PN1541

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

PN1542

MR J LE BLONDE: Yes, Le Blonde is my name, solicitor, for the record, and I'm appearing on behalf of NATSIHWA.

PN1543

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Le Blonde?

PN1544

MR LE BLONDE: That's correct, Commissioner.

PN1545

THE COMMISSIONER: Did you seek permission on the last occasion?

PN1546

MR LE BLONDE: No, but Ms Steele did on my behalf.

PN1547

THE COMMISSIONER: So you'd be seeking to extend that permission to you in lieu of Ms Steele.

PN1548

MR LE BLONDE: Yes, please.

PN1549

MR BULL: You don't actually need permission in a four yearly review to appear.

PN1550

THE COMMISSIONER: As a matter of prudence I seek permission in every matter that comes before me.

PN1551

MR BULL: I once contemplated getting a representative removed from a review proceedings and when I investigated the Act I realised that they have a right of appearance in these proceedings.

PN1552

THE COMMISSIONER: Well without wishing to create a new precedent I, as an abundance of caution, always ask permission.

PN1553

MR BULL: No, it's something I only became aware of this when I investigated it. Sorry, Commissioner.

PN1554

THE COMMISSIONER: I will - if it ever does arise for me in the matter of precedent issue I will maybe refer back to you and have you come and - - -

PN1555

MR BULL: Yes, sorry. It's 6-0 something in the Act. Sorry, I'm being silly.

PN1556

MS P FORSTER: Commissioner, Ms Forster from HWL Ebsworth. My colleague is Justin Le Blonde from NATSIHWA, I seek permission.

PN1557

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1558

MR S BULL: Bull - B-u-l-l, I appear for United Voice.

PN1559

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Bull.

PN1560

MR J MILJAK: Miljak, initial J.

PN1561

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Miljak, you're back. Very good.

PN1562

MR MILJAK: I am back, for the AFEI still. Thank you.

PN1563

MR S MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi, initial S, Commissioner, for Australian Business Industrial, NSW Business Chamber.

PN1564

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr, how do you pronounce it?

PN1565

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi.

PN1566

THE COMMISSIONER: Mostafavi, thank you. You, Mr Mostafavi, I don't believe you appeared last time did you?

PN1567

MR MOSTAFAVI: Not last time but the time before.

PN1568

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We have someone in Melbourne?

PN1569

MS R LIEBHABER: Liebhaber R, for the Health Services Union.

PN1570

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Liebhaber. Thank you. This is a continuation of the conferences before me on 28 March, I believe. It's a conference again designed to try and narrow the issues between the parties. I intend to go through each item on the summary of submissions technical and drafting.

PN1571

MR BULL: Commissioner - - -

PN1572

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, go on.

PN1573

MR BULL: Sorry. Before perhaps the agenda, we go into the - - -

PN1574

THE COMMISSIONER: Formalities, yes.

PN1575

MR BULL: Well the manner in which - the agenda which you rightly want to proceed by, there's just one or two matters I would like to simply place on the record concerning certain matters. So with your indulgence could I make a brief statement? It won't take long.

PN1576

THE COMMISSIONER: Are they matters relating to what's before me?

PN1577

MR BULL: Absolutely.

PN1578

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Before you do that though I was going to flag one other point with the parties. In other conferences that I've been conducting, recent conferences, the parties have expressed an interest in going off the record to discuss matters that are still in dispute between them. It was thought that that was helpful so that the parties could perhaps give their views in a more open way before I went back on the record for the parties to convey their views formally so to speak. Now if the parties here are interested in that as an option I'm happy to facilitate that, so I'll leave that with you.

PN1579

MR BULL: The comments I wish to make I'm happy for them to be on the record.

PN1580

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't doubt that. This is a separate - - -

PN1581

MR BULL: And I won't stand as it's not the custom, it's no disrespect for me to remain seated.

PN1582

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not taking any. I'm simply asking whether the parties would like to avail themselves of that option. It's up to the parties, I'm entirely in their hands.

PN1583

MR BULL: In preparing for today's appearance last night I viewed the Commission's website and I noticed that there was two significant submissions lodged by ABI and AFEI out of time and significant in the sense that they are oppositional to a number of the matters that other parties have broadly been in agreeance with in the conferences that have taken place so far. I rang Mr Lewis of ABI this morning, most of that conversation was privileged and I won't traverse what was said but I did indicate as a courtesy that we had concerns with what I would characterise as the standing issue. I did that so that they could be prepared today or this afternoon to constructively address that matter, so as not to waste the Commission's time.

