Mr Simon Turnbull v St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc

[2013] FWC 4530

[2013] FWC 4530

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

AND

REASONS FOR DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Mr Simon Turnbull
v
St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc.
(C2012/5212)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN PERTH, 13 SEPTEMBER 2013

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES; [s186(6)].

[1] This is an application by Mr Simon Turnbull seeking an order, pursuant to a term of his enterprise agreement, that he be paid an air conditioning allowance from 4 July 2011.

[2] Mr Turnbull’s employer, St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc, opposes the order sought and asserts that Mr Turnbull is not entitled to the allowance as a “Posting” employee. Accordingly, the employer seeks for the application to be dismissed.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3] On 6 September 2012, United Voice made application for Fair Work Australia now Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a dispute in accordance with a Dispute Settlement Procedure (DSP).

[4] On 26 November 2012, United Voice sought for the application to be varied to the extent that the applicant be Mr Simon Turnbull in lieu of United Voice. Pursuant to paragraph 586(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), I consider it appropriate to amend the application for Mr Turnbull (Applicant) to be the applicant.

[5] Mr Simon Turnbull is in dispute with St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc (SJAA or Employer).

[6] The application is made pursuant to s.739 of the FW Act.

[7] The DSP is contained in Clause 32: Dispute Settling Procedure of the St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc Ambulance Officers’/Paramedics Enterprise Agreement 2011-2014 (2011 Agreement).

[8] The application was the subject of conciliation on 22 October 2012. Conciliation was unsuccessful. In the absence of a resolution to the dispute, the parties requested arbitration and a hearing on 18 March 2013.

[9] The hearing on 18 March 2013 was adjourned due to the inability of the Applicant’s representative to attend.

[10] The application was the subject of a hearing on 22 May 2013. At the hearing on 22 May 2013, the Applicant was represented by Ms C Allen, Industrial Officer, United Voice and he gave evidence on his own behalf.

[11] The Employer was represented by Mr A Power of Counsel and evidence given by:

● Mr J Fonte, Operations Manager;
● Ms I Niemasik, Workforce Planning Manager;
● Mr R Spaseski, Senior Human Resource Advisor.

[12] At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. This is my decision and reasons for decision.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

[13] Mr Turnbull commenced employment with the Employer as a Community Paramedic on 4 July 2011.

[14] Mr Turnbull’s conditions of employment since 4 July 2011 are, in part, regulated by the 2011 Agreement and the former St John Ambulance Australia (Western Australia) Inc Ambulance Officers’/Paramedics Union Collective Agreement 2008-2011 (2008 Agreement).

[15] Mr Turnbull has, since 4 July 2011, been employed in Wyndham with the Employer’s Country Ambulance Service.

[16] Mr Turnbull was initially employed by the Employer as a Community Paramedic for 12 months and has had his appointment to Wyndham extended on two occasions for six (6) months.

[17] From 4 July 2011 to date, Mr Turnbull has not been paid an air conditioning allowance.

[18] In October 2011, Mr Turnbull raised the issue of an air conditioning allowance with Mr Jon Moores, the then Country Operation Manager. Mr Moores responded to the Applicant’s enquiry on 18 October 20112 stating, “I have no issue considering it however if we do it for one it needs to be done for all.”

[19] On 16 November 2011, Ms Allen, representing Mr Turnbull contacted the Employer’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Ahern concerning the air conditioning allowance.

[20] On 14 February 2012, Mr Ahern responded stating:

“SJAA maintains that employees on a posting are not required to dwell in the location permanently, nor are they required to settle their usual abode in their posting location. The ordinary definition of “reside” infers permanency and as such a posting of between 30 to 52 weeks duration is not an extended period under the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

SJAA maintains that employees on a posting above the 26th parallel are not entitled to the air-conditioning allowance as provided in Clause 16.10 of the Agreement, and as such SJAA will not be paying the air-conditioning allowance.” 1

[21] On 20 August 2012, United Voice wrote to the Employer giving notice of a dispute pursuant to clause 32 of the SJAA Agreement.

[22] An application to the Commission was lodged on 6 September 2012. The amended application was lodged with the Commission on 26 November 2012.

