PN1

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Can I take the appearances, starting in Sydney, Mr Christodoulou. You appear for Greenacres.

PN2

MR C CHRISTODOULOU: Yes, your Honour.

PN3

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Bull, you appear for United Voice?

PN4

MR S BULL: That's correct, sir.

PN5

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Zevari, you appear for ABI and New South Wales Business Chamber.

PN6

MR S ZEVARI: I do.

PN7

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Musso, you appear for DNS?

PN8

MR P MUSSO: Yes, your Honour.

PN9

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Ms Zadel, you appear for Civic Disability Services?

PN10

MS J ZADEL: Yes, your Honour.

PN11

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Next in Melbourne, Ms Svendson, you appear with Ms Leibhaber for the HSU.

PN12

MS L SVENDSON: I do, your Honour.

PN13

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes. Mr Flemming, you appear for the ACTU?

PN14

MR J FLEMMING: Yes, your Honour.

PN15

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Harding you appear for the AED Legal Centre?

PN16

MR M HARDING: I do, your Honour. If permission is required, I seek permission to appear.

PN17

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Barker, you appear for the DSS?

PN18

MR P BARKER: Yes, your Honour.

PN19

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Then in Brisbane, Ms Brattey, you appear for the Endeavour Foundation?

PN20

MR C BRATTEY: I do, your Honour.

PN21

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Then I think on the telephone, Ms Walsh, if you can hear me, you appear for Our Voice?

PN22

MR M WALSH: That's correct, your Honour.

PN23

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes. Is that all the appearances?

PN24

MR K LANGFORD: No, your Honour. It's Kerry Langford appearing for NDS as well.

PN25

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, thank you. All right, the purpose of today's short hearing is to hear the response of interested parties to the provisional views expressed by us in our statement issued on 16 April 2018. It appears to us that in the light of that statement, there are two ways forward.

PN26

The first would be that the parties engage in a further conference process to attempt to develop by agreement, a new classification structure and wage assessment tool consistent with the principles stated in paragraph 15, subparagraphs 8 and 9 of our statement.

PN27

Participation in such a process would be without prejudice to the parties' respective positions, but would require a broad consensus of such a process would have reasonable prospects of leading to a productive outcome. Deputy President Booth would be allocated to conduct such a conference process and the initial conference dates available would be 6, 14, 18 and 19 June 2018.

PN28

If that first course is not considered appropriate by the parties, the second course would be that we would simply set further dates to hear the parties' evidence and submissions in response to the provision views we have expressed before issuing our final decision. That final decision may involve us simply determining what the new classification structure and wage assessment tool should be based upon material before us. We invite the parties to address which of these courses is most appropriate, but if any party of course wishes to advance an alternative approach, they may do so.

PN29

We'll start in Sydney simply I think in the order of appearances, so Mr Christodoulou, would you like to go first?

PN30

MR CHRISTODOULOU: Yes, your Honour. I'm comfortable with either approach. I guess my preference would be to try to reach consensus with all the parties, given that the statement does confine us to the areas of work that we would need to exercise those conversations. We have already done some preliminary work about how you might size up a job and we'd like to share that with other parties. If there is a willingness to embark upon such a conference we're happy to participate.

PN31

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you, Mr Bull.

PN32

MR BULL: Look, the history of conciliated outcomes in relation to this award and variations to the award have not been particularly good. I don't think that there's any realistic capacity for this group to actually agree to something in terms of Option 1, as sad as it is - - -

PN33

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Bull, can you try to stay near the microphone.

PN34

MR BULL: Sorry. Sad as it is, I'd suggest the most appropriate way would be to deal with it by Option 2, and that's particularly in light of the fact that you've made findings that the award is currently not compliant with the modern award objective. Option 2.

PN35

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Zevari?

PN36

MR ZEVARI: Your Honour, the strong preference of ABI and NSWBC is Option 1. We think there would be some merit in having those discussions.

PN37

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Mr Musso.

PN38

MR MUSSO: Your Honour, I'll defer to my colleague Ms Langford who will speak to this.

PN39

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, well we'll come to you in a little while, Ms Langford. Ms Zadel.

PN40

MS ZADEL: Civic Disability Services would be agreeable to a conciliation process, so Option 1 for Civic Disability Services.

PN41

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you, we'll move to Melbourne. Ms Svendson.

PN42

MS SVENDSON: Thank you, your Honour. I think there is a number of matters that are raised by the statement that we have significant concerns about because we don't actually understand the position that the Bench is putting forward, or at least we consider that our initial thoughts in relation to what the Bench is putting forward, raise a number of seriously concerning issues, with much broader affect than the single award.

