Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd
[2022] FWC 1161
•13 MAY 2022
| [2022] FWC 1161 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
v
Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd
(C2021/8720)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT CROSS | SYDNEY, 13 MAY 2022 |
Application for the Commission to deal with a dispute under a dispute settlement procedure in an enterprise agreement – electrical power industry – entitlement of the Respondent to refuse employees taking annual leave at half pay – agreement interpretation – dispute resolved and concluded.
This s 739 dispute concerns a dispute notification by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (the CEPU), regarding the refusal by Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd (Ausgrid) to approve any applications for annual leave at half pay.
The dispute concerns the operation and interpretation of clause 24 of the Ausgrid Enterprise Agreement 2021 (the Agreement), and in particular, clause 24.21. That clause provides:
24.21 Subject to the requirements of clause 24.2, annual leave may be taken at half pay by full-time employees where approved by Ausgrid, but only where:
24.21.1 the employee has an annual leave balance of 216 hours or less (or 300 hours or less for a Seven Day Shift Worker) at the time of commencing annual leave; and
24.21.2 where the leave of absence is for a period of two weeks or longer, unless otherwise agreed between Ausgrid and the employee.
24.21.3 The taking of half pay leave under this clause does not break an employee’s continuity of service. However, during such an absence, any paid leave under this Agreement will accrue on a pro rata basis only.”
On 4 February 2022, I issued amended directions for the filing and service of evidence and outlines of submissions. At the hearing of the matter on 14 March 2022, Mr Reitano of Counsel appeared for the CEPU. Mr Morris and Mr Ardati, Solicitors of Ashurst Australia, appeared for Ausgrid. No objection to permission to appear was taken by either party, and permission was granted for each to be legally represented, pursuant to s.596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). The appearance of experienced legal practitioners greatly contributed to the efficient conduct and disposal of the proceeding.
There was no issue that the dispute was a matter arising under the Agreement, nor that the requisite steps in the disputes procedure clause had been followed.
Ausgrid accepted that:
a) The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) has jurisdiction to determine the dispute by arbitration (s.739(4) of the Act);
b) The Commission is not precluded from dealing with the dispute; and
c) The Applicant is covered by the Agreement, and has standing to agitate the dispute in the Commission.
The question for consideration and determination before the Commission was correctly outlined by Ausgrid as: whether Ausgrid retained a discretion to place a blanket or global refusal on approvals of leave at half pay without considering the circumstances of individuals making requests. Ausgrid submitted:[1]
THE EVIDENCE
The following people provided witness statements in the proceeding:
· Mr Darran Lee Miller, Organiser and Recruitment Officer of the CEPU, dated 14 February 2022 – for the CEPU; and
· Mr Paul York, Head of Employee Relations and People Partnering of Ausgrid, for the Respondent, dated 2 March 2022.
Mr Miller
Mr Miller noted that in his capacity as Organiser/Recruitment Officer for the CEPU, he had represented members of the CEPU employed by the Respondent, and prior to commencing work for the CEPU, was employed by the Respondent from September 2011.
Mr Miller noted that in March 2020, Ausgrid approached the CEPU and other unions covered by the Ausgrid Enterprise Agreement 2018 (the 2018 Agreement) to discuss strategies and safeguards to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ausgrid had concerns that they might lose their triple B financial rating and the impact that would have on their ability to borrow money to invest in the future. One of the risks identified by Ausgrid was Ausgrid’s annual leave liability with many employees having accrued what was described as ‘excess leave.’
In order to reduce excess leave, Ausgrid and the relevant Unions, including the CEPU, agreed that employees with excessive leave could voluntarily use an additional two weeks of annual leave in a bid to reduce Ausgrid’s leave liability. The parties also agreed to suspending approval of applications for annual leave at half pay until the end of the 2020/21 financial year. This agreement was made between the CEPU State Secretary, representatives of the other unions, and Ausgrid management.
Before that agreement in early 2020, annual leave at half pay had always been approved by Ausgrid where adequate employees were available to cover the leave, employees had a leave balance of less than 320 hours, and where the period of leave was for more than 2 weeks.
