PN1

JUSTICE ROSS: Can I have the appearances, please? Firstly, in Melbourne. No need to stand. Just - - -

PN2

MR S MAXWELL: If the Commission pleases, Maxwell, initial S, for the CFMMEU, Construction and General Division.

PN3

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks, Mr Maxwell. Ms Wiles?

PN4

MS B WILES: If the Commission pleases, Wiles, initial B, for the CFMMEU Manufacturing Division.

PN5

MR W CHESTERMAN: If the Commission pleases, it's Chesterman, W J. I'm appearing on behalf of VACC the Motor Trades Associations of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

PN6

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks, Mr Chesterman. And in Sydney?

PN7

MS Y ABOUSLEIMAN: If the Commission pleases Abousleiman, initial Y, and I'm for the CEPU.

PN8

JUSTICE ROSS: On behalf of the CEPU did you say? Sorry?

PN9

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: Yes.

PN10

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN11

MS A DEVASIA: If the Commission pleases, Devasia, initial A, for the AMWU.

PN12

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN13

MS DEVASIA: I also mention the appearance of Ms Lettau, initial L, for the AMWU Vehicle Division.

PN14

MS R BHATT: Your Honour, Bhatt, initial R, appearing for the Australian Industry Group.

PN15

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN16

MR L IZZO: Izzo, initial L, appearing.

PN17

JUSTICE ROSS: Are you there, Mr Izzo?

PN18

MR MAXWELL: We can at least now see Sydney.

PN19

MS WILES: No, that's Melbourne down the - - -

PN20

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, can I take the appearances in Adelaide, Canberra and Brisbane while we're waiting in Sydney. Adelaide?

PN21

MR M SHEEHAN: If it pleases the Commission, Sheehan, initial M. I'm from the Motor Trade Association of South Australia. Thank you, sir.

PN22

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Canberra?

PN23

MS R SOSTARKO: Thank you, your Honour. It's Sostarko, initial R, your Honour, for Master Builders Australia.

PN24

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you.

PN25

MR D JOHNS: If it pleases the Commission, my name is Johns - first initial D. I appear on behalf of the National Road Transport Association, trading as NAVRO.

PN26

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. And in Brisbane?

PN27

MS L REGAN: If it pleases the Commission, Regan initial L, for the Housing Industry Association.

PN28

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay, thank you.

PN29

MR IZZO: Your Honour, we can hear you. We just can't see you.

PN30

JUSTICE ROSS: Well, that's fine. More the advantage for you, Mr Izzo. So I take it you're appearing for ABI. Are there any other appearances in Sydney?

PN31

MR IZZO: There are. So I'll let them go.

PN32

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Go.

PN33

MS SARLOS: If it pleases the Commission - Sarlos, initial - - -

PN34

JUSTICE ROSS: Can Sydney hear me? No. Is Sydney back online?

PN35

MS SARLOS: Yes, your Honour.

PN36

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Have I missed anybody?

PN37

MR S CRAWFORD: Your Honour - did you get me? Crawford, initial S, from the Australian Workers' Union.

PN38

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks, Mr Crawford, is there anyone else in Sydney? No?

PN39

MS SARLOS: No, your Honour.

PN40

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. Look, the mention is in relation to a statement issued on the 5 March. I'll come to the Vehicle Award in a moment which wasn't one of the awards listed. For the moment, I want to focus on the AI Group and ABI applications to vary. And I want to take you to the questions that are asked at paragraph seven and I think the easiest way is to do this by location.

PN41

So if I start in Melbourne and if you can answer the questions one, two and three - whether the list of submissions is accurate, whether any party wishes to make any further submission and to determine whether an oral hearing is required.

PN42

Without wanting to unnecessarily influence you about the oral hearing my preference is not to have one, but we will have if the parties think it's absolutely necessary. I want you to identify which awards though and why.

PN43

So, Mr Maxwell, let's go with you on 1, 2 and 3.