THE DISPUTE

[23] The essence of this dispute is whether Mr Turnbull is entitled to receive, pursuant to the the 2011 and 2008 enterprise agreements, an air conditioning allowance for the duration of his employment in Wyndham.

[24] To determine whether Mr Turnbull is entitled to the air conditioning allowance, it is necessary to consider the provisions in the 2011 Agreement and its predecessor, the 2008 Agreement.

AIR CONDITIONING PROVISIONS OF THE 2011 AND 2008 AGREEMENTS

[25] Both subclauses 18.10 and 16.10 of the 2011 and 2008 Agreements are identical and read as follows:

“Air-conditioning Allowance

Employees will be paid this allowance when required by St John Ambulance to reside above the 26th parallel. The amount will be in accordance with Appendix 2 of this Agreement.” (my emphasis)

[26] For the purposes of this decision and reasons for decision, I shall refer only to subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement. However, reference to the 2011 Agreement is meant to incorporate the identical subclause in the 2008 Agreement.

[27] There is no dispute between the parties that Wyndham is above the 26th parallel as described in the 2011 Agreement and the Commission can deal with the application pursuant to the DSP.

APPLICANT’S CASE

[28] The Applicant submits that the dispute simply relates to the interpretation of subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement providing for an entitlement to an air conditioning allowance.

[29] According to the Applicant, subclause 18.10 Air-conditioning Allowance of the 2011 Agreement has a simple and plain meaning, therefore, evidence of surrounding circumstances is inadmissible and relies on BP Australia Pty Ltd v Nyran Pty Ltd and Others (2003) 198 ALR 442.

[30] Mr Turnbull submits that having regard to the nature of his employment, he was required by the Employer to relocate his place of residence from Perth to Wyndham on 4 July 2011 when commencing as a Community Paramedic. Accordingly, Mr Turnbull is entitled to the air conditioning allowance for the whole period in which he has been posted to Wyndham.

EMPLOYER’S CASE

[31] The Employer submits that the 2011 Agreement provides a clear distinction between “Relief”, “Posting” and “Permanent” country employees.

[32] Clause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement only applies to Permanent country employees.

[33] Mr Turnbull took up the position in Wyndham in the full knowledge he would be responsible for payment of utility charges during his temporary posting.

[34] The Applicant was never required to reside above the 26th parallel, rather he applied for, and was successful, in obtaining a temporary posting to Wyndham.

[35] The Employer has never contemplated, or agreed, to the payment of an air conditioning allowance for Posting employees.

[36] The Employer submits that, “an industrial instrument must always be constructed in context: the context of particular provisions within the agreement as a whole and the context in which the agreement was made including any relevant statutory or historical context”. In short, surrounding circumstances are admissible. The Employer relies on Kucks v CSR Ltd (1996) 66 IR 182; Watson & Ors v ACT Department of Disability Housing and Community Services[2008] AIRC 291 at 15; The Australian Workers Union, West Australia Branch v Co-operative Bulk Handling Limited[2010] FWAFB 3801 at 12.

[37] The words used in an industrial instrument should not be interpreted in a strict technical sense, or in a way which is narrow or pedantic, because those who have framed the industrial instrument are often non-lawyers and have drafted the words in the context of custom and practice related to the industry or particular employer; Amcor Limited v the CFMEU [2005] 222 CLR 241; Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Arkwood (Gloucester) Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 5135.

[38] Extrinsic material is admissible to demonstrate the existence of ambiguity. Further, extrinsic material can be relied upon even if ambiguity in the text is not found; Watson & Ors v ACT Department of Disability Housing and Community Services[2008] AIRC 291.

[39] In subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement, the words “required” and “reside” are ambiguous and the parties have adopted different views as to the meaning of these words.

[40] The Employer’s interpretation of the air conditioning allowance is consistent to the historical application of the allowance.

CONSIDERATION

[41] Clause 8 of the 2011 Agreement requires employees to be issued with a letter of appointment at the commencement of their employment. The letter of appointment is to outline, among other matters, the employee’s classification, employment status and any probationary period.