PN1584

These are not interparty proceedings. It's a review. There is no strict sense in which a participant requires standing but there is I would say a criteria of relevance, and I think there is also an additional requirement of what I would call helpfulness. Both submissions of the ABI and the AFEI do not exhibit any connection other than statements of their client and so forth to the sector covered by this award, and they appear to both have what I would term tenuous connections with the subject matter we are dealing with. I make the comment, and it's not entirely facetious, that they appear to have a general interest in suppressing employee terms and conditions generally.

PN1585

You would be aware, Commissioner, that there is a good working relationship between the real employer representative in this sector, which is my friends on this side and the two major representative of employees. We have been working together in I believe a constructive and helpful manner bringing - sorry.

PN1586

THE COMMISSIONER: Just one moment, please. Thank you, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

PN1587

MR BULL: Sorry. The process I think has been working quite well, as it should, because the parties that have been participating, the parties that actually have a real interest. This is an administrative tribunal, it's a non-curial proceeding. Frankly, in a court the sort of conduct of ABI and AFEI would be behaviour that could approach an abuse of process. You have in - this is a public document. You have in the submission of ABI they have concerns about matters of general application which is saying that they have no particular concerns about the subject matter of this award, but they just think elsewhere there may be some precedent set which maybe unhelpful to a client or a client they hope to gain in the future.

PN1588

This is at paragraph 1.6. They talk as a general proposition:

PN1589

Our clients do not support an expansion of coverage to include employees as a general proposition.

PN1590

Likewise, they seem to have as a general proposition concern about the fact that these proceedings are likely to involve a work value claim, and we have never sought to disguise or suppress the fact that in this review there is likely to be what amounts to a work value claim. I have on previous occasions indicated that it's a complex matter that we have to work out how we deal with it. But employer - entrepreneurial employer organisations appearing to make submissions because they don't want this Commission to proceed in an efficient manner, to deal with a work value claim under the current Act is appalling behaviour.

PN1591

So what I want to say is I want perhaps rhetorically, and it's up to my friends on this side to address that question, why are they here, who do they represent and how do they intend to constructively participate in this process which deals with a group of Australians who under all measures are the most disadvantaged in our society. That's all I wish to say.

PN1592

MR LE BLONDE: Commissioner, on behalf of NATSIHWA, we'd also like to just make some comments if that's convenient to the tribunal.

PN1593

THE COMMISSIONER: Certainly.

PN1594

MR LE BLONDE: I think it's important for us to at least for the first time on record advise the parties interested or otherwise as to why NATSIHWA was formed and why NATSIHWA was here today. I don't think there's any need to deal with the issues that are facing Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders in this country. I don't think there's any need to deal with the issue about what efforts have been made in the past to deal with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands in relation to their health outcomes. I think it's well accepted that they are facing difficult problems and they're problems which are not faced by the rest of the population.

PN1595

I was concerned to have read, as my learned friend Mr Bull has also just indicated to the tribunal, the submissions that were put forward by both the Australian Business Lawyers and Advisors and AFEI, and it was at odds with what we understand the business community to be asserting in recent times. I am not sure if the business representatives here have had regard to Mr Forest, Andrew Forest. Mr Forest spent a great deal of time preparing what is known as the Forest Report.

PN1596

The Forest Report is an instrumental document spearheaded by the business community to have a look at what steps should be taken in order to close the gap. NATSIHWA as an organisation was created to close the gap. We are here today to close the gap. We can't rely on money anymore, we can't rely on other people doing the job for us. We are wanting to change and do the job ourselves. This award, what we're seeking to do and the changes we're seeking to achieve are modest. They're not extravagant, they're not excessive, they're simply seeking to ensure the recognition and the work that is being performed is recognised within the health system, is codified and cemented. To have read these submissions which object to matters which we're not even entirely certain, Commissioner, whether as my learned friend Mr Bull has indicated, whether they have any representative value in this matter.

PN1597

MR BULL: Well they've looked at the wrong submission to start with - sorry to interrupt my friend.

PN1598

MR LE BLONDE: That's not - - -

PN1599

MR BULL: They looked at the earlier draft of the submission, they couldn't even get the right submission to criticise. Sorry for interrupting.