On 2 June 2021, Richard Gross, CEO of Ausgrid, sent an organization wide email to Ausgrid employees. The email included Ausgrid’s approach to leave management for the 2022 financial year, and stated that the approach to annual leave at half pay would be as follows:
“Continue approach on annual leave at half pay not being available (excluding parental leave)”.
On or around the 21 June 2020, Mr Miller wrote to Mr York in respect of the concerns of CEPU members in relation to their applications for annual leave at half pay not being approved. They had an informal discussion to the following effect:
Mr York: Ausgrid’s position hasn’t changed and there will be no approval of annual leave at half pay in FY21/22.
Mr Miller: This was not previously agreed to and there had been no consultation or a request from Ausgrid management to extend the period beyond FY20/21.
Mr York
Mr York’s evidence did not deviate in any matter of substance from that of Mr Miller. Mr York noted the decision of Ausgrid in May 2021, with agreement of the CEPU and other unions, to suspend the approval of annual leave at half pay until the end of the 2020/21 financial year.
Mr York also noted that on 2 June 2021, Ausgrid communicated that it must continue its efforts to take action for the ongoing financial health of its business, and that among others, the practice of not approving requests for annual leave at half pay (excluding parental leave) would continue in the 2021/22 financial year.
Regarding the operation of those provisions, and the specific limitations contained in the Agreement and the 2018 Agreement, Mr York gave the following evidence in cross-examination:[2]
“And then you see the same clause that we were just discussing just a second ago - well, nearly the same clause that we were discussing just a second ago is 24.21.1, but the figure of 320 hours is now 216 hours?‑‑‑Correct.
And, again, the reason for that was to assist Ausgrid in managing leave balances, so that people don't accumulate large balances?‑‑‑Correct.
And it's the case, is it not, that I think 216 hours equates to six weeks for day workers?‑‑‑That's correct.
And I didn't do this with you, but you might remember - if you don't, we can go back, but the figure for shift workers of 300 hours, was higher in the case of the 2018 agreement. Correct?‑‑‑That is correct.
It's a commensurate reduction?‑‑‑That's right.
And again, for shift workers, the purpose was so that Ausgrid would have the capacity to manage leave balances?‑‑‑Correct.
And that was the reason for existence of the limitation in the clause?‑‑‑It is a basis of assessing - it's a criteria for assessing the request. So Yes, it's a limitation for approval purposes.
it is common in fact, a requirement. So that if your leave balance - again using the example I used. under the previous agreement, if you leave balance is six weeks in one day, you don't have the capacity to take annual leave at half pay?‑‑‑Correct.
And if your leave balance is five weeks in six days, you do have the capacity? it might be five weeks and four days. That's why I hesitated?‑‑‑Ye.
Whichever one?‑‑‑Sure.
And, similarly, we may as well deal with it while we're here, the other requirement that's imposed is you must take at least two weeks, unless there's an agreement between Ausgrid and the employee, under the next paragraph. Correct?‑‑‑Correct.
So that if you have - if you have less than the six weeks you must effectively must use - if you are going to take it at half pay, you must use a minimum of one week of your bank, unless there is an agreement between Ausgrid and yourself otherwise?‑‑‑Correct.
The Relevant Provisions of the 2021 Agreement
Clause 24 of the Agreement provides as follows:
“The parties agree of the importance of taking annual leave on an annual basis, to have a break from work. As such, it is expected employees take their annual leave entitlement each year.
24.1 Employees, excluding shift workers and casuals, shall accumulate 144 hours of annual leave in each complete year of service. An employee’s entitlement to paid annual leave accrues progressively during a year of service according to the employee’s ordinary hours of work and accumulates from year to year.
24.2 This annual leave will be approved by Ausgrid provided that adequate employees are available to meet the needs of the organisation. Ausgrid must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by an employee to take paid annual leave.”
Regarding excess leave balances, clauses 24.16 and 24.18 provide:
“24.16 Where an employee has an annual leave balance in excess of 216 hours for a day worker or a shift worker who is not a Seven Day Shift worker or 300 hours for a Seven Day Shift Worker, the employee and manager will develop an excess annual leave reduction plan to reduce the annual leave balance within 12 months to not more than 216 or 300 hours respectively. The excess annual leave reduction plan must be agreed within a 2 month period of the employee being notified of their excess annual leave balance by the Manager. Both parties must adhere to the plan, unless changes are agreed by both parties as to the timing and/or duration of the leave.