[42] Mr Turnbull’s “offer of position” is described as “Country posting with option of permanency”. The employment commenced on 4 July 2011 and Mr Turnbull was initially employed for a period of 12 months as a Community Paramedic 2.

[43] The initial posting of 12 months was extended on 25 May 2012 and states, “I write to offer you an extension of your posted position as a Community Paramedic, Wyndham...effective from 1 July 2012”. Further, “I appreciate you may have preferred to receive a permanent position, however...” 3

[44] On 19 December 2012, the Employer specifically extends the Applicant’s “posting” for a further six (6) months. Again, the correspondence refers to Mr Turnbull preferring to have received a “permanent” position 4.

[45] I find that the 2011 Agreement required Mr Turnbull to be made aware of his classification - which has occurred. Further, the 2011 Agreement requires employees to be aware of their employment status. From the evidence, Mr Turnbull is a “posted” Community Paramedic, as distinct from a “permanent” employee at Wyndham.

[46] I note that it is possible to argue that the employment status could refer to full-time, part-time, fixed term or casual. However, none of these words are used in the offer of appointment or extensions, hence, the reason why I have preferred the differences between “permanent” and “posting”.

[47] Paragraph 18.15(b) of the 2011 Agreement states:

“Employees working in the country (collectively referred to as Country Employees) will be categorised as one of the following:

(i) Permanent - if the employee is appointed on a permanent basis at the country location; or

(ii) Posting - if the employee is appointed to work at the country location between 30-52 weeks; or

(iii) Relief - if the employee is appointed to work at the country location up to 30 weeks in one period.”

[48] Further, at paragraph 18.15(c) of the 2011 Agreement:

Posting employees may, with the agreement of St John Ambulance extend his or her posting period at the country location. If this occurs, the employee will remain a “Posting employee.” (my emphasis)

[49] Clearly, Mr Turnbull has not sought to extend his posting at Wyndham, it has been initiated by SJAA. However, I consider it safe to find that Mr Turnbull has agreed to the extension by remaining in Wyndham, and in principle has agreed to his classification continuing as a Posting employee.

[50] I now turn to Clause 36: Community Paramedic of the 2011 Agreement.

[51] Clause 36 specifically relates to Community Paramedics and the provisions of that particular clause “override any inconsistent provisions contained in other clauses of this Agreement”. In subclause 36.2, the appointment of a Community Paramedic is for a maximum period of 12 months “unless otherwise agreed between the employer and employee”. Finally, at paragraph 36.4(b) “community paramedics are entitled to the Community Paramedic Allowance and other relevant allowances as set out in Appendix 2”.

[52] It is notable pursuant to Appendix 1 Rates of Pay of the 2011 Agreement, that Community Paramedics are paid the same whether “permanent or acting”. However, it is uncertain whether the “air conditioning allowance” in Appendix 2 is “relevant” for the purposes of paragraph 36.4(b) of the 2011 Agreement. In short, I find that I am unable to determine, in the specific context of a dedicated clause for Community Paramedics (clause 36), whether they are entitled to an air conditioning allowance.

[53] I now turn to subclause 18.10: Air conditioning Allowance of the 2011 Agreement.

[54] Subclause 18.10 requires that “employees” will be paid the allowance “when required by St John Ambulance to reside above the 26th parallel”. Put simply, SJAA is required to pay the air conditioning allowance if it “requires” an employee to “reside” above the 26th parallel.

[55] Mr Turnbull is an employee, but the question is whether he has been “required” to “reside” above the 26th parallel.

[56] The Australian Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines “require” as “order”, “demand”, “lay down as imperative”, “need, depend for success, fulfilment”. On one interpretation of the word “require”, SJAA has not “ordered” or “demanded” Mr Turnbull to work above the 26th parallel. Mr Turnbull sought and was successful in obtaining a posting to Wyndham. Mr Turnbull was not directed or commanded to perform his duties in Wyndham.

[57] In the alternative, it could be argued that the word “require” means that Mr Turnbull, on being successful in his application to be posted to Wyndham, it is essential that he “resides” in Wyndham to fulfil his duties.

[58] Clearly, there is more than one meaning to the word “require” as a condition for payment of the air conditioning allowance.

[59] I now turn to the word “reside” which was the subject of disputation between the parties.

