fair assessment about this particular point. Without him having those letters in front of him - - -

PN80

MR SYRON: I have just looked through my emails properly. My apologies. I notice employee representational rights and I do have in front of me the 11 January 2018 and the second one, 22 January 2018. So I have got all of those.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN82

MR SYRON: I would submit that further submissions would probably be appropriate, Commissioner.

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Spence, maybe we can proceed this way. If you want to outline the position, then I might, if this sounds reasonable, allow Mr Syron to put in any written reply to that next week and then you can in turn respond to that and/or we can have another short - it might be easier actually just to have another short hearing soon after that.

PN84

The other preliminary question is whether we just deal with this issue because there are a couple of issues with the agreement, but I am obviously always looking, as everyone is, for the most efficient way to proceed. Probably it is most sensible to just deal with this issue and then we see where we are. If I am with you, then we will deal with other matters.

PN85

MR SPENCE: Yes. Commissioner, sorry to talk over you.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. You know where I'm going, that's all right.

PN87

MR SYRON: Yes, I was going to say I think that's right, Commissioner. This is a jurisdictional, sorry, a threshold issue and it's a make or break issue, so if you are with the applicant on this, the matter goes away. If you are with us, then any other issues can be dealt with in the run, as it were.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, we will proceed that way. If you proceed to oral submissions as to why I should be satisfied on the section 180(3) point and then, Mr Syron, I will provide a close of business list for you to put in a written submission in reply and then I think we ought to have a short hearing in the week following to wrap it up. That will probably be the least onerous way to deal with the matter. No objections to that course from anyone?

PN89

MR SPENCE: No objections, Commissioner.

PN90

MR SYRON: I'm sorry, Commissioner, sorry, I spoke a bit too soon. I would like to be able to put on a written reply to my friend's submissions.

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. So, if he files by the end of next week, you want another week to reply?

PN92

MR SYRON: I imagine I would be able to get it in sooner than that. Yes, I would take that week, if I could.

PN93

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, then we will look to have a hearing the week after that.

PN94

MR SYRON: Yes.

PN95

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, that's fine.

PN96

MR SYRON: Commissioner, I wanted to just clarify, we will be just dealing with this issue, obviously, with the notice.

PN97

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN98

MR SYRON: But, obviously, as you have pointed out, there are other issues that may arise with the agreement. Would you like for the union to provide all the issues in those submissions next week or would you like to do those a bit later?

PN99

THE COMMISSIONER: We will deal with them separately. There is no point me dealing with matters that are not necessary to deal with. If this agreement falls on this particular point, it will be the end of the matter. As Mr Spence rightly noted, it is a threshold point. This provision has either been met or it hasn't. I don't think it's in controversy that if it is not, the agreement can't be approved. The better course is if I am with Mr Spence, then the matter will be listed to deal with all the other matters and you will have a chance to respond on those issues at that time.

PN100

MR SYRON: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: So let's just keep the focus on the section 180(3) point.

PN102

MR SYRON: If the Commission please.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: We have consent directions, as it were, so, Mr Spence, over to you.

PN104

MR SPENCE: Thank you, Commissioner. As my friend has already kind of grasped, this issue turns on section 180(3) of the Act and has the requirement on the applicant to take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant employees of the time and place at which the vote will occur and the voting method by the start of the access period of the agreement. That is the issue: has the employer taken all those reasonable steps?

PN105

In summary, it is the position of the applicant that we have, that we do believe we have met that requirement, and that is based on the following. MAAS is located in regional New South Wales out in the central west out in Dubbo, they operate over a very spread-out - on any given day, they operate over a very spread-out area in central New South Wales, there are some significant geographical distances, essentially. In my fairly limited experience with doing these ballots, it is common for an employer to gather the troops, gather the workers in one time at a place at a set date and conduct the vote then. That simply wasn't available to the applicant in this scenario for the reasons of, in some cases, over a hundred kilometres distance between the workers on any given day.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN107

MR SPENCE: I should also turn to electronic notifications because, as the Commission is well aware, email ballots are becoming more and more popular in Australia. Again, a significant proportion, a significant percentage of the employees do not have access to electronic communication.