PN44

MR MAXWELL: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, in regard to the Construction Award and - sorry, my computer has stopped, but we confirm that the list of submissions is accurate. As we put in a reply submission we don't wish to make any further submissions or evidence, and we would be quite happy for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

PN45

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Ms Wiles?

PN46

MS WILES: Thank you, your Honour. In relation to the - sorry ‑ ‑ ‑

PN47

JUSTICE ROSS: No, don't worry about the award. I can guess which one it is. It's really ‑ ‑ ‑

PN48

MS WILES: Yes, it's dry cleaning.

PN49

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN50

MS WILES: Yes, in answer to question 1 we confirm that the submissions for us at paragraph 3 and 4 are accurate, and we don't seek to make any further submissions or adduce any further evidence, and we are content for the matter to be dealt with on the papers.

PN51

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. I'll come back to you, Mr Chesterman, because you're in rather a unique position. Let me go to Sydney and just start from the front of the Bar table and work your way back, if you can just indicate your name and organisation just for the transcript.

PN52

MS ABOUSLEIMAN: So, Ms Abousleiman for the CEPU. With respect to question 1 the submissions are accurate. We don't propose to make any further submissions, but we do propose to support the submissions of the CFMMEU and the AMWU. We're content with having the matter dealt with on the papers.

PN53

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Next?

PN54

MS DEVASIA: Ms Devasia for the AMWU. With reference to (indistinct) the submissions are accurate and that we do not wish for the matter to be heard. I'm content with that.

PN55

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes if you can speak into the microphone. I'm just having a bit of trouble picking you up.

PN56

MS DEVASIA: Just confirming that we do not wish to be heard and that the submissions are accurate and I'm happy for the matters to be heard on the papers.

PN57

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. I might, for convenience, deal with the other unions in Sydney first and then I'll go to Ai Group and the ABI.

PN58

MR CRAWFORD: Your Honour, Crawford, initial S, from the AWU. We don't have any accuracy issues in terms of the list. The AWU, as the statement identifies, hasn't filed any reply submissions. We're just supporting the submissions by the other unions in relation to (indistinct).

PN59

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN60

MR CRAWFORD: The only other point I would make, your Honour, is in relation to the Meat Industry Award. I spoke to Mr Smith from the Meat union, and I can confirm they do oppose the insertion of "long-term" into that award on the basis that the existing provision is superior but they did not request an opportunity to make any additional submissions.

PN61

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. I'd ask you to convey to Mr Smith that he should put that in writing so that the Meat Industry Employees Association is aware of their position.

PN62

MR CRAWFORD: Yes, your Honour.

PN63

JUSTICE ROSS: So if you can ask him to send me a note by the end of the week and copy it to the other side. Thanks, Mr Crawford. Any other unions in ‑ ‑ ‑

PN64

MS SARLOS: Your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑

PN65

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, sorry.

PN66

MS SARLOS: ‑ ‑ ‑ it's Sarlos, initial E, for the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMMEU. We concur with the submissions (indistinct). I don't wish to make any further submissions or adduce any further evidence and (indistinct).

PN67

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Does that conclude from the unions' side? Have I missed anybody? No?

PN68

MS DEVASIA: Yes.

PN69

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN70

MS DEVASIA: Yes, it does conclude it.

PN71

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay. Can I go to Ai Group? Ms Bhatt?

PN72

MS BHATT: Your Honour, we have not identified any inaccuracies with the list. As we've additionally heard further since the unions filed their submissions the moving parties have not filed a response, so we would seek an opportunity to file written submissions in response. We don't expect to file any evidence. In respect to the third question, we're also hopeful that an oral hearing won't be required but I do note that there is some evidence that's been filed by certain unions.

PN73

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes. Well, yes, in two awards, I think.

PN74

MS BHATT: I'm not ‑ ‑ ‑

PN75

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes?