[60] The Applicant asserted that the word “reside” does not have any special or technical meaning. Mr Turnbull referred to the Macquarie Dictionary (revised 3rd edition) definition of “reside” being “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have one’s abode for a time” or alternatively, the Oxford English Dictionary which defines “reside” as “to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, to have one’s abode settled or usual abode, to live, in or at a particular place”. 5

[61] The Employer does not contest the dictionary definitions but elaborates upon the meaning of the word “permanent” to mean “intended to last indefinitely”. Further, the words “considerable time” are entirely contextual and dependent on the relevant circumstances in each case”. 6

[62] In summary, the Employer submits that a Posting employee does not “reside” above the 26th parallel, but that their accommodation is “temporary and for a relatively short period”. 7

[63] Clearly, the parties have a different interpretation of the meaning of subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement. In view of the contrasting positions, it is necessary to consider the principles of interpretation of industrial agreements.

Interpretation of Enterprise Agreements

[64] The Full Bench in Cape Australia Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Total Corrosion Control Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2012] FWAFB 3994 (Cape Australia Holdings) set out under the heading “The Interpretation of Enterprise Agreements” the following:

“[7] As to the general approach to the construction of enterprise agreements the observations of French J, as he then was, in City of Wanneroo v Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (Wanneroo) are apposite:

“[53] The construction of an award, like that of a statute, begins with a consideration of the ordinary meaning of its words. As with the task of statutory construction regard must be paid to the context and purpose of the provision or expression being construed. Context may appear from the text of the instrument taken as a whole, its arrangement and the place in it of the provision under construction. It is not confined to the words of the relevant Act or instrument surrounding the expression to be construed. It may extend to ‘...the entire document of which it is a part or to other documents with which there is an association’. It may also include ‘....ideas that gave rise to an expression in a document from which it has been taken’ - Short v FW Hercus Pty Ltd (1993) 40 FCR 511 at 518 (Burchett J); Australian Municipal, Clerical and Services union v Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia (1998) 80 IR 345 (Marshall J).”

[8] While his Honour’s observations were made in the context of interpreting an award the same principles apply to the interpretation of enterprise agreements. For example, similar observations were made by their Honours Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ in Amcor v CFMEU:

“Clause 55.1.1 must be read in context. It is necessary, therefore, to have regard not only to the text of cl 55.1.1, but also to a number of other matters: first, the other provisions made by cl 55; secondly, the text and operation of the Agreement both as a whole and by reference to other particular provisions made by it; and, thirdly, the legislative background against which the Agreement was made and in which it was to operate.”

[9] The fact that the instrument being construed is an enterprise agreement is itself an important contextual consideration. As French J observed in Wanneroo, at paragraph [57]:

“It is of course necessary, in the construction of an award, to remember, as a contextual consideration, that it is an award under consideration. Its words must not be interpreted in a vacuum divorced from industrial realities - City of Wanneroo v Holmes (1989) 30 IR 362 at 378-379 and cases there cited. There is a long tradition of generous construction over a strictly literal approach where industrial awards are concerned - see eg GeoA Bond and Co. Ltd (in liq) v McKenzie [1929] AR (NSW) 498 at 503-504 (Street J). It may be that this means no more than that courts and tribunals will not make too much of infelicitous expression in the drafting of an award nor be astute to discern absurdity or illogicality or apparent inconsistencies. But while fractured and illogical prose may be met by a generous and liberal approach to construction, I repeat what I said in City of Wanneroo v Holmes (at 380):

“Awards, whether made by consent or otherwise, should make sense according to the basic conventions of the English language. They bind the parties on pain of pecuniary penalties.”

[10] None of these principles were matters of contention in these proceedings and we have applied them in the determination of the appeal. The issue on appeal is the application of the principles to clause 5 of the Total Corrosion Control Agreement.”

[65] I have adopted the approach of the Full Bench in Cape Australia Holdings.