PN43

I think that we do need to understand therefore what the Bench envisages by the concept of job size and I say that in the context of a range of matters, but including things like the majority of classification decisions over modern awards, in fact over the history of other awards which would indicate that if a person was doing part of a job, they are classified at that level. If they are doing roles, fulfilling roles that fall within that grade, regardless of whether they're doing the majority or only a proportion of the tasks that fall within that higher classification level, the concept therefore of job size has potential implications in relation to classification of employees generally in relation to the grade that they're classified at.

PN44

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: I can assure you Ms Svendson it does not. It has no implications for any other award, but it's a matter for - - -

PN45

MS SVENDSON: Well, that's why I said I would like to know what the Bench really envisages by that rather than making assumptions about it.

PN46

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Well, Ms Svendson, I've set out the courses which we have available to us. You can either participate in a process to design a structure consistent with those principles, or you can read about the final outcome in our final decision.

PN47

MS SVENDSON: Your Honour, I actually indicated that I thought we needed to know more and that the reason for that would therefore be that we would like to participate at least somewhat in classification in the conferences. I do so with a caveat that I would not be prepared to envisage participating beyond the dates you've identified, because we've been in this process for such a very long time and it has - I don't want to go back into another four and half years of conferencing before we go any further.

PN48

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right. Mr Flemming.

PN49

MR FLEMMING: Thank you, your Honour. ACTU would also like to get some more information about some further detail on what the Bench envisaged with this sizing of the job concept, but beyond that, we would be happy to participate in either process.

PN50

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Right thank you. Mr Harding.

PN51

MR HARDING: Your Honour, we opt for Option 2 with encouragement to the Bench that there be a program set for submissions on the document that you've released in order to flesh out what the issues are and perhaps with a Directions Hearing to determine next steps thereafter.

PN52

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Right. Mr Barker.

PN53

MR BARKER: Yes, the Department is comfortable with either option. If Option 1 is the preferred option, the Commonwealth will participate in any further conferral process to assist the Commission and the parties to try and reach consensus on wage setting arrangements for supported employees.

PN54

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Ms Langford.

PN55

MS LANGFORD: Thank you, your Honour. Look, NDS's preference is for Option 1. We're prepared to meet and try to conciliate around this. If need be though, we would participate in Option 2. Is there any capacity to look at the proposed dates because the National Disability National Conference is actually on for the date of 13, 14 and 15 of June?

PN56

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: There is, Ms Langford, but we'll have to determine which course we take first. But, obviously they were available dates and we would use such dates if we take that course that the parties are available to attend. So, we'll take note of that.

PN57

MS LANGFORD: Thank you, your Honour.

PN58

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Ms Walsh.

PN59

MS WALSH: Yes, we would prefer the option of discussion and conferencing because we have significant people who need to understand the issues and that will require time for us to get those matters through to them. We also believe that we need to flesh out some of the issues within the interim decision notice and I think we are best suited to do that in a conference and discussion arena rather than before the legal court situation.

PN60

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: All right, thank you. Mr Harding, if I can go back to you, do you envisage that further hearing would require any further evidence to be adduced?

PN61

MR HARDING: Potentially so, your Honour.

PN62

MR BULL: Your Honour, might I make one comment?

PN63

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes.

PN64

MR BULL: I'm not resiling from the view I put earlier, I'd just indicate that maybe principally the second view, but with some modifications. I note that in relation to the part time and casual common issue, you adopted an approach where a draft clause was produced and then there was a conference where the parties had some time to deal with a firm proposal.

PN65

The attractiveness of the second option is that I think realistically it will actually progress this review. The problem with the first option is, if it's unstructured, it will probably not reach a point where it produces anything. Some conference - obviously you need to have a process which is inclusive, where people can have their say and so forth, but my concern is that a pure conciliation will just not go anywhere. A process with the benefit of at least a preliminary view from the Bench may be more determinative in relation to actually producing an outcome.

PN66

I'm certainly functioning on the basis that you've made certain findings and that we won't be traversing those findings in relation to where we go next. Thank you.

PN67

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Thank you. We thank the parties for their attendance today and the expression of their views.

PN68

MS BRATTEY: We'd like to input our views as well.

PN69

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: I'm sorry Ms Brattey, I missed you, that's my fault. I apologise for that. Go ahead.

PN70

MS BRATTEY: That's okay, your Honour. On the behalf of Endeavour Foundation we would support Option 1, your Honour.

PN71

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER: Yes, thank you. We thank the parties for the expression of their views. We propose to consider what's been put and we'll advise the parties as to what course we propose to take in a short while. But we now adjourn.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY�� [9.26 AM]