PN1600

MR LE BLONDE: No, and on that point, we've been making submissions, Commissioner, since March 2015 as Commissioner you'd be aware, this review process started in 2014. Since March 2015 we've been on the record detailing what NATSIHWA are seeking, why is it seeking it and what we are hoping to achieve through this process. It's not until 26 April 2017 do we hear from my colleagues on the extreme left of this table as to what is their position, and when you read it, it's at odds with their own representative bodies, Mr Forest in his report, and it's also at odds and has had no regard to our submissions primarily on October 2016, the draft determination. It's just very disturbing to have read this type of material so late in the piece and just contrary to what politically, socially and economically we're trying to achieve.

PN1601

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you wish to reply to any of this?

PN1602

MR MOSTAFAVI: Absolutely.

PN1603

MR MILJAK: I believe we do. Maybe you can go first.

PN1604

MR MOSTAFAVI: Commissioner, I'll start with just one comment. It's by the by because it doesn't really matter what the nature of what their setup to be is in the context of this, but my friend has referred to NATSIHWA as the body with standing as some sort of employer representative. The acronym NATSIHWA on my understanding from well its own submissions is National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Worker Association. So how they can be put forward as an employer body is beyond me, but perhaps I've misheard.

PN1605

In relation to our position generally, we're not being critical simply for the sake of it. While we've put on record that we apologise for the lateness of our submissions, on review of the transcript from the last occasion on which I wasn't available, it was quite clear that our clients reserved their position in relation to a range of matters, and they've taken the opportunity prior to today to respond to those things.

PN1606

Now as I say, we're simply responding to the case as it's been advanced. We're not being critical for the sake of it. Political arguments about what is or isn't socially necessary are part of what the Commission considers is part of this award review process but what it's driven by is the modern awards objective.

PN1607

In response to the question of standing, we have multiple members in the sector. We're in the process of consulting with them about these matters. There's no question about that notwithstanding that standing is not, as my friend has said, a requirement in relation to the award review process but we have no issue there in any event. Without prejudice to our position moving forward, we're not proposing at this juncture to advance a merit based case against the various claims from the moving employee parties, I'll call them broadly. That is NATSIHWA or United Voice and the Health Services Union. We're simply putting them to proof on their claims, and we're entitled to do that. I reject entirely the submission that us doing our job, representing our members, is somehow an abuse of process or anything else. That's an offensive suggestion.

PN1608

As my friend has put, elements of this claim involved work value issues. Mr Bull has noted that, I've read that on the previous transcript. That's not in dispute. Our position is simply that those matters need to be advanced in the course of this process appropriately. We simply can't wave through changes to minimum rates and allowances, amongst other things, on the basis of - and this isn't to be critical because this is the nature of the process - a high level classification structure or draft determinations. That is the where do we want to go side of the piece, it's not why and it's not how do we support those arguments? So that's the basis upon which we've advanced those submissions and we stand by those submissions.

PN1609

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Mostafavi, who was it that appeared before me?

PN1610

MR MOSTAFAVI: Ms Slater.

PN1611

THE COMMISSIONER: Slater.

PN1612

MR MOSTAFAVI: Just for the record, I'll note that inadvertently Ms Slater referred to herself as a paid agent on the last occasion but she's a legal representative, she's a lawyer.

PN1613

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1614

MR MILJAK: Thank you, Mr Miljak here for AFEI. My friend has just recently touched on a few points which AFEI would echo. In relation - AFEI does not need to firstly justify why it is here, although it certainly does have members who have an interest in this award. He has made a number of very unhelpful assertions about the motivations of our role in these proceedings. Similarly to what my friend Mr Mostafavi has mentioned, it is not the role of parties such as AFEI to simply wave through and proceed with sweeping changes to awards that will have an impact on our members without putting the union parties and the employee parties to proof.

PN1615

The parties have made a number of submissions over the period of time that these proceedings have undergone, which operate at the level of deeply held assertions about the role of the need to have a political impact and the role that changes to the award can have in addressing some certain issues in a certain social sphere. What we are concerned with is that the award is, for example, in regards to wages, properly fixed minimums. We're not here to argue, for example, for - we're not were to simply wave through increases where there are real wage increases, for example, in certain classifications. We're not here to simply wave through substantive changes that will have an extensive effect on the award.

