Fair Work Logo Merrill Logo

 

 

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Fair Work Act 2009

 

COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC

 

 

 

s.156 - 4 yearly review of modern awards

 

Four yearly review of modern awards

(AM2014/281)

Professional Employees Award 2010

(ODN AM2008/54)

[MA000065 Print PR988777]]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sydney

 

1.12 PM, WEDNESDAY, 31 MAY 2017

 

Continued from 7/04/2017

 


PN510      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Good afternoon all.  I'll take appearances please.

PN511      

MS M CHAN:  May it please the Commission, Chan, initial M, for the Australian Business Lawyers and Advisers on behalf of ABI and the NSW Business Chamber.

PN512      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you, Ms Chan.

PN513      

MR K JACK:  May it please, Jack, initial K, from the Australian Federation of Employers and Industries.

PN514      

MR S SMITH:  Yes, if it pleases the Commission, Smith, initial S, of the Australian Industry Group.

PN515      

MR M BUTLER:  If the Commission pleases, Butler, initial M, appearing for the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia.

PN516      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you, Mr Butler.  There appears to be no one in South Australia.  I thank you, this is a follow up conference, following the last conference before me on 7th or 4th April just can't 7 April.  The focus is on the summary of submissions that have been provided to the parties since that time together with the report that was circulated to parties on 3 May.

PN517      

I also have before me, Mr Smith from Ai Group.  It is in fact from Ms Bhatt and I presume you're here in her stead.

PN518      

MR SMITH:  Yes, Commissioner.  Ms Bhatt is not available today so I'm aware of the issue.

PN519      

THE COMMISSIONER:  You're aware of the issues and you're aware, I presume, the correspondence that has been forwarded on.

PN520      

MR SMITH:  Yes.

PN521      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The parties have a copy of that correspondence dated 30 May?

PN522      

MR SMITH:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN523      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Butler, you have a copy of that correspondence?

PN524      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner, and I agree with the contents of the correspondence.

PN525      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  It's agreed then, that the correspondence as reflected identifies the interested parties, to the extent that it can, as the Ai Group, NSW Business Chamber, AFEI and APESMA, to the extent that the parties here agree with that.  Could I just confirm that for the record?

PN526      

MR JACK:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN527      

MS CHAN:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN528      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Butler's already thank you.  The items that are referred to, are related back to the summary of submissions, published on 15 May.  To the extent that that's the case, what I will do then, is use both the summary of submissions and that document and we can tick off each item as we go unless someone else has a preferred suggested way of moving forward.

PN529      

MR JACK:  No, that's fine, Commissioner.

PN530      

THE COMMISSIONER:  All right, thank you.  Item 1 of the summary of submissions, it's a matter that's been referred to the group three Full Bench, so that's it as far as the technical and drafting matter is concerned.

PN531      

Item 2, AFEI is content to withdraw its submission, so that matter is resolved.  Thank you, Mr Jack.

PN532      

Item 3, that's been agreed.  I think it would be best for the sake of the transcript if each of the parties would just confirm with a yes or no.

PN533      

MS CHAN:  Ms Chan, yes.

PN534      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.  APESMA agrees.

PN535      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you Mr Butler.

PN536      

MR SMITH:  Yes, that's my understanding that we agree.

PN537      

MR JACK:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN538      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 4 is agreed.

PN539      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN540      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Item 5 has been agreed.

PN541      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN542      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Jack, it's agreed?

PN543      

MR JACK:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN544      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 6 has been agreed.

PN545      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN546      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 7 has been agreed.

PN547      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN548      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 8 has been agreed.

PN549      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN550      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 9 has been agreed.

PN551      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN552      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 10 - - -

PN553      

MR BUTLER:  Perhaps Commissioner, if I could report on Item 10.

PN554      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Please.

PN555      

MR BUTLER:  That was discussed in the telephone conference that we had on 23 May.  Previously APESMA had provided some information to elaborate on our position.  The parties have requested additional information.  Just by way of recapping on this issue, Commissioner, it's to do with the updating of the membership grades of learned societies in the application of experienced scientist stream.

PN556      

There's a further request from the employers for some more clarity in terms of dates and information as to when the membership grades were altered.  We need more time to be able to do that.  We're happy to do so, but it will take some digging.

PN557      

THE COMMISSIONER:  I take it then, that assuming the other parties agree with you, Mr Butler, the report would be updated to confirm that the employer parties had requested further information from APESMA as to the qualification background of some of the professors.