…
24.18 An employee may seek written approval from their manager to increase their annual leave hours in excess of clause 24.16 due to extenuating circumstances. Approval is subject to:
25.18.1 adequate resources being available to meet business needs for any periods of increased annual leave when it is taken; and
25.18.2 a future annual leave request which is at least equal to the excess annual leave hours as defined in clause 24.16 is approved in the business system.
Annual leave approved in accordance with clause 24.18 can only be cancelled by mutual agreement between the employee and their manager. The manager will take into account any exceptional circumstances which are beyond the employee’s control when determining if the leave is to be cancelled or rescheduled.”
Regarding annual leave at half pay, clauses 24.20 and 24.21 provide:
“24.20 Subject to the requirements of clause 24.2, annual leave may be taken at half pay by part-time employees and employees on reduced hours.
24.21 Subject to the requirements of clause 24.2, annual leave may be taken at half pay by full-time employees where approved by Ausgrid, but only where:
24.21.1 the employee has an annual leave balance of 216 hours or less (or 300 hours or less for a Seven Day Shift Worker) at the time of commencing annual leave; and
24.21.2 where the leave of absence is for a period of two weeks or longer, unless otherwise agreed between Ausgrid and the employee.
24.21.3 The taking of half pay leave under this clause does not break an employee’s continuity of service. However, during such an absence, any paid leave under this Agreement will accrue on a pro rata basis only.”
The Provisions of Previous Agreements
The Ausgrid Agreement 2012
Regarding leave at half pay, Clause 26.15 of the Ausgrid Agreement 2012 provided simply:
“26.15 Annual leave maybe [sic] taken at half pay.”
The Ausgrid Agreement 2018
Regarding annual leave at half pay, clause 25.17 and 25.18 of the Ausgrid Agreement 2018 provided:
“25.17 Subject to the requirements of 25.2 Annual leave may be taken at half pay by part- time employees.
25.18 Subject to the requirements of 25.2 Annual leave may be taken at half pay by full- time employees where approved by Ausgrid, but only where:
25.18.1 the employee has an annual leave balance of 320 hours or less (or 400 hours or less for a Seven Day Shift Worker) at the time of commencing annual leave; and
25.18.2 where the leave of absence is for a period of two weeks or longer. unless otherwise agreed between Ausgrid and the employee.
25.18.3 The taking of half pay leave under this clause does not break an employee’s continuity of service. However during such an absence, any paid leave under this agreement will accrue on a pro rata basis only.”
Submissions of the CEPU
The CEPU summarises that the dispute concerns Ausgrid’s decision to refuse to approve requests from employees to take annual leave at half pay. It submitted that Ausgrid is bound by clause 24.2 of the Agreement to approve annual leave including annual leave at half pay, subject only to the proviso that adequate employees are available to meet the needs of Ausgrid, together with the other preconditions relating specifically to leave at half pay.
The CEPU submitted that the opening words in clause 24.21 inform the remainder of that clause, namely that the clause is ‘subject to the requirements of clause 24.2.’ There are three requirements in clause 24.2, namely that annual leave ‘will be approved,’ that that approval is qualified by there being ‘adequate employees [are] available to meet the needs of the organization,’ and that the application of that qualification will not be unreasonable.
The CEPU submits that the words ‘subject to the requirements’ are used to call up the requirements of clause 24.2, as well as to indicate that that the words of that clause will dominate where there might be inconsistency between the two clauses. It submits that the words ‘subject to the requirements’ would otherwise be completely unnecessary because all annual leave in Clause 24 is by definition ‘subject to’ to Clause 24.2.
It is further submitted that sub-clauses 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 introduce two further requirements that must be met in order for annual leave to be taken at half pay: one being the availability of a maximum leave balance and the other being a minimum period of leave (which can be overcome by agreement). On the submission of the CEPU, the effect of these requirements is to introduce two additional preconditions for annual leave at half pay, and nothing else.