[66] Mr Turnbull gives evidence that SJAA paid for his relocation to Wyndham including his wife and two daughters and that it is necessary for him to “reside” in Wyndham to be able to carry out his “posting”. Mr Turnbull has been at the same address since relocating to Wyndham. Further, Mr Turnbull states “my current extension of contract is due to expire on 30 June 2013, but I have a reasonable expectation that the “posting” is likely to be extended once again.” 8

[67] Mr Turnbull acknowledges in his evidence that on making application for the air conditioning allowance in October 2011, he was advised that it “was not currently payable”. Further, a response from SJAA on 14 February 2012 stated, “posted employees are not residing at the location and therefore are not entitled to the air conditioning allowance”. 9

[68] Ms Iwona Niemasik’s evidence was not challenged and she states that, “in 2008, paramedics employed by the Respondent could work in country locations on a “Permanent”, “Posting” or “Relief” basis. With respect to permanent staff, paramedics put their name down on a list and were offered a position when it became available. If a location did not have a list of paramedics wanting to be appointed on a permanent basis, the position would be advertised on a Posting basis” 10.

[69] Further, Ms Niemasik’s evidence is that a Permanent paramedic was expected to commit to being in the location for a maximum period of three (3) years. A Posting paramedic was expected to commit to the location for a maximum of 52 weeks 11.

[70] A Permanent paramedic has to give, at least, nine (9) months notice of their intention to cease in a particular location. A Posting paramedic could terminate his or her posting and return to the metropolitan area with four (4) week’s notice 12.

[71] There are other different conditions of employment for Permanent and Posting paramedics which I will return to later.

[72] Mr Fonte gave evidence that he was involved in setting up the first “Community Paramedics” programme in 2011. Mr Fonte was part of the recruitment process for the initial nine (9) Community Paramedics.

[73] Mr Turnbull submitted an application and listed Wyndham as his first preferred location. Mr Turnbull was successful and commenced employment in Wyndham on 4 July 2011.

[74] In response to enquiries by a number of the first group of Community Paramedics, Mr Moores, on 4 June 2011, sent out correspondence on accommodation to the employees. In the email, he states, “All utilities are payable by the CP [Community Paramedics]” 13. Mr Turnbull asked that an air conditioning allowance be looked at for paramedics in his position14. Mr Fonte became involved in the correspondence and responded to Mr Moores. Mr Fonte dismissed the suggestion of an air conditioning allowance for Posting Community Paramedics referring to the “meagre” amount for rent, and concludes his communication by stating “this is also in the EBA [that an air conditioning allowance is not payable] so I would suggest members speak to the union about having it changed at the next review of the EBA”15.

[75] Finally, Mr Fonte concludes his email communication to Mr Moores, “...for these 8 [Community Paramedics], it is posting conditions as outlined by the EBA - nothing new about this system” 16. Mr Fonte presumes that this information was communicated to the Applicant.

[76] Mr Turnbull subsequently commenced employment as a Community Paramedic on 4 July 2011.

[77] Mr Fonte concludes his uncontested evidence that “it is well understood that Posting positions are temporary in nature. Posting Community Paramedics will eventually be offered Permanent positions. The Applicant’s biggest cost of living would be rent, and the Respondent pays this for him. The Respondent pays for the Applicant’s rent, with the exception of the first $65.32 per week and the purpose of the Country Posting Rent Assistance is to help out the Posting employees with the cost of running their temporary house in the Posting location” 17.

[78] At this point, it is useful to examine how the 2011 Agreement is structured in relation to the various allowances and their applicability to Permanent and Posting employees concerning accommodation. The Community Paramedic, on a Posting, pursuant to subclause 18.22 Country Posting Rent Assistance of the 2011 Agreement, has a maximum rent of $65.32 and the remainder is paid by SJAA.

[79] Permanent Community Paramedics located in a designated remote location receive a Remote Location Allocation pursuant to subclause 18.25 of the 2011 Agreement. Posting employees do not receive the Remote Location Allowance.

[80] Permanent Community Paramedics receive the air conditioning allowance pursuant to subclause 18.10 of the Agreement but is not, and has not, been applied to Posting Community Paramedics. This is the allowance in dispute.

[81] The structure of the various allowances in the 2011 Agreement appear to reflect the categorisation of Country Employees as set out in subclause 18.15 of the 2011 Agreement. Shortly put, the parties to the 2011 Agreement have three categories of country employees - Permanent, Posting and Relief - and due to the nature of these appointments, they attract different conditions depending upon their categorisation.