PN1616

All we are simply doing is asking the parties to make their case and that seems to be a very reasonable thing to do, particularly as I note that in some instances the level of remuneration that's attached to the Aboriginal Community Controlled Award is significantly larger than in other awards, such as the Health Professional Award, the SCHADS Award, the Manufacturing Award, at the equivalent C4 and C3 levels. We are simply - we're here to put to - to make sure that the employee parties are put to proof their argument, Commissioner.

PN1617

THE COMMISSIONER: Does the - - -

PN1618

MR MILJAK: For the record - - -

PN1619

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry.

PN1620

MR MILJAK: - - - the assertion made by my friend opposite is just deeply unhelpful and borderline offensive for these proceedings. I would like to have that on the record.

PN1621

THE COMMISSIONER: Does the HSU have a submission to make at this point?

PN1622

MS LIEBHABER: Commissioner, we support Mr Bull and NATSIHWA's submissions. We would agree that the submissions from the AFEI and ABI don't seem to have an understanding of the sector or have seemed to - they seemed to misunderstand the submissions. We would agree that the changes put forward are modest and that have been in front of the parties for a long time, and furthermore at the last conference AFEI did agree to put their comments within two weeks of the conference, and the comments were submitted quite late. Thank you.

PN1623

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Bull, I'm in your hands in part, are you making - - -

PN1624

MR BULL: Well I want to get some work done.

PN1625

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you making a formal application of any sort that I need to deal with in terms of standing first of all?

PN1626

MR BULL: I can't make an application in relation to standing because it's I don't think a relevant principle. So it would be disingenuous application.

PN1627

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. In that case we can put that to bed, there's no application in terms of standing.

PN1628

MR BULL: But I can make I suppose an observation in relation to - because I don't think, as I said, you know, these are peculiar proceedings and I don't think - you've still got your powers under 590 of the Act in terms of ordering this - that's the general power of a member of this Commission to - - -

PN1629

THE COMMISSIONER: Order any - - -

PN1630

MR BULL: - - - determine how things are run.

PN1631

THE COMMISSIONER: To inform myself in a way - - -

PN1632

MR BULL: I suppose look, I am very disturbed and, you know, I have a background where I was a criminal lawyer and I've fought trials where one is dealing with the criminal standard, you know, for what used to be called capital offences where people to go to gaol for life. When people start using words like "put to proof" and so forth in a jurisdiction like this, which is supposed to be a collaborative one, I find it disturbing. The only submission I think I can genuinely make is that when you at your discretion are determining how to order these proceedings, I think you need to make some assessment of the interest that certain parties have in the subject matter of the award. That then is - once you - when you make that determination, that's a basis upon which weight and relevance in terms of how we deal with things and put matters to proof. I would make a submission to the effect that it's not appropriate to be put to proof, it's appropriate in relation to the work value claim to determine an appropriate process to deal with the claim. We will - - -

PN1633

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm not sure that the wording put to proof is necessarily intended, and I'll hear from - if it was Mr Miljak's wording, I can't recall now but that was intended in a technical sense.

PN1634

MR MOSTAFAVI: It was mine, Commissioner.

PN1635

THE COMMISSIONER: In any technical sense. That's how I - - -

PN1636

MR BULL: Yes, I just think it's a very unhelpful term and it's an oppositional term and it's, you know, in a criminal prosecution if you're defending someone you have the right to basically tell to the prosecution prove it, do nothing, sit on your hands and make the prosecution prove the case against you. That is not, I say, something that should occur in industrial proceedings because of the nature of the proceedings. That is - in a sense what they are saying they're wanting to enter a not guilty plea and we then have to prove everything, and that's not appropriate we say. It's a matter for you to determine - - -

PN1637

THE COMMISSIONER: In terms of where I am today, and if we could just perhaps get back to that position, is there an application that's being made in terms of standing?

PN1638

MR BULL: Well no, because I don't believe - - -

PN1639

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN1640

MR BULL: I don't think there's a case where you exclude people but what - there's an application in relation to how much you should listen to people and how much weight you should give to their views about matters, and we still haven't really heard - they've spoken about clients, they haven't named a single real entity that is in this sector, that is - - -

PN1641

THE COMMISSIONER: Well before you go on, perhaps I should just say this to you. If you have that sort of application to make certainly you're entitled to make it but that is something that I would put to one side for today - - -

PN1642

MR BULL: Yes.

PN1643

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - I'd ask you to make that application in the appropriate way.

