Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc T/A Islamic School of Canberra

[2020] FWCA 6506

[2020] FWCA 6506

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225 - Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc T/A Islamic School of Canberra
(AG2020/647)

Educational services
COMMISSIONER JOHNS	SYDNEY, 7 DECEMBER 2020

Application for termination of the Islamic School of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013.

[1] This decision concerns an application by Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc T/A Islamic School of Canberra (Applicant/Employer/School) under section 225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to terminate the Islamic School of Canberra Enterprise Agreement 2011-2013 (2011 Agreement).

[2] The nominal expiry date of the 2011 Agreement was 31 December 2013.

[3] The Employer wants to terminate the 2011 Agreement because, in summary, it is contended that, termination of the 2011 Agreement will:

a) remove disparity between the employment conditions of different groups of teachers in the School; and
b) assist the School to become more financially viable (and help to ensure its ongoing operations).

[4] If the 2011 Agreement is terminated employees covered by it will be covered by either the Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2010 or the Educational Services (Schools) General Staff Award 2010 (together, the Education Modern Awards).

[5] The Application is opposed by the Independent Education Union of Australia NSW/ACT Branch (IEU) and its members.

[6] An initial hearing of the matter occurred in the Fair Work Commission (Commission), constituted by the late Deputy President Kovacic on 3 July 2020. A second hearing occurred in the Commission, as presently constituted, on 18 September 2020. The Deputy President had previously given the parties permission to be represented under s.596 of the FW Act. Before me:

a) The School was represented by Ms A Costin of counsel, instructed by E Shoemark, solicitor with Sneddon, Hall & Gallop Lawyers.
b) The IEU was represented by Mr A Guy of counsel, instructed by A Hioe from the IEU.

[7] In coming to this decision I have had regard to all the material filed in this matter, including the following:

Document title

Form F24B dated 11 March 2020

Form F24C dated 11 March 2020

Applicant outline of submissions dated 15 May 2020

Witness statement of Dr Mahmoud Eid dated 15 May 2020

Witness statement of Mohammad R Chowdhury dated 15 May 2020

Respondent outline of submissions dated 5 June 2-2-

Witness statement of Ghada Wadeisa dated 3 June 2020

Witness statement of Mai Shouman dated 3 June 2020

Witness statement of Mariam Haider dated 3 June 2020

Witness statement of Neha Sultana dated 3 June 2020

Witness statement of Farah Gondal dated 4 June 2020

Witness statement of Lyn Caton dated 3 June 2020

Applicant outline of submissions in reply dated 16 June 2020

Witness statement in reply of Dr Mahmoud Eid dated 16 June 2020

Revised witness statement of Mr Abdul Mannan dated 28 July 2020

Applicant revised witness statement of Mr Mohammad R Chowdhury dated August 2020

Applicant revised witness statement of Ms Saba Al-Jaboori dated 22 August 2020

Final Written submissions of the Applicant filed on 25 September 2020

Final Written submissions of the IEU filed on 25 September 2020

The Application

[8] The School’s Form F24B Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after the nominal expiry date was accompanied by a Statutory Declaration made by Dr Mahmoud Ed, the School’s Principal. Dr Ed declared that,

“The termination of the Agreement will not be contrary to public interest as the termination will remove disparity between the employment conditions of different groups of teachers in the school, and assist the school to become more financially viable and help to ensure its ongoing operation.

The Agreement was made between the employees of the School and the former owner of the School, AFIC Schools (ACT) Limited. Under the transfer of business provisions in the Fair Work Act (s311-313), the Agreement only applies to only a limited number of teachers who remain employed at the school who were first engaged prior to the sale of the school to the current owner. Attached to this declaration is a copy of the legal advice obtained about this issue for the purpose of clarifying the position for the union.

The School is a small Islamic school in Canberra, with 271 students enrolled in 2020. The government funding to the school provides $8,000 - $8,400 per student, however the cost of education is about $18,000 per child. The current school fees for the school are $2,400, which is very low for the sector, but the school still faces challenges obtaining these fees from parents.

The School has experienced significant financial difficulties in recent years. This has been contributed to by:

• The conditions of employment in the Agreement placing significant financial burden on the school, including 25 days of sick leave per year.
• confusion about which teachers are covered by the Agreement, due to advice from the union to all teaching staff that the Agreement applied to them when this was not the case, and the threat to the board of the school of industrial action if the Agreement conditions were not given to all staff.