PN558      

MR BUTLER:  Of the scientists' stream.

PN559      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Of the scientists.

PN560      

MR SMITH:  Commissioner, perhaps I can shed a little more light on this, because from what I understand, Mr Butler is planning on doing, is getting some dates as to when the qualifications change, which is not the issue that we're interested in.  The issue is, that the current schedule talks about member of these various societies, and it seems that the various societies have changed their grades of membership.

PN561      

For example, there's a graduate member and a chartered member, and in reviewing the issue with the information provided by APESMA, it seemed to us that the member grade should be aligned with the chartered member grade, yet Mr Butler's aligning it with the graduate member grade.  We may have misunderstood, but we've asked for more information about whether apples are being compared with apples rather than watering down the qualifications.  Because they are important aspects of award coverage.

PN562      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Just for my benefit, is that are we talking about 2.4 of the exposure draft?

PN563      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN564      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The qualifications that you're referring to, are in 2.4G(b), is that - - -

PN565      

MS CHAN:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN566      

MR BUTLER:  2.4(b), the academic schedule, (b), (t), (e) and (f).

PN567      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Smith, I take it you wish then you're seeking clarification, but you're not certain that Mr Butler actually has encapsulated what information you're actually seeking.

PN568      

MR SMITH:  I think Mr Butler's right in that we are happy to give APESMA more time to provide the information, but these provisions are very longstanding, been around for many many years and they're an important part of award coverage.  If people don't have the qualifications, then the award doesn't apply to them, and obviously the wage rates in the award don't apply.

PN569      

We want to be sure that the proposed updating of the phrase 'member' to what APESMA is proposing is actually not bringing in a lot of lower level people at that higher wage rate, so it is an important issue.  But Mr Butler is saying that he's faithfully reproduced the new titles, and we're happy to await that information to see whether we agree with that assessment, or whether there is an issue of substance.

PN570      

MR BUTLER:  Can I just say, Commissioner, that on the issue of preserving the integrity of qualifications under this award, the Ai Group and ourselves are in the same position, so we are not in any way interested in watering down or attempting to water down the qualifications in the award.

PN571      

THE COMMISSIONER:  You're both are you suggesting that everyone's interests are the same.  You wish to keep the no one is seeking to water down the qualifications.

PN572      

MR BUTLER:  Certainly not us.

PN573      

MS CHAN:  I don't think I would agree that we all agree in principle about updating the membership titles to the appropriate membership, but I think we're all just trying to be cautious at this point, that in doing so, we don't sort of unnecessarily bring in somebody who shouldn't be there.

PN574      

THE COMMISSIONER:  To the extent that that's how you all feel, what is it then that you what further information is needed from APESMA?

PN575      

MS CHAN:  I think maybe a translation table so as the exposure draft currently expresses membership qualifications for say the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, that currently talks about an associate member.  We understanding that that - - -

PN576      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Ms Chan, tell me where exactly you're reading from, because I'm having difficulty.

PN577      

MS CHAN:  Sorry, yes, 2.4G(b)(i).

PN578      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Is this in the exposure draft?  2.4G yes, 'academic qualification acceptable to pharmacy board of council'.

PN579      

MS CHAN:  Yes, but then under that it talks about an experience to scientists.  It doesn't seem to have a letter.

PN580      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, 'means a professional scientist possessing the following qualifications' etc.

PN581      

MS CHAN:  Correct.  Then (b)(i) underneath that.

PN582      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The Royal Australian Chemical - - -

PN583      

MS CHAN:  Yes, so that line.  That talks about somebody who's been admitted to the degree of Associate Member.  Now the grade of Associate Member, on my understanding and as I understand Mr Butler, has pointed out, doesn't exist at the Royal Australian Chemical Institute anymore.  I understand that there is a grade of Graduate Chemist, another one being member, and I think there might also be another grade which was Fellow, if my memory serves me correctly.

PN584      

In terms of updating the reference to Associate where not potentially wanting to capture graduates, if their qualifications were not equivalent to what an Associate Member might have been required to hold, at the time the award was first compiled.  But by the same token, if an Associate Member would have captured somebody who might otherwise be a Fellow now, well then that would need updating.

PN585      

THE COMMISSIONER:  I see the importance.

PN586      

MS CHAN:  That's the kind of exercise that I think we'll just try and go through at the moment, just dotting our I's and crossing our T's in that respect.

PN587      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Butler, does that assist you in terms of what employers are actually seeking?

PN588      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, it does, thank you.

PN589      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Smith, is that sufficient?