PN1644

MR BULL: Well it's a matter for them but I'll - - -

PN1645

THE COMMISSIONER: But you're making - I'm sorry, no, no, it's not up to them at this stage. It's up to you. If you have an application to make then it would be for you to make it and then for the other parties to respond. But in terms of how we progress today my - - -

PN1646

MR BULL: We should return to your agenda and I apologise.

PN1647

THE COMMISSIONER: Now I'd like to move to the actual agenda that I had outlined for today's proceeding. But having said that, I don't wish you in any way to be - to deter you from any application that you wish to make and if you have an application to make then it's open to you. I'm simply attempting to ascertain if it is an application you're making before me today then I wish to make sure that I deal with it in a procedural manner today.

PN1648

MR BULL: No, I hear what you're saying. I'm not trying to be obtuse.

PN1649

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no and I've put it back to you squarely.

PN1650

MR BULL: I don't believe there is a formal application that I am making but I am, I suppose, seeking to make a submission concerning I suppose relevance and weight that should be attached to the input of certain participants in this process. If they can't - - -

PN1651

THE COMMISSIONER: You're going to have to do that formally, Mr Bull.

PN1652

MR BULL: If they can't clearly establish - like I can go back to my office and I can print out a list of over 100 people who work in Aboriginal Controlled Health Services. If we are put to proof I can get as many statements as necessary. It will take time and effort but it could be done, and there will members of United Voice and so forth. All I'm saying is that if participants in this process can't really - other than vague statements of clients and members, if they don't beyond that - if they don't demonstrate a real connection, I would say that what they say should be not given great consideration. That's all I would say.

PN1653

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Bull, if you have an application to make you need to make it.

PN1654

MR BULL: As I said, I've got no application to make.

PN1655

THE COMMISSIONER: Well in that case you have to live with the consequence of that.

PN1656

MR BULL: Yes, I know.

PN1657

THE COMMISSIONER: Your views will be of course recorded but as will be my question to you, and that is if you have an application it will be heard.

PN1658

MR BULL: Yes, I said I don't believe I can because standing is I believe not relevant.

PN1659

THE COMMISSIONER: In that case I intend to proceed at this stage with the items on the revised summary of submissions. I repeat notwithstanding what's happened up to this point my offer to undertake this conference first by way of an off the record discussion which has proved fruitful in some conferences. Are the parties interested in that? Of course we'd go back on the record and the parties would have an opportunity to record whatever it is they wished - - -

PN1660

MR MILJAK: Commissioner, if I may. Miljak from AFEI.

PN1661

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1662

MR MILJAK: It seems that my friend opposite is - would like to discuss things frankly - - -

PN1663

MR BULL: We can go off the record.

PN1664

MR MILJAK: - - - perhaps that has worked in other conferences. We'd be amenable to discussing things off the record and then we could place our final positions for the day on the record, that might - particularly given the context of the way that he has opened the proceedings.

PN1665

THE COMMISSIONER: I'd like everyone to record their views.

PN1666

MR LE BLONDE: Le Blonde for NATSIHWA, Commissioner. Yes, we are prepared to go off the record.

PN1667

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1668

MR BULL: I'm prepared to go off the record.

PN1669

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, thank you.

PN1670

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi, initial S, yes, I'm prepared to - - -

PN1671

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Liebhaber?

PN1672

MS LIEBHABER: Yes, Commissioner, we'd be prepared to go off the record.

PN1673

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Right, we'll go off the record.

OFF THE RECORD [2.40 PM]

ON THE RECORD [4.02 PM]

PN1674

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. We're back on the record, it's approximately five past 4. The parties have engaged in private conference regarding some of the matters listed in the summary of proposed substantive variations document. No agreement has been reached in relation to any of those matters. What has been agreed though is that a conference will take place off-site on 26 May between the parties, to discuss some of those matters in preparation for a further conference before me that will be listed on 1 June at 2 pm and 10 am on 2 June. The parties are encouraged to have discussions prior to the off-site conference on 26 May, with a view to clarifying any issues they may have in preparation for that conference. They can do that between themselves as they see fit.

PN1675

Do the parties with to say anything on the record in relation to the substantive issues document?

PN1676

MS FOREST: No, Commissioner.

PN1677

MR BULL: Stephen Bull, United Voice. No, Commissioner.

PN1678

MR MILJAK: Mr Miljak, AFEI. No, Commissioner, we don't.

PN1679

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mr Mostafavi. No, we don't, Commissioner.