In reference to Ausgrid’s submission that clause 24.21 simply provides Ausgrid with the ‘specific discretion to approve or decline whether the requested period could be taken at half pay,’ the CEPU submits that such a reading would render almost every word in the clause, and all of the words of sub-clauses 24.21.1 and 24.21.2, unnecessary. In the Union’s submission, an employee voting for the Agreement would not have reasonably thought that the clauses meant ‘Ausgrid may grant an employee annual leave at half pay if it wants to.’
The CEPU seeks an order or determination that where an employee covered by the Agreement applies for annual leave at half pay, Ausgrid must approve that annual leave so long as there are adequate employees available to meet Ausgrid’s needs, the employee has a leave balance of less than those outlined in the Agreement, and the absence is for a period of more than two weeks.
Submissions of the Respondent
Ausgrid contended that, properly construed, sub-clause 24.2.1 reserves to it a discretion to decide whether to approve an employee's request to take annual leave at half pay, including where the conditions contained in clauses 24.2 and 24.21 are otherwise met. Clauses 24.1, 24.9 and 24.10 specify the amount of annual leave that an employee accrues and how it accrues. Clause 24.2 states that "this" annual leave will be approved provided that employees are available to meet the needs of the organisation and that Ausgrid must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by an employee to take annual leave.
Ausgrid submitted that whilst clause 24.2, following immediately after clause 24.1, refers to "this annual leave" and might be thought to refer only to the annual leave provided for in clause 24.1, Ausgrid considers that clause 24.2 relates also to annual leave for shift workers prescribed in clauses 24.9 and 24.10.
The Respondent submitted that the implicitly normal standard position is that annual leave hours are taken and paid for in full. Clause 24.21 deals with what is an exceptional way of taking annual leave, namely for twice the number of hours accrued at half pay and prescribes four conditions governing the taking of accrued leave in that way.
Ausgrid submits that there are four conditions for the taking of leave at half pay. The first condition, made explicit in the opening words of clause 24.21 is that the requirements of clause 24.2 are met. The second condition, expressed in the opening words of clause 24.21, is that the taking of the leave at half pay is "approved by Ausgrid." The third and fourth conditions are those contained in sub-clauses 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 relating respectively to the employee's leave balance when commencing the leave and the minimum duration of the leave.
Ausgrid submitted that there are common sense and practical reasons for preserving the discretion in clause 24.21 to grant leave at half pay, and therefore giving the words "where approved by Ausgrid" full effect, including where the other conditions are met. For example:
(a)allowing one or more employees in a work group to take annual leave at half pay and consequently double the period during which the employee would be absent if the leave was taken on full pay may severely impact the ability of other employees to take annual leave when they wish to do so. There is no maximum period of leave at half pay which an employee may choose to take other than the limit arising from the maximum annual leave balance prescribed in sub-clause 24.21.1;
(b)Ausgrid may incur extra costs where, because of work requirements, it needs to back fill for an absent employee by having other employees work overtime on overtime penalty rates; and
(c)An employee taking annual leave at half pay will take longer to draw down their accrued annual leave and meet Ausgrid's objective of managing down the amount of accrued and untaken annual leave.
Ausgrid noted that there are other provisions in clause 24 (specifically clause 24.15, 24.18, and 24.19) where "approval" is expressly required, with each provision relating to exceptional arrangements for applying annual leave. In contrast to clause 24.21, clause 24.20 enables part-time employees and employees on reduced hours to take annual leave at half pay without the requirement of "where approved by Ausgrid". The only condition applying to such employees is clause 24.2. Ausgrid submitted this contrast tended to support the need to give full effect to all of the words in clause 24.21, including the words "where approved by Ausgrid".
Consideration
The CEPU and Ausgrid agreed that the principles relevant to the interpretation of enterprise agreements were as expressed by a Full Bench of the Commission in Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Berri Pty Limited (Berri). The CEPU and Ausgrid also agreed that the relevant terms of the Agreement are unambiguous.
I agree that the task of enterprise agreement interpretation is directed at finding the common intention of the parties by reference to what a reasonable person would understand the parties intended from the words used in the relevant agreement. The starting point is the ordinary grammatical meaning of the words, followed by any contextual indicators.