PN590      

MR SMITH:  Yes, that's exactly right.  A table that identified the old grade and the qualifications and experience requirements for the old grade versus what is proposed for it to be replaced by, so that we can check they're equivalent.

PN591      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The report would update that APESMA is to provide the parties with a table identifying the old grade versus what it is that's being proposed in the new grade.

PN592      

MR SMITH:  Yes.

PN593      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Mr Butler, do you have a time within which you think you can provide that table?

PN594      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, I think I'd need a couple of weeks.  It's a bit of a research project there, that I'll need to get someone to do.

PN595      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  So, 14 days?  If there's an issue, you can notify either my chamber or the AMOD team.

PN596      

MR BUTLER:  Thank you, Commissioner.

PN597      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Then the parties will then either register a response to that.

PN598      

MS CHAN:  We can reconvene and maybe put together a joint response.

PN599      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Ms Chan?

PN600      

MS CHAN:  We can certainly reconvene, potentially, maybe privately and then gather a report for the Commission.

PN601      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, so say another 14 days for that to happen.

PN602      

MS CHAN:  Certainly.

PN603      

THE COMMISSIONER:  All right, that deals with Item 10.  Moving now to Item 11, that's been agreed.

PN604      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN605      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Item 12 has been agreed.

PN606      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN607      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 13.

PN608      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, APESMA did circulate a proposed redraft and item 13 is referred to on page 2 of the correspondence from the Ai Group and there's a proposed clause there that has been agreed so far between the parties, and subject of course to the Commission's position in due course.

PN609      

THE COMMISSIONER:  In terms of the report and the summary of submissions, both documents can reflect that the parties have agreed to the position as outlined in the correspondence of the Ai Group dated 30 May 2017 at Item 13.

PN610      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN611      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Right, thank you.  Item 14.

PN612      

MS CHAN:  That was withdrawn, Commissioner.

PN613      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Withdrawn?

PN614      

MS CHAN:  Yes.

PN615      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Yes, that's true, I didn't see that there.  Item 15 is agreed.

PN616      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN617      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 16.

PN618      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, this item remains in contention and it's probably a substantive change.

PN619      

THE COMMISSIONER:  So, it should be moved, would you say, Mr Butler, to the substantive issues?

PN620      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN621      

THE COMMISSIONER:  How do the other parties feel?

PN622      

MR SMITH:  We'd agree with that, Commissioner, because it would impose a requirement to record agreement in writing and there isn't one at the moment which would impose a regulatory burden on the parties.  So, it's a substantive claim.

PN623      

MR JACK:  Yes, Commissioner, we agree as well.

PN624      

MS CHAN:  Yes, we would agree with Ai Group.

PN625      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you, that will then be moved to the substantive issues.  Item 17.

PN626      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, items 17 and 18 are the issues raised by APESMA and we withdraw our concern.  Items 17 and 18 are agreed.

PN627      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you Mr Butler.  The parties are happy with that?

PN628      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN629      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 19.  This appears to be a matter involving Business SA.  Now, no one being here from Business SA makes it a bit difficult, but Mr Smith, do you maintain your objection to this proposal?

PN630      

MR SMITH:  We do, Commissioner.

PN631      

THE COMMISSIONER:  You do.  Mr Butler, do you have a position?

PN632      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, on the last occasion of this conference, I undertook to look at this further, and - - -

PN633      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Sorry, Mr Butler, just apologies for interrupting you.  If you could perhaps turn the microphone as close as possible to where you're speaking.  We're having some difficulty you're breaking up occasionally.

PN634      

MR BUTLER:  Is that better?

PN635      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Much better, much better, thank you.

PN636      

MR BUTLER:  On the last occasion, Commissioner, we undertook to review our position on this issue and in the light of the Full Bench decision 9412 of 2014, on that basis, we agree, sorry, we don't agree with the Business SA proposal.

PN637      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The document then will be updated as will the report to reflect that position, to reflect AiG retaining their objection and perhaps I'll have my associate or the AMOD team contact Business SA to confirm what their position is, given that they weren't here I don't think, on the last occasion either.

PN638      

Are you happy to proceed on that basis Mr Jack?

PN639      

MR JACK:  Yes, we agree with that, Commissioner.

PN640      

MS CHAN:  Just for the record, Commissioner, ABI would also agree with AiG and APESMA in terms of not agreeing with what Business SA has actually proposed.

PN641      

MR JACK:  AFEI, I think has made a submission agreeing with AiG as well.