[82] I now return to subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement.

[83] I am satisfied, for the reasons outlined in paragraphs [41] to [81] that the term in subsection 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement is not clear and unambiguous. Clearly, there are conflicting views on the meaning of the two words “required” and “reside”. Each party has interpreted the two words from a different viewpoint. The plain and ordinary meaning of “required” stresses that, before something can be done, certain conditions have to be fulfilled. The attainment of certainty with words in an industrial instrument is often as elusive as it is in other documents. It is for this reason, that the authorities cited above give expression to the necessity, or need, to draw upon the entire document (and elsewhere) to give the words their meaning. It is this transference of context to a document which gives a better understanding of what was meant by the parties in the subclause.

[84] Having considered the 2011 Agreement in its entirety, and in particular its categorisation of country employees, and the purposes of the allowances underlying the various classifications, I am satisfied, objectively, that the air conditioning allowance is not applicable to “Posting” Community Paramedics, I have reached this conclusion in accordance with the principles of interpretation of enterprise agreements. Consequently, I am unable to provide the relief sought by the Applicant.

[85] Before concluding, I consider it necessary to make the following observations.

[86] The 2011 Agreement provides, and evidence was given that Posting Community Paramedics are expected to work in country locations between 30 and 52 weeks. Paragraph 18.15(c) of the 2011 Agreement provides “Posting employees may, with the agreement of St John Ambulance, extend his or her posting period at the country location. If this occurs, the employee will remain a Posting employee”. (my emphasis)

[87] Obviously, the benefit to a Posting employee is that they retain the Country Posting Rent Assistance which means the cost of their accommodation is, at this time, capped at $65.32. However, the Posting employee does not receive the Remote Location Allowance or air conditioning allowance which is payable to Permanent Country Paramedics. From a financial perspective, that is a decision which is to be made by the individual employee.

[88] Notwithstanding that the decision has to be made by the individual Country Paramedic, the underlying rationale for the air conditioning allowance to be paid to Permanent employees was as follows:

“...the Respondent’s bargaining committee did think it was reasonable to pay an air conditioning allowance to Permanent employees living above the 26th parallel.

Permanent employees were going to be incurring costs in relation to air conditioning in the long term, on an ongoing basis. They would incur these costs all year round for many years to come. The Respondent wanted to help them meet these ongoing higher costs of living.

...

Posting and Relief positions were temporary in nature. Employees in these positions would not need to sustain these higher living costs on an ongoing, long term basis.

Even though Posting employees may incur higher electricity costs for air conditioning during their posting period, this is only for a short, temporary period. They receive very generous rent relief during this time. On the other hand, Permanent employees do not get rent relief and generally own their own home.” 18

[89] If SJAA has defined “short” or “temporary period” as normally between 30-52 weeks, it would seem sensible to consider what should apply when the posting exceeds 52 weeks. In making such a suggestion, I am not limiting the discussion to the air conditioning allowance only. As I have indicated, different allowances apply depending on the categorisation of the Community Paramedic. Consequently, any discussion would need to consider the other allowances payable to Posting employees and their underlying rationale.

CONCLUSION

[90] For the above reasons, I determine that the meaning and application of subclause 18.10 of the 2011 Agreement does not apply to Mr Turnbull as a Posting employee to Wyndham. In accordance with this Decision and Reasons for Decision, the application will be dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

C Allen on behalf of the Applicant.

A Power of Counsel for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2013:

Perth,

22 May.

 1   Exhibit A4 (7)

 2   Exhibit A4(1)

 3   Exhibit A4(3)

 4   Exhibit A4(4)

 5   Exhibit A1

 6   Exhibit R1

 7   Exhibit R1

 8   Exhibit A4

 9   Exhibit A4

 10   Exhibit R5

 11   Exhibit R5

 12   Exhibit R5

 13   Exhibit R7(D)

 14   Exhibit R7(D)

 15   Exhibit R7(D)

 16   Exhibit R7(D)

 17   Exhibit R7(D)

 18   Exhibit R5

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR538734>