Those principles were summarised by the Full Bench in Berri (at paragraph [114]) as follows:
“1. The construction of an enterprise agreement, like that of a statute or contract, begins with a consideration of the ordinary meaning of the relevant words. The resolution of a disputed construction of an agreement will turn on the language of the agreement having regard to its context and purpose. Context might appear from:
(i) the text of the agreement viewed as a whole;
(ii) the disputed provision’s place and arrangement in the agreement;
(iii) the legislative context under which the agreement was made and in which it operates.
2. The task of interpreting an agreement does not involve rewriting the agreement to achieve what might be regarded as a fair or just outcome. The task is always one of interpreting the agreement produced by parties.
3. The common intention of the parties is sought to be identified objectively, that is by reference to that which a reasonable person would understand by the language the parties have used to express their agreement, without regard to the subjective intentions or expectations of the parties.
4. The fact that the instrument being construed is an enterprise agreement made pursuant to Part 2-4 of the FW Act is itself an important contextual consideration. It may be inferred that such agreements are intended to establish binding obligations.
5. The FW Act does not speak in terms of the ‘parties’ to enterprise agreements made pursuant to Part 2-4 agreements, rather it refers to the persons and organisations who are ‘covered by’ such agreements. Relevantly s.172(2)(a) provides that an employer may make an enterprise agreement ‘with the employees who are employed at the time the agreement is made and who will be covered by the agreement’. Section 182(1) provides that an agreement is ‘made’ if the employees to be covered by the agreement ‘have been asked to approve the agreement and a majority of those employees who cast a valid vote approve the agreement’. This is so because an enterprise agreement is ‘made’ when a majority of the employees asked to approve the agreement cast a valid vote to approve the agreement.
6. Enterprise agreements are not instruments to which the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) applies, however the modes of textual analysis developed in the general law may assist in the interpretation of enterprise agreements. An overly technical approach to interpretation should be avoided and consequently some general principles of statutory construction may have less force in the context of construing an enterprise agreement.
7. In construing an enterprise agreement it is first necessary to determine whether an agreement has a plain meaning or it is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning.
8. Regard may be had to evidence of surrounding circumstances to assist in determining whether an ambiguity exists.
9. If the agreement has a plain meaning, evidence of the surrounding circumstances will not be admitted to contradict the plain language of the agreement.
10. If the language of the agreement is ambiguous or susceptible of more than one meaning then evidence of the surrounding circumstance will be admissible to aid the interpretation of the agreement.
11. The admissibility of evidence of the surrounding circumstances is limited to evidence tending to establish objective background facts which were known to both parties which inform and the subject matter of the agreement. Evidence of such objective facts is to be distinguished from evidence of the subjective intentions of the parties, such as statements and actions of the parties which are reflective of their actual intentions and expectations.
12. Evidence of objective background facts will include:
(i) evidence of prior negotiations to the extent that the negotiations tend to establish objective background facts known to all parties and the subject matter of the agreement;
(ii) notorious facts of which knowledge is to be presumed; and
(iii) evidence of matters in common contemplation and constituting a common assumption.
13. The diversity of interests involved in the negotiation and making of enterprise agreements (see point 4 above) warrants the adoption of a cautious approach to the admission and reliance upon the evidence of prior negotiations and the positions advanced during the negotiation process. Evidence as to what the employees covered by the agreement were told (either during the course of the negotiations or pursuant to s.180(5) of the FW Act) may be of more assistance than evidence of the bargaining positions taken by the employer or a bargaining representative during the negotiation of the agreement.
14. Admissible extrinsic material may be used to aid the interpretation of a provision in an enterprise agreement with a disputed meaning, but it cannot be used to disregard or rewrite the provision in order to give effect to an externally derived conception of what the parties’ intention or purpose was.
15. In the industrial context it has been accepted that, in some circumstances, subsequent conduct may be relevant to the interpretation of an industrial instrument. But such post-agreement conduct must be such as to show that there has been a meeting of minds, a consensus. Post-agreement conduct which amounts to little more than the absence of a complaint or common inadvertence is insufficient to establish a common understanding.”