If the Agreement were to continue to apply, this would continue to impact on the school and impact on its ongoing viability, which is clearly contrary to public interest.

The termination of the Agreement would not reduce the entitlements of employees below the applicable Award. For those teachers not covered by the Agreement, terms of employment have been offered under individual contracts above award conditions, including a pay scale agreed with the union and additional personal leave. The terms of employment offered are the maximum that the school can afford to offer at this point in time. It should be noted that due to the pay scale being offered to staff, it is expected that salaries will form a very significant expense for the school this year, and approximately 89% of the school’s total income will be allocated to salaries, leaving a small 11% (approx.) for all other running costs.

Currently there exists in the school two sets of employment conditions – a minority covered by the Agreement, with majority of employees being issued individual contracts. The termination of the Agreement would remove the disparity and place all the teachers on equivalent conditions. This will assist in improving the culture of the school and allowing the school management to focus on improving the school and education, rather than clarifying the correct employment entitlements (which has consumed much of 2020 already).”

[9] In addressing the effect of termination, Dr Ed contended that,

There are a total of 32 staff employed in the school, 22 of which are teaching staff (19 full-time and 3 part-time).

The termination of the Agreement will only impact on 3 full-time ongoing teachers still covered by the Agreement. The termination of the Agreement could potentially impact on the following additional employees:

• one full-time teacher would be covered by the Agreement but is currently on leave without pay and has commenced employment at another school.
• There two teachers who commenced employment prior to the sale of the school, however these are employees who are not qualified teachers who are granted annual ‘permit to teach’ registrations by the Teacher Quality Institute on the basis that no qualified teachers are available to fill the position. The school is required to make that assessment on an annual basis, and so the ability to offer those teachers employed is dependent on an inability to secure a qualified teacher for the role.

In relation to those employees covered or potentially covered by the Agreement (at least 3 and potentially 5 out of 32), the school offers those teachers the maximum conditions it is able to, including the pay scale agreed by the union.

The disadvantage to those teachers of cancelling the enterprise agreement will be limited to:

1. reduction of personal leave from 25 days per year to 15 days per year, which is still a higher entitlement to the 10 days per year provided by the Award.

2. removal of paid maternity leave in addition to the government funding paid parental leave scheme. At this point in time I understand that there are two female teachers who this could impact on. This is a condition that the school currently simply cannot afford. The school has included in terms offered to the teachers not covered by the Agreement 2 weeks of paid maternity leave, and if the Agreement is terminated will offer the same to the staff previously under the Agreement.

There has historically been some confusion about which teachers are covered by the Agreement, in part due to advice from the union to all teaching staff that the Agreement applied to them when this was not the case. Termination of the agreement would remove this confusion and therefore be to the benefit of all staff.

The union has sought to negotiate a new enterprise agreement to replace the old agreement. However, this has been difficult for the school because of the financial difficulties explained in 2.1 above. The school wants to have sufficient time to strengthen the finances and operations of the school so it can confidently establish the appropriate terms and conditions of employment for staff.

I am a new principal to the school and am working hard to establish a rapport and trust with staff so we can together build the school. This has been very difficult with the union creating confusion with staff about entitlements and placing unreasonable pressure on the school.”

Legislative scheme

[10] Sections 225 and 226 of the FW Act provide:

“225 Application for termination of an enterprise agreement after its nominal expiry date

If an enterprise agreement has passed its nominal expiry date, any of the following may apply to the FWC for the termination of the agreement:

(a) one or more of the employers covered by the agreement;

(b) an employee covered by the agreement;

(c) an employee organisation covered by the agreement.”

“226 When the FWC must terminate an enterprise agreement

If an application for the termination of an enterprise agreement is made under section 225, the FWC must terminate the agreement if:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that it is not contrary to the public interest to do so; and

(b) the FWC considers that it is appropriate to terminate the agreement taking into account all the circumstances including:

(i) the views of the employees, each employer, and each employee organisation (if any), covered by the agreement; and

(ii) the circumstances of those employees, employers and organisations including the likely effect that the termination will have on each of them.”

Consideration – s.226(a) - Is termination of the Agreement contrary to the public interest?