PN108

I should just add for the benefit of my friend and the Commission once I am done with these submissions, given that we have got MAAS on the line, if you wanted to ask questions of them concerning this, I think that would be appropriate, but I will come back to that.

PN109

That is the first point I wanted to make, that the large geographical location prohibited a ballot on one set day and there was enough employees that didn't have access to email or electronic communications that it probably wouldn't be reasonable or fair to do an email ballot, and therefore the applicant came to the conclusion that the most reasonable method we have got was a postal ballot.

PN110

To turn to the Commission's - I won't dwell, Commissioner, on - I am coming to the letter of 11 January now - I won't dwell on the method and the place because I do believe it is accepted that those were met in that notice of 11 January, that the method was clearly spelt out, it was a ballot, and the place is essentially - it was a postal ballot, there were places all over the place, put it that way. The key is the time.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN112

MR SPENCE: If I may, if that is not controversial, I will just come to that.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: No, it is not controversial from my point of view, no.

PN114

MR SPENCE: Mr Syron, are you happy enough for that?

PN115

MR SYRON: Yes, that's okay.

PN116

MR SPENCE: Turning to time, given the potential vagaries of the delivery of the post, and those vagaries are there will possibly be a day either side - and when I put my written submissions on, Commissioner, you will see this with reference to Australia Post's own estimations of their time.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN118

MR SPENCE: I am reading off that now and Australia Post claims the following delivery time for letters in the same state: between country locations, which is, I think, largely what we are dealing with here, it is three to four days, and in the metropolitan areas of capital cities all within the same city or town or an adjacent city or town in the same state, it is two to three days, so we are talking about a two to four-day variable in the time it takes from mail to delivery, from mail to reception of the letter.

PN119

Given that, and the applicant did turn their mind to this, given that, it didn't seem feasible to point out a set date, in fact, it might have been counterproductive and it could have created potential ambiguity if they said, Commissioner, "You will be receiving something on the 22nd" and it didn't come until the 24th. It seemed best, given it was a postal ballot - and I can't help but turn my mind to the fact that a pretty significant question was decided not that long ago on a postal ballot in this country, so I don't think they should discount it - the time is more fluid in a postal ballot.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think - - -

PN121

MR SPENCE: And the time - - -

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't think that ballot was subject to section 180(3).

PN123

MR SPENCE: Sorry, Commissioner, yes, thank you. Maybe it might have been (indistinct). The time - I think it is significant, I think the Commission can (indistinct) by the fact that the Act doesn't specify a day has to be named, a date has to be named. Time is a lot of things, time is an hour, a minute, a day, a week, a month, a year, an age, a decade. They are all time. The Victorian Age is time, the Cretaceous era was time, and last week was time, and the Act - and we are bound by the Act - and the Act doesn't specify a day, a week, a month or a year, it just says "a time", and this really is the heart of our submission, that "a time" can be a period. In fact, I really believe it is arguable that time can be a period, I think it is evident that a week is a period of time, a month is a period of time, and what we were required to do by the start of the access period was inform of the time, place and method of the vote that will occur.

PN124

I am sorry, Commissioner, my computer just shut down. Bear with me. That is what I get for doing this electronically. I am just pulling up my letter. When I look at the letter of 11 January, Commissioner, when the Commission examines that letter, there is a time, there is a time told: "In the coming weeks, we will be voting on this agreement." That is the time that is specified.

PN125

Section 180(3) requires that by the start of the access period, we tell them of that time, and that is essentially - I think I am coming to the heart of it - we have done that. The access period, at its earliest - the access period started either on 18 or 29 January, depending on the date that the letter of 22 January arrived, but I think, Commissioner, you are with me in the sense that no matter which couple of days either way the letters arrived, there was that gap between them because it is the case that the gap would have been the same between both letters, essentially, and I am relying on Australia Post for that.