PN642      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  So, basically everyone opposes.

PN643      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN644      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 20 is agreed.

PN645      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN646      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 21.

PN647      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, there's been some discussion between the parties on this issue and on page 3 of the Ai Group correspondence, it says that the matter remains in contention, but the parties request that we be afforded a further opportunity to continue discussions in relation to it.

PN648      

THE COMMISSIONER:  What do you what specifically do you intend to do in terms of the process of holding those discussions?  Are there any suggestions from anybody?

PN649      

MS CHAN:  Commissioner, I believe we are just still tinkering with the wording a little bit in relation to item 21.  Perhaps if I might suggest that when we provide a report back in relation to item 10 in 28 days, that we might also just address item 21 and any proposals that we might have at that point.

PN650      

THE COMMISSIONER:  That was item 10, wasn't it, Ms Chan?

PN651      

MS CHAN:  That was item 10, so we can add 21 to it.

PN652      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Add 21 to item 10, and report back on that.

PN653      

MR SMITH:  Yes, we'd agree with that, Commissioner.  But there are a number of these issues in the same category, like item 22 for example.  So, the parties would ideally have a discussion about all these.

PN654      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The reason, Mr Smith, I know it might be a the reason I'm going through this methodically in the way that I am, it is laborious I appreciate.  It's just that it's for the same of the transcript, it makes it much easier to update these reports and summary submissions.  So, I'll no doubt hear from everyone in the same way, each item.

PN655      

MR SMITH:  Yes, thank you, Commissioner.  My point was that in respect of Item 21, with respect to your question about process, that item and a number of the other items the parties will need to have some discussions before they report back to you.

PN656      

THE COMMISSIONER:  As we go, what I'm intending to do is identify each one of those items, have you identify them for me on the record and then the report will be updated and you will be left in no doubt as to which items you are going to be discussing outside the scope of this conference, before the next conference.

PN657      

MR SMITH:  Thank you.

PN658      

THE COMMISSIONER:  That was item 21.  Do you agree with that Mr Butler?  Are you happy to proceed on that basis?

PN659      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN660      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The report will reflect that the parties will report back their progress as to their discussions at the same time that they report back the result of discussions in relation to Item 10.

PN661      

Item 22 then, is the same I take it, that the parties can add that to that bundle.  Is that correct?

PN662      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner, yes.

PN663      

MS CHAN:  Commissioner, I might have to beg to differ.  With that Item 22 I believe, was in relation to the fact that the term 'cycle' doesn't really have a definition in relation to the period over which ordinary hours can actually be averaged.

PN664      

In ABI's view, that's really a substantive issue, as opposed to just a technical and drafting issue.  I'm not sure - - -

PN665      

THE COMMISSIONER:  You'd like Item 33 then maybe referred to the substantive.

PN666      

MS CHAN:  Yes, I believe that would be appropriate.

PN667      

MR SMITH:  We think that might be where it ends up, but that perhaps that decision should be left until we see whether the parties could resolve the issue.  The hours of work provisions in this award, Mr Butler and I negotiated about 20 years ago and they have a particular history to them and we would be very concerned about imposing a requirement that the hours be squared off every four weeks.

PN668      

From what I understand Ms Bhatt said, that perhaps isn't what Mr Butler's concern is, and if it's really not that, and it's just a matter of really coming up with some practical wording or accepting that there isn't an issue, then we're happy to have further discussions rather than dealing with a substantive claim at this stage.  Because to us, it's not an issue, and one version of words that Mr Butler put up, we didn't see a great concern with, but it may be that, as I understand it, Mr Butler's position may have changed a bit.  So, the discussions are continuing, in short.

PN669      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Are you saying perhaps then, that's it's premature to put it in the substantive matters basket, at this stage?  Is that the point?

PN670      

MR SMITH:  Yes, it may end up there, but it's premature.

PN671      

MS CHAN:  We would be content to continue having discussions before we do it to the substantive list, Commissioner.

PN672      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Item 22 then I'll move to the basket of those matters that will be reported back.

PN673      

MR JACK:  Yes, Commissioner.  28 days.

PN674      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 23, is agreed?

PN675      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN676      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 24 has been withdrawn.

PN677      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN678      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 25 is agreed.

PN679      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN680      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 26.

PN681      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, APESMA was to consider our position and subsequently we've had discussions and if I can refer the Commission again to the Ai Group.  All the parties agreed that column titled 'Casual Minimum Hourly Rate' should be deleted from the exposure draft.  APESMA seeks the insertion of a new schedule that contains a casual hourly rate and the employers, I understand, do not oppose this proposal, subject to having an opportunity to review the rates and provide any comment.

