MR HARRIS: I think I recall, but you might be able to help me on this, it is actually acceptable, is it not, to have a non-permitted matter agreed between the parties and acted upon as long as it is not part of the submitted agreement or something equivalent to that effect. In other words, you can still have agreements on non-permitted matters, you just can’t have them in an enterprise bargaining agreement. In other words, until someone triggers the law and says, strike “Please this down,” two parties can happily cooperate on something that isn’t permitted as a MR BARKATSAS: Yes. So I guess, it’s not a barrier to approving the agreement, so it may very well be included in the written text of the document. MR HARRIS: Could even be in the written text. MR BARKATSAS: Because it’s not barrier to the Commission not approving or rubber-stamping that agreement that is made by the employees. It is just that from the enforcement perspective or a compliance perspective it’s not enforceable MR HARRIS: You couldn’t go to seek an enforcing it. Yes. MR BARKATSAS: MR HARRIS: Yes, it is one of the great - it’s a good example of the complexity of the system which everybody in principle dislikes, but in practice it does benefit some parties at some particular point in time, such that if you were to take it away you would cost somebody something and we are very interested in this issue of complexity and in principle, everybody would like a simpler regulatory system. So where we can, we have sort of leant towards, at least leave it as it is, rather than making it more complex.” “Let’s But your representation today is this is a significant enough worry beyond the specific example of a particular case. It’s a significant enough worry for negotiations generally. Would that be your submission? Well, we would say that it - well, in taking into account MR BARKATSAS: what the Commission has - their views insofar as the complexity of permitted matters and if we were to go to the system that did apply briefly where there was a restrictive list, then that potentially has its own pitfalls, but there is still, I would say, a fairly broad cross-section of discontent with the matters pertaining doctrine and permitted matters in general as to what it is and what it isn’t. It is always going to be a very heavily disputed area.
MR HARRIS: I think I recall, but you might be able to help me on this, it is actually acceptable, is it not, to have a non-permitted matter agreed between the parties and acted upon as long as it is not part of the submitted agreement or something equivalent to that effect. In other words, you can still have agreements on non-permitted matters, you just can’t have them in an enterprise bargaining agreement. In other words, until someone triggers the law and says, “Please strike this down,” two parties can happily cooperate on something that isn’t permitted as a MR BARKATSAS: Yes. So I guess, it’s not a barrier to approving the agreement, so it may very well be included in the written text of the document. MR HARRIS: Could even be in the written text. MR BARKATSAS: Because it’s not barrier to the Commission not approving or rubber-stamping that agreement that is made by the employees. It is just that from the enforcement perspective or a compliance perspective it’s not enforceable MR HARRIS: You couldn’t go to seek an enforcing it. MR BARKATSAS: Yes. MR HARRIS: Yes, it is one of the great - it’s a good example of the complexity of the system which everybody in principle dislikes, but in practice it does benefit some parties at some particular point in time, such that if you were to take it away you would cost somebody something and we are very interested in this issue of complexity and in principle, everybody would like a simpler regulatory system. So where we can, we have sort of leant towards, “Let’s at least leave it as it is, rather than making it more complex.” But your representation today is this is a significant enough worry beyond the specific example of a particular case. It’s a significant enough worry for negotiations generally. Would that be your submission? MR BARKATSAS: Well, we would say that it - well, in taking into account what the Commission has - their views insofar as the complexity of permitted matters and if we were to go to the system that did apply briefly where there was a restrictive list, then that potentially has its own pitfalls, but there is still, I would say, a fairly broad cross-section of discontent with the matters pertaining doctrine and permitted matters in general as to what it is and what it isn’t. It is always going to be a very heavily disputed area.
20150904-bendigo-transcript.docx