[11] In Energy Resources of Australia Ltd v LHMU 1 his Honour Vice President Watson set out the relevant authorities relating to the public interest as follows:

“[11] The public interest requirement in s 226(a) is expressed in similar terms to previous s 170MH(3) of the WR Act. That section was subject to consideration by a Full Bench of the AIRC on a number of occasions. Those authorities make it clear that the public interest involves something distinct from the interests of the parties although they may be similarly affected. In Re Kellogg Brown and Root Bass Strait (Esso) Onshore/Offshore Facilities Certified Agreement 2000 4 a Full Bench said (at [22-27]):

“[22] The absence of any reference to the interests of the negotiating parties in s.170MH(3) is significant. It follows that the views of persons bound by the agreement may be relevant to the exercise of the discretion if they shed light upon the effect of termination on the public interest, but they should not be given any independent weight. To do so would be to import into the application of the section something which on its proper construction it does not include.

[23] The notion of public interest refers to matters that might affect the public as a whole such as the achievement or otherwise of the various objects of the Act, employment levels, inflation, and the maintenance of proper industrial standards. An example of something in the last category may be a case in which there was no applicable award and the termination of the agreement would lead to an absence of award coverage for the employees. While the content of the notion of public interest cannot be precisely defined, it is distinct in nature from the interests of the parties. And although the public interest and the interests of the parties may be simultaneously affected, that fact does not lessen the distinction between them.

[24] We were referred to a number of authorities concerning the ascertainment of the public interest. It is sufficient to refer to two. The first is the decision of the High Court of Australia in Queensland Electricity Commission; Ex parte Electrical Trades Union of Australia (the QEC case). In that case the Court was considering the exercise of the discretion conferred on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by s.41(1)(d)(iii) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. A similar discretion is now conferred upon this Commission by s.111(1)(g)(iii) of the Act. That section reads:

"111 Particular powers of Commission

. . .

(1) The Commission may:

. . .

(g) dismiss a matter or part of a matter, or refrain from further hearing or from determining the industrial dispute or part of the industrial dispute, if it appears:

. . .

(iii) that further proceedings are not necessary or desirable in the public interest;"

[25] The QEC case was concerned with whether or not the Commission had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in upholding an application by the Queensland Electricity Commission to refrain from further hearing or from determining an industrial dispute between it and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia. The following passage appears in the joint judgement of the majority:

". . . Ascertainment in any particular case of where the public interest lies will often depend on a balancing of interests, including competing public interests, and be very much a question of fact and degree. In this case the Commission was called upon to weigh in the balance two competing public interests. One was the importance of settling in its entirety the dispute initiated by the E.T.U.'s log of claims. The other was the importance of leaving the dispute to be resolved by the State tribunal despite the limitations on its jurisdiction if that course was likely to maintain the marked improvement in industrial relations in the industry that had occurred since the dispute arose and thereby contribute to industrial peace and an efficient power supply.”

[26] It is clear from this passage that the ascertainment of the public interest may involve balancing countervailing public interests. That the Commission should take all of the circumstances into account is made clear by Dawson J in Re Australian Insurance Employees Union; Ex parte Academy Insurance Pty Ltd. These authorities provide useful general guidance in the application of the test in s.170MH(3). They illustrate the types of interests which can be properly described as public interests and confirm the breadth of circumstances which may be relevant to the ascertainment of those interests.

[27] It should be emphasized that the Commission's consideration of the public interest for the purpose of s.170MH(3) is directed to the consequences of terminating the agreement. In a given case, some consequences will be clearly predictable, others will be less so. For the most part the Commission should be guided by the likely foreseeable consequences of termination rather than speculation about possible consequences.” (references omitted)

[12] In May 2020 the School submitted 2 that:

“16. … in applying the test in Kellogg Brown to the Applicant’s application, the relevant public interest considerations are:

(a) The objects of the Act; and

(b) The maintenance of proper industrial standards.