PN1680

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. No, Commissioner.

PN1681

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I'll move then to the revised summary of submissions technical and drafting. I'll just go through those items, item by item and ask for the parties to confirm their position. Item 1 has been moved to the substantive claims. When I say has been, will be if it hasn't already, but it is agreed that that is a substantive claims item.

PN1682

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1683

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1684

MR MILJAK: Mr Miljak, AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1685

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mr Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1686

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1687

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 2 has been agreed.

PN1688

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1689

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1690

MR MILJAK: AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1691

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1692

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1693

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 3 has been withdrawn by United Voice.

PN1694

MR BULL: Correct, Commissioner. That's Stephen Bull from United Voice.

PN1695

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 4 has been agreed.

PN1696

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1697

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1698

MR BULL: Stephen Bull, United Voice. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1699

MR MILJAK: AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1700

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1701

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1702

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 5 moved to substantive.

PN1703

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1704

MR BULL: Stephen Bull, United Voice. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1705

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1706

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1707

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1708

THE COMMISSIONER: I'll deal with items - thank you. Items 6, 7, 8, 9 and - 8 and 9 for now. So items 6, 7, 8 and 9 have all been moved to substantive claims.

PN1709

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1710

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1711

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1712

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1713

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1714

THE COMMISSIONER: Item 10 has been agreed.

PN1715

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1716

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1717

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1718

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1719

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1720

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 11 - - -

PN1721

MS LIEBHABER: Commissioner, I believe Mr Bull and myself will discuss this matter.

PN1722

MR BULL: We'll advise you in a week whether - what's occurring.

PN1723

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. So in one week you will advise the Commission and the parties as to where that matter is.

PN1724

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. We will seek to rely on our submissions that we have placed in relation to this matter.

PN1725

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1726

MR MOSTAFAVI: I have no comment, Commissioner. Mostafavi.

PN1727

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1728

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. No comment.

PN1729

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 12 has been moved to substantive.

PN1730

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1731

MR BULL: Yes, Commissioner. Bull, United Voice.

PN1732

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1733

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1734

MS LIEBHABER: Ms Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1735

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Items 14, 15 and 16 have been agreed.

PN1736

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1737

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1738

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1739

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1740

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1741

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 17, 18 and 19 moved to substantive issue.

PN1742

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1743

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1744

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1745

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1746

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1747

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1748

MS FORSTER: Commissioner, Ms Forster. Commissioner, in relation to item 20 - - -

PN1749

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN1750

MS FORSTER: - - - NATSIHWA proposes, I understand it's also agreed, to delete clause 17.2.4 from the exposure draft. My understanding that's agreed.

PN1751

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1752

MR BULL: Bull. That's agreed.

PN1753

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1754

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1755

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Items 21, 22, 23 and 25 have been agreed.

PN1756

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1757

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1758

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1759

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1760

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1761

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 24 has been moved to substantive.

PN1762

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1763

MR BULL: Bull. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1764

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1765

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1766

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1767

THE COMMISSIONER: Item 26 has been withdrawn.

PN1768

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1769

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Liebhaber, is that correct? Item 26 has been withdrawn?

PN1770

MS LIEBHABER: Yes, Commissioner. I think this was discussed at the last conference and that was resolved.

PN1771

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Item 27, 28, 29 and 30 have been agreed.

PN1772

MR BULL: I believe that's correct. Bull, Commissioner.

PN1773

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1774

MR MILJAK: Miljak, AFEI. That's correct, Commissioner.

PN1775

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. That's correct, Commissioner.

PN1776

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1777

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Items 31, 32 and 33 have been moved to substantive.

PN1778

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1779

MR BULL: Bull. Correct, Commissioner.

PN1780

MR MOSTAFAVI: Mostafavi. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1781

MS LIEBHABER: Liebhaber. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1782

MR MILJAK: Miljak. Yes, Commissioner.

PN1783

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to say anything else on the transcript before we adjourn?

PN1784

MR MOSTAFAVI: No, Commissioner.

PN1785

MR BULL: I don't wish to say anything more.

PN1786

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN1787

MS FORSTER: Ms Forster. Nothing further.

PN1788

MR MILJAK: No, Commissioner.

PN1789

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Miljak, you have the opportunity - - -

PN1790

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

PN1791

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I'll adjourn this matter then until 1 June and wish you all the best in your conference. Thank you.

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, 01 JUNE 2017 [4.11 PM]