PN76

MS BHATT: ‑ ‑ ‑ in a position to be able to identify today whether we wish to cross-examine those witnesses which would obviously necessitate a hearing, but if your Honour were to afford us a short window and we can make that assessment and advise the Commission in writing.

PN77

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. Mr Izzo, are you in the same boat?

PN78

MR IZZO: Yes, your Honour. So we confirm the list of submissions is accurate. We do wish to have an opportunity to file reply submissions because we have not yet had that opportunity. We do not envisage filing any evidence in reply. At least that's my assessment at this stage, and what I was thinking, I'm in the same boat in the sense that I'm hopeful an oral hearing can be avoided and that is our preference. We were perhaps thinking one option your Honour might consider is not listing the matter for hearing but if, once the reply submissions are filed, any party wishes to request a hearing liberty to apply be given, but at this stage we would be seeking that opportunity.

PN79

JUSTICE ROSS: Given you're both the moving parties, I propose that you be given - bearing in mind you've known for a little while what the propositions being advanced are and I imagine the replies are relatively straight forward, you can file any submissions, et cetera, in reply by 4 pm, Friday, 27 March. At that stage if you can also indicate whether you seek an oral hearing. Once those submissions are filed, and I'll confirm this in revised directions, any other party will have until 4 pm Wednesday the following week to identify whether - or to indicate whether or not they seek an oral hearing and if so in relation to which awards.

PN80

So let me move to the other states. Let's go to the HIA in Brisbane.

PN81

MS REGAN: Your Honour, as it relates to the Building and Construction Awards, yes, we confirm the accuracy of the list. Certainly at this stage HIA doesn't propose to (indistinct), however, we would not object to the course of action proposed by Ai Group. And ‑ ‑ ‑

PN82

JUSTICE ROSS: Look, someone is rustling paper near a microphone. Can you stop doing that? Thanks. Yes, go on.

PN83

MS REGAN: Just (indistinct) your Honour, we don't intend at this stage to file any further submissions and we don't object to the Ai Group's proposed course of action, nor do we see the need for an oral hearing (indistinct).

PN84

JUSTICE ROSS: You'll be invited to comment on whether or not you see the need for an oral hearing further, as every party will, once the reply stuff has come in. Let's go to Canberra.

PN85

MR JOHNS: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, it's Mr Johns from NatRoad.

PN86

JUSTICE ROSS: Thanks, Mr Johns.

PN87

MR JOHNS: I confirm that the list - from our perspective the list of submissions are correct. We don't intend to make any further submissions. There's actually been no submission in reply, and as the application is not contested we do not see any value in an oral hearing, and we would be happy for the Commission proceed in determining the matter on the papers.

PN88

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Johns. Ms Sostarko?

PN89

MS SOSTARKO: Thank you, your Honour. Master Builders confirms that the list of submissions is accurate. We certainly wouldn't take - request any further opportunity to put in any further submissions, and we - given that we've put on our submissions, we have already filed in this matter and we therefore wouldn't request that an oral hearing be required for resolution with respect to the Onsite Award.

PN90

JUSTICE ROSS: Thank you. That deals with the ABI/Ai Group applications. Mr Chesterman wrote to me on 10 March pointing out that the Motor Trades Organisations have made submissions about the insertion of the model clause into the Vehicle Manufacturing Repair Services and Retail Award, and that wasn't in the list essentially because I was trying to deal with the 157 applications that have been lodged. Do I take it that you still rely - you still seek - do you want to briefly outline what you were seeking in those submissions, and do I take it you still rely on those submissions, Mr Chesterman?

PN91

MR CHESTERMAN: Your Honour, the matters goes back to the first hearing on this.

PN92

JUSTICE ROSS: Some time.

PN93

MR CHESTERMAN: Back in, I think, November 2016 or 17.

PN94

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN95

MR CHESTERMAN: And one of our issues related to vehicle sales persons' commission on vehicles under the section - sorry, clause 44(9) of the Award, and the issue relates to when a vehicle sales terminates ‑ ‑ ‑

PN96

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I know. So that's the issue. No, I appreciate that.