PN126

So, the key question is - there is no question that the access period (indistinct), in our submission, the key question is do the words "in the coming weeks", are they suitable to indicate a period of time? We say they are. "The coming weeks", it's not months and, indeed, it wasn't months in practice. I don't think a notice saying, "In the coming weeks, you will be receiving something" and then some nine to 10 days later that is received in the mail, I don't think that is going to create any - I don't think that gives rise to an ambiguity, but I think I probably don't need to go beyond the argument that "the coming weeks" is a period of time, "the coming weeks" is a period of time as surely as "the end of the financial year" is a period of time, as surely as "the second half of 2018" is a period of time, as surely as "the 1990s" were a period of time.

PN127

"The coming weeks" are a period of time and the Act does not specify - there is no restriction on the length of the vote. I have seen votes go over a period of weeks, I've seen votes go over days, and it is most common, of course, that a vote is held in an afternoon or a morning, but "the coming weeks", there's no discrimination in time, if I can use that term. There is no discrimination that says in the Act or any case or anything I'm aware of - and I stand to be corrected by my friend and I look forward to reading his submissions - but there is nothing I have seen or I am aware of that says "the coming weeks" is in any way inferior or improper as opposed to a day that can be named. There was probably no more accurate way, I think, given the postal ballot, for the applicant to properly do that.

PN128

I am beginning to repeat myself now, but that point, had they said, "You will get something on the 22nd" and the workers didn't get it, there was potential for ambiguity or some confusion in that. What the applicant said would happen on the letter of 11 January did happen. If the Commission is with me on that, that it specifies the time of the vote is the coming weeks, which indeed it was, between 25 January and that letter would have been received on 14 February when it closed, that is certainly a couple of weeks from 11 January, or 17 January, I should say, when that letter would have been received, then the Commission should find that the applicant discharged their obligations under the legislation.

PN129

Unless I can assist further, Commissioner, I think that's a good outline.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Ultimately, it is a straightforward point, isn't it, that you equate time with a notion that describing something in any respect as a time period - tell me if I am getting this wrong - is notification of time, it might have said "In the coming months"?

PN131

MR SPENCE: Indeed.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: "In the next year"?

PN133

MR SPENCE: Yes, which would not be - sorry, Commissioner, I shouldn't interrupt, sorry.

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no, I am just checking.

PN135

MR SPENCE: That's right. Commissioner, I wouldn't push it to as ludicrous as that, but the fact is this is federal law where we can only be guided by the Act, or we must be bound really by the Act and the words in the Act, it's not a question of common law interpretation, it is - - -

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: It is a matter of statutory - - -

PN137

MR SPENCE: It is written in the statute and the statute just refers to time. We have no better guide.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: We don't, but you would agree that in determining this matter, I would have to form a view as to what the word "time" means in the context of section 180(3)?

PN139

MR SPENCE: For the Commission to be satisfied, the Commission has to be satisfied that we told our employees the time of the vote.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN141

MR SPENCE: And I am saying you can be satisfied because we told them it would be happening in the new few weeks and it did.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, all right, no problem. Thank you for that. Mr Syron, if you can put in your written submissions in reply to that. We will order some transcripts, but I wouldn't have thought you would need to wait for it. The submissions of Mr Spence were quite clear, I thought, so thanks for that, Mr Spence.

PN143

MR SPENCE: Thank you.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Syron, if you can put in your submissions in reply by the end of next week.

PN145

MR SYRON: Yes.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Spence, you will put in your further reply the following week.

PN147

MR SPENCE: I will, Commissioner.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: By close of business and I will list the matter for hearing, again by telephone, in the week following that. All right?

PN149

MR SPENCE: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, can I just say - it is Mr Spence here - can I just say if Mr Syron requires any documents, he has got my email address and my phone and, Dayne, feel free to get in touch with me and I will send those documents if there is anything you don't have.

PN150

MR SYRON: Thank you, Cameron.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: My chambers will - probably not today, Mr Syron - but on Monday, we will get out to you anything in the file that we don't think you have already. You might have already got it some other way, but we will send you what we think you don't have.

PN152

MR SYRON: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, we are adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY                                                           [4.06 PM]