As observed at principle 1 in Berri, the resolution of a disputed construction of an agreement will turn on the language of the agreement having regard to its context and purpose, with such context being apparent from:
a)The text of the agreement viewed as a whole;
b)The disputed provision’s place and arrangement in the agreement; and
c)The legislative context under which the agreement was made and in which it operates.
General Agreement Provisions
I agree with the CEPU’s submission that the opening words in clause 24.21 inform the remainder of that clause, and that the clause is “subject to the requirements of clause 24.2”. Clause 24.2 provides annual leave acquired each year will be approved provided adequate employees are available to meet the needs of the organisation, and Ausgrid must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request to take leave. Clause 24.2 clearly requires a consideration of individual requests for annual leave, taking into account the needs of Ausgrid, and mandatory approval provided there are adequate employees otherwise available.
The interpretation advanced by Ausgrid that it retains a discretion to impose a blanket or global refusal on approvals of leave at half pay without considering the circumstances of individuals making requests is inconsistent with the requirements of clause 24.2, as adopted at the commencement of clause 24.21. Leave requests must be approved where there are adequate other employees available to meet the needs of the organisation, and requests for leave on half pay need only meet the two additional conditions outlined in clauses 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 (unless otherwise agreed).
I agree with the submission of the CEPU that the interpretation advanced by Ausgrid would render all of the words of sub-clauses 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 unnecessary.
The examples Ausgrid advanced as what it said were common sense and practical reasons for disregarding the other conditions in clause 24.21, and preserving the overall discretion in clause 24.21 to grant leave at half pay giving the words "where approved by Ausgrid" full effect, did not assist. Each example simply outlined a possibility that “may” occur. Whether such detriment would occur involves a consideration of the employee’s individual request and the needs of Ausgrid.
Insofar as Ausgrid points to the presence of the words “where approved by Ausgrid” in clause 24.21, and the absence of those words in clause 24.20 regarding leave at half pay for part-time employees and employees on reduced hours, I do not consider that difference in wording discloses an intention for an additional layer of approval. Both clauses 24.20 and 24.21 commence with “Subject to the requirements of clause 24.2”, and, as noted above, the only sensible interpretation of clause 24.21 is that “where approved by Ausgrid” refers to approval pursuant to clause 24.2.
Legislative Context
The effect of the legislative context is of short compass, but involves employers not unreasonably refusing to agree to requests of employees to take paid annual leave, consistent with the provisions of clause 24.2. Section 88 of the Act provides:
“Taking paid annual leave
(1) Paid annual leave may be taken for a period agreed between an employee and his or her employer.
(2) The employer must not unreasonably refuse to agree to a request by the employee to take paid annual leave.”
Conclusion
The CEPU sought an order or determination that where an employee covered by the Agreement applies for annual leave at half pay, Ausgrid must approve that annual leave so long as there are adequate employees available to meet Ausgrid’s needs, the employee has a leave balance of less than 216 hours (or 300 hours for a Seven Day Shift Worker) and the absence is for a period of more than two weeks.
Ausgrid, on the other hand, submitted that the Commission should determine that, on its proper construction, clause 24 of Agreement preserves to Ausgrid a discretion to grant or not approve an employee's request to taken annual leave at half pay, including where the conditions prescribed by clauses 24.2, 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 are met.
For the reasons outlined above I determine that clause 24 of the Agreement, on its proper construction, does not provide Ausgrid with a discretion to grant or not approve an employee's request to take annual leave at half pay, even though the conditions prescribed by clauses 24.2, 24.21.1 and 24.21.2 are met. To the contrary, Ausgrid must approve an employee’s request for annual leave at half pay where there are adequate employees available to meet Ausgrid’s needs, the employee has a leave balance of less than 216 hours (or 300 hours for a Seven Day Shift Worker) and the absence is for a period of more than two weeks.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
R Reitano for the CEPU.
A Morris and M Ardati for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2022.
Sydney (by Video):
March 14.
[1] Transcript PN 252.
[2] Transcript PN 150 to 161.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR741596>
0
0
0