17. The objects of the Act are contained in section 3 of the Act. The objects relevant to this application are:

(a) providing workplace relations laws that are fair to working Australians, are flexible for businesses, promote productivity and economic growth for Australia’s future economic prosperity and take into account Australia’s international labour obligations;
(b) ensuring a guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum terms and conditions through the National Employment Standards, modern awards and national minimum wage orders;
(c) ensuring that the guaranteed safety net of fair, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions can no longer be undermined by the making of statutory individual employment agreements of any kind given that such agreements can never be part of a fair workplace relations system;
(d) (achieving productivity and fairness through an emphasis on enterprise-level collective bargaining underpinned by simple good faith bargaining obligations and clear rules governing industrial action;
(e) acknowledging the special circumstances of small and medium-sized businesses.

18. The termination of the 2011 EA is not consistent with the objects of the Act, set out above.

(a) The employees of the Applicant remain protected by the safety net of terms and conditions of employment contained in the National Employment Standards and the Education Awards.
(b) The Applicant engages those teachers not covered by the 2011EA on individual contracts that are consistent with the Education Awards, while also providing higher salaries with guaranteed increases and additional leave entitlements.
(c) The termination of the 2011 EA will contribute to fairness between the employment terms and conditions experienced by the teaching staff, and does not interfere with a good faith bargaining process to see if anew agreement can be reached.

[13] The IEU submitted 3 that,

”19. It is trite law that as the party making the application, it is incumbent on the Applicant to make out their case and to establish, on the balance of probabilities that the termination of the Agreement is not contrary to the public interest, and the Commission should exercise its discretion and terminate the Agreement, after considering the views of the parties. There is no presumption that the termination of an enterprise agreement is, in of itself in the public interest, unless the applicant to a matter can satisfy the Commission to the contrary.

20. In determining whether the Commission should terminate an enterprise agreement, it must first be satisfied that the termination is not contrary to the public interest. The concept of the ‘public interest’ has been held to be ‘something that is distinct from the interests of the persons and bodies covered by the agreements.’ The ‘public interest’ was also said to be ‘matters that might affect the public as a whole such as the achievement or otherwise of the various objects of the Act, employment levels, inflation and the maintenance of proper industrial standards.’

21. The IEU submits that the termination of the Agreement is contrary to the public interest as it removes advantageous terms and conditions in respect of personal/carers leave for teachers covered by the Agreement in times where teachers are classified as essential workers during times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

22. Teachers covered by the Agreement receive 25 days personal/carer’s leave. This additional leave has the wider public benefit of allowing teachers covered by the Agreement a greater opportunity to stay away from the workplace and maintaining a salary, reducing or eliminating the risk of making students, staff, parents and the general public ill.

23. In addition to the above, the Agreement provides for 14 weeks’ paid parental leave, which is consistent with other non-Government schools in the ACT. Ensuring that terms and conditions such as these remain is essential to ensure those who access parental leave (being mainly women) are not discriminated, as well as ensuring that the proper industrial standards across the ACT (that being 14 weeks’ paid parental leave) are maintained.

24. Finally, the IEU submits that one of the biggest problems with schools who employ teachers on the modern award is attracting new teachers and retaining experienced teachers in long term employment. Put simply, if teachers do not remain at a school for long, it creates wider issues such as stability and consistency of the level of education delivered to students.

25. In this respect, the IEU submits that it is contrary to the public interest to reduce the standard of employee entitlements for those covered by the Agreement on the basis that the termination of the Agreement has the potential to effect the health and safety of teachers, students, parents, potentially discriminates against those who have newborn or newly adopted children, and threatens the stability and consistency of the level of education at the School.”

[14] The attempt by the IEU to characterise the effect on individual employees (by reason of the loss of leave entitlements if the 2011 Agreement is terminated) as a matter of public interest by reason of the COVID-19 pandemic was novel, but not persuasive. There was no evidence that the loss of 10 personal leave days (but a retention of 15 days – i.e. 5 more than the National Employment Standards), was a risk to the health and safety of anyone. In any case the Australian Capital Territory (indeed Australia) has largely controlled the possible impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[15] The submission that terminating the 2011 Agreement “has the potential to effect the health and safety of teachers, students, parents, potentially discriminates against those who have newborn or newly adopted children, and threatens the stability and consistency of the level of education at the School”, was a Henny Penny submission. The sky is not going to fall if the 2011 Agreement is terminated.

[16] In fact, there is little public interest in this matter. The termination of the 2011 Agreement will have no affect on the public as a whole. It will not affect employment levels. It will not affect inflation. It will not affect the maintenance of proper industrial standards for the broader population. There are underpinning modern awards, as minimum standards, that will continue to cover the employees. Consequently, because the matter is invested with little public interest it cannot be contrary to the public interest to terminate the 2011 Agreement.