PN682      

THE COMMISSIONER:  I take it then that APESMA would insert a new schedule.

PN683      

MR BUTLER:  A new schedule.

PN684      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Of only casual hourly rates.

PN685      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN686      

THE COMMISSIONER:  For circulation and comment?  Is that how it would work?

PN687      

MR BUTLER:  No, sorry.  I could be corrected if I'm wrong, but I understood that the drafting would probably be done by the Commission and the parties would check the rates.  If I'm wrong on that I mean I can prepare a proposed schedule.

PN688      

THE COMMISSIONER:  I'm just trying to certainly not suggesting you're wrong, just attempting to clarify what you're actually proposing.

PN689      

MR JACK:  I think my understanding, Commissioner, was that it would be similar to other awards that have exposure drafts which contain summaries of pay rates in the schedule.  For that reason, and for it to be consistent with other awards, I think ABI would agree that it might be good if the Commission could do that.

PN690      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Certainly.

PN691      

MS CHAN:  ABI would agree with what AFEI just said.

PN692      

MR SMITH:  Yes, we agree with that.

PN693      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Certainly, then that could be circulated to the parties for comment.

PN694      

MR JACK:  Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

PN695      

MS CHAN:  Thank you, Commissioner.

PN696      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 27 has been withdrawn?

PN697      

MR BUTLER:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN698      

THE COMMISSIONER:  I notice that there was a position being put on that item from Business SA.  I think before well what will happy is, I will have my associate and/or the AMOD team to write to Business SA and confirm their position in relation to that item, but certainly be recorded as having been withdrawn from the APESMA side.  Item 28.

PN699      

MR BUTLER:  Commissioner, this item deals with clause 15.3 of the exposure draft in connection with the vehicle allowance.  My understanding now was that the parties request further opportunity to continue discussions.

PN700      

MR SMITH:  We agree with that, Commissioner.

PN701      

MS CHAN:  We would agree with that, Commissioner.

PN702      

MR JACK:  We agree as well, Commissioner.

PN703      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The parties will hold further discussions in relation to Item 28, the timing of which could be with yes, 28 days again.

PN704      

Item 29.  Is there something that was withdrawn, Mr Butler?

PN705      

MR BUTLER:  It's not withdrawn, it was a question posed in the exposure draft, but I think the parties have agreed that no variation is proposed by any of us.  So, it's redundant, I think.

PN706      

THE COMMISSIONER:  The parties don't to the extent that the report can reflect what the parties have to say about it, they're not proposing any changes to item 29, is that correct?

PN707      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN708      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Items 31 well, before I get to that, I'm sorry, I've skipped Item 30, that's agreed.  Is that correct?

PN709      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN710      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Items 31 and through to 35 appear to have been grouped together.  It's noted in the Ai Group's correspondence that they remain in contention to parties request further opportunity to continue discussions.  Do I take it from that, that they would form part of the bundle of clauses that the parties could undertake discussions about and report back after the 28-day period?

PN711      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN712      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 36 has been withdrawn.  Is that correct?

PN713      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN714      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Item 37 has been agreed.

PN715      

COUNSEL:  Yes, Commissioner.

PN716      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Well that concludes that then.  There are a number of items that the parties will have discussions about over the course of the next 28 days.  This was the second conference.  It's been my practice to have perhaps three conferences if necessary, and usually I have found that by that stage, the parties have either exhausted themselves, or the Commission will a bit of both and the matters have fallen into either a substantive group or been agreed or withdrawn.

PN717      

To the extent that the parties might require a further conference, it would be my intention to list then this matter for after the 28-day period.  That would take us through to July, end of June.  Just one moment, I'll just flag with the parties what I'm considering and then 28 days would take us to 28 June.  We then would have I could list the matter say for Wednesday morning on 28 June at 9.30, if it suited the parties.

PN718      

MR JACK:  Commissioner, I'll have to check my availability, but I imagine a colleague could make it, if I couldn't.

PN719      

MS CHAN:  28 June is fine for ABI.

PN720      

MR SMITH:  It's fine for me, Commissioner.

PN721      

MR BUTLER:  And for APESMA as well.

PN722      

THE COMMISSIONER:  Thank you.  Unless there's anything else, I'll adjourn this conference until 9.30 am on 28 June.  Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 28 JUNE 2017 [1.49 PM]