PN97

MR CHESTERMAN: Yes.

PN98

JUSTICE ROSS: It is the timing of that issue. You put a submission in, you've set out a proposed clause. The AMWU has put a reply in and they're proposing a clause.

PN99

MR CHESTERMAN: Yes.

PN100

JUSTICE ROSS: I suppose my question really is to both you and to the AMWU and to - I'll come to you, Mr Sheehan, is whether you're content to rely on those submissions and have the Commission determine the mater on the papers?

PN101

MR CHESTERMAN: Yes, your Honour.

PN102

JUSTICE ROSS: Okay.

PN103

MR CHESTERMAN: We are content with our submissions and we would seek that the matter be resolved on the papers.

PN104

JUSTICE ROSS: No problem. And the AMWU?

PN105

SPEAKER: Thank you, your Honour. We've had some very brief discussions with the Ai Group about this as well. There seems to be a little bit of confusion about what all the parties are and what the interests are as well as whether there's been any advancement about how that clause operates in the context of the exposure drafts. So it would be our proposal, I think, for the parties to sit down in a conference so we can actually nut out what exactly the position is and finalise this if that's agreeable to the other parties.

PN106

JUSTICE ROSS: Sure. I don't think there's any reason why you can't have a conference. I don't think you need me at the conference. I think have a discussion between yourselves, and if you can advise me as to the outcome of that discussion by 4 pm on 27 March, then we can move that matter forward as well. I think the issues are pretty clearly identified and the submissions have been published. I'll send out a note indicating what submissions we've received on the RS&R Award and a bit of a summary about my understanding of it, and you can work off that document as a working document. Who else would have an interest in that? Mr Chesterman, Mr Sheehan, the AMWU, the Ai Group, probably the SDA. Who else?

PN107

SPEAKER: That would also be - I think that reflects essentially who I think should be there unless there's anyone else.

PN108

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I can't think of anyone else, and nobody else certainly has made any submissions about it, so, look, we'll start with that group, and I'll do a short report from today which will attach the document that I've mentioned and it can indicate that any other party with an interest can get in touch with you and they can then be part of those discussions.

PN109

SPEAKER: That would be suitable. Thank you.

PN110

JUSTICE ROSS: Anyone else wish to be heard in relation to that vehicle industry matter, or you're content with that course? Are you happy with that, Ms Bhatt?

PN111

MS BHATT: Yes. Thank you, your Honour.

PN112

JUSTICE ROSS: And, Mr Sheehan?

PN113

MR SHEEHAN: Yes. We support that approach, your Honour. Thank you.

PN114

JUSTICE ROSS: All right. I think that wraps it up. I'll send out a short note tomorrow about the outcome and we'll move to try and wrap these matters up as quickly as possible. Thanks very much for your attendance. Sorry, did someone want to say something?

PN115

MS REGAN: Your Honour, it's Regan, initial L, from the Housing Industry Association in Brisbane.

PN116

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes.

PN117

MS REGAN: Just one matter I'd just like to highlight is just the outstanding application of HIA in relation to the frequency of payment of wages. Just the time-tabling of that particular matter is (indistinct).

PN118

JUSTICE ROSS: Yes, I just can't ‑ ‑ ‑

PN119

MS REGAN: (Indistinct).

PN120

JUSTICE ROSS: I'm just having trouble hearing you, Ms Regan. Can I get you to send an email to my Chambers just identifying what the issue is?

PN121

MS REGAN: Yes, of course.

PN122

JUSTICE ROSS: And I'll put that in - I'll deal with that in the statement and I'll give you an indication ‑ ‑ ‑

PN123

MS REGAN: Excellent.

PN124

JUSTICE ROSS: ‑ ‑ ‑ about how we'll proceed, okay.

PN125

MS REGAN: Excellent. Thank you.

PN126

JUSTICE ROSS: No problem. Nobody else? Safe to go? All right, thanks, I'll adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [1.29 PM]