[17] As has been recognised in other matters “the longer the time after expiry of the nominal term the strong the case for termination.” 4 The 2011 Agreement commenced 9 years ago. At the date of this decision it passed its nominal expiry date almost 7 years ago. The FW Act provides for termination. It cannot be assumed that enterprise agreements will continue unaltered forever. It might also be that in reverting to the Education Modern Awards it encourages enterprise bargaining. This would be consistent with the objects of the FW Act.

[18] For these reasons the Commission, as presently constituted, is satisfied that the termination of the 2011 Agreement would not be contrary to the public interest.

Consideration – s.226(b)(i) – views of the parties

Views of the employer

[19] The view of the School is that the 2011 Agreement should be terminated. So much is self-evident from the manner in which it has prosecuted the application.

[20] The School also expressed the view that the termination of the 2011 Agreement would reduce confusion amongst staff about whether they are covered by the 2011 Agreement and also result in administrative efficiencies arising out of having one set of employment conditions governed by contracts of employment and the Education Modern Awards.

Views of the employees covered by the 2011 Agreement

[21] There is a dispute about the coverage of the 2011 Agreement. The School contends that it covers 3 employees and possibly up to 5 (out of a staffing population of 32). The IEU contends that the 2011 Agreement covers 7 employees. The dispute about coverage centres around whether the 2011 Agreement covers employees who are permitted to teach under the Australian Capital Territory’s Teacher Quality Institute’s “Permit to Teach” Scheme (PTTS).

[22] I do not have to resolve the dispute about coverage in order to determine the application before me. Not much turns on whether the 2011 Agreement covers 3, 5 or 7 employees. In either case it is a small proportion of the total workforce. Whoever the 2011 Agreement covers, the employees concerned commenced employment with the previous owner of the business. They became employees of the current Employer when it bought the business in December 2017. Three years have passed since the transmission of their employment.

[23] Witness statements were filed on behalf of:

(a) Ghada Wadeisa, full-time class-room Teacher.
(b) Mai Shouman, Arabic and Islamic Studies Teacher.
(c) Mariam Haider, full-time class-room Teacher.
(d) Neha Sultana, Executive Coordinator and full-time class-room Teacher.
(e) Farah Gondal, full-time class-room Teacher.
(f) Lynette Caton, IEU Union Organiser.

[24] Covered employees oppose the termination of the 2011 Agreement.

Views of the employees not-covered by the 2011 Agreement

[25] The IEU advised that it had,

“… circulated a petition to its members opposing the termination of the Agreement. This document has been signed by no less than ten members. In this respect, the IEU submits that there is a wider opposition than just that of directly affected employees to the present application.” 5

Views of the employee organisation

[26] The IEU indicated that it shared the views of its members.

Consideration – s.226(b)(ii) – effect of termination

Effect on employer

[27] If the 2011 Agreement is terminated then the School,

(a) will have a common set of terms and conditions governed by contracts of employment and the Education Modern Awards.
(b) there will be a reduction in the need to accrue additional personal leave.
(c) the School will not have to provide for 14 weeks paid maternity leave.
(d) Employees will be required to provide the School with seven (not four) weeks’ notice of their resignation.

[28] There was a contest about the School’s financial situation. In a s.225 application it is not essential that an employer demonstrate a dire financial situation. In the present matter the financial situation is not rosey.

[29] Regardless of the true state of affairs, it is readily apparent that a reduction in leave entitlements will save the School money. Having regard to the School’s financial situation any saving would be welcome. Further, an increase in the requirement concerning notice of resignation will make it easier for the School to plan staffing needs.

[30] These effects on the Employee weigh in favour of terminating the 2011 Agreement.

Effect on employees covered by the 2011 Agreement

[31] The IEU filed material on behalf of the covered employees. It submitted that,

27. The IEU submits that the seven employees covered by the Agreement will suffer a significant adverse impact on their terms and conditions of employment if the Agreement is to be terminated. Generally speaking, the affected employeesoppose the termination of the Agreement. 6

28. More specifically, the covered employees will lose some ten days of paid personal leave. This is a not insignificant loss in entitlement that these employees are otherwise entitled to. These benefits do not exist in a vacuum and two of the employees covered by the Agreement have had cause to use the

additional personal leave provisions. 7

29. Secondly, the employees covered by the Agreement will suffer a significant reduction in their paid parental leave if the Agreement is terminated, from 14 weeks to the statutory Government minimum. 8 This is a not insignificant reduction in entitlements for employees, which will disproportionately affect women also. Similarly to that of the personal leave entitlements, these entitlements do not exist in a vacuum and have recently been utilised by employees of the Applicant.9 In these circumstances, the IEU submits that the Commission should give significant weight to removing parental leave entitlements, particularly in circumstances where it will disproportionately affect women.10

30. Thirdly, employees covered by the Agreement will be required to give seven term weeks’ notice. 11 Such an obligation, imposed on the employees covered by the Agreement will reduce the overall flexibility afforded to them.

[32] Covered employees will:

(a) not suffer a reduction in their take home pay.
(b) lose an entitlement to 25 days of paid personal leave. Instead they will receive 15 days (i.e. still 5 days more than the National Employment Standard 10 days and the entitlement in the Education Modern Awards). This may impact covered employees who demonstrated that they access more than 15 days of personal leave.
(c) lose an entitlement to 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave.
(d) lose an additional accrual of long service leave above 10 years’ service.
(e) be required to provide seven (not four) weeks’ notice of resignation (thus giving them less flexibility).
(f) have the same leave entitlements as not-covered employees.

[33] I accept that the effect on the employees covered by the 2011 Agreement will not be insignificant. These detriments weigh against terminating the 2011 Agreement.

Effect on employees not-covered by the 2011 Agreement

[34] Not-covered employees will have the same leave entitlements as covered employees.

Effect on employee organisation

[35] There is no discernible effect on the IEU if the 2011 Agreement is terminated.

[36] Having considered all that I am required to consider under s. s.226(b), on balance the Commission, as presently constituted, is satisfied that it is appropriate to terminate the 2011 Agreement taking into account all the circumstances.

[37] While the employees covered by the 2011 Agreement will lose some entitlements, the employees will remain covered by a safety net of minimum entitlements and entitlements in excess of the Education Modern Awards under contract between them and the Employer. The termination will benefit the financial position of the School in circumstances were its financial situation is not rosey.

Conclusion

[38] Having considered each of the matters I am required to consider under s.226 of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the termination of the 2011 Agreement is:

(a) not contrary to the public interest; and
(b) appropriate in all the circumstances.

[39] Consequently, I must terminate the 2011 Agreement.

[40] The Commission, as presently constituted, Orders that the 2011 Agreement is terminated with effect from 31 December 2020.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

A Costin of counsel for the applicant.
A Guy of counsel for the IEU.

Hearing details:

Before Deputy President Kovacic

2020.

Canberra (by video):

July 3.

Before Commissioner Johns

2020.

Sydney (by video):

September 18.

Final written submissions:

Applicant, 25 September 2020

Respondent, 25 September 2020

 1   [2010] FWA 2434.

 2   Footnotes omitted

 3   Footnotes omitted

 4   Energy Resources of Australia Ltd v Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union[2010] FWA 2434, [31]

 5 Respondents outline of submissions dated 15 May 2020 at [32].

 6   Statement of Ghada Wadeisa dated 3 June 2020 at [23]-[26]; Statement of Neha Sultana dated 3 June 2020 at [11]-[14]; Statement of Mai Shouman dated 3 June 2020 at [11]-[13]; Statement of Farah Gondal dated 4 June 2020 at [9]-[10]; Statement of Kayis Ablahd dated 3 June 2020 at [12]-[15]; Statement of Mariam Haider dated 3 June 2020 at [17]-[18].

 7   Statement of Mai Shouman dated 3 June 2020 at [7] and [12]; Statement of Ghada Wadeisa dated 3 June 2020 at [19]-[22].

 8   Applicant outline of submissions dated 15 May 2020 at [25.2 (d)].

 9 Statement of Miriam Haider dated 3 June 2020 at [7].

 10 Statement of Lyn Caton dated 3 June 2020 at [61].

 11   Statement of Kayis Ablahd dated 3 June 2020 at [15(b)].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<AE889563   PR725126>