Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland v Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd [2005] QIRC 150 (2005) 180 QGIG 844

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 4 November, 2005, Vol. 180, No. 14, pages 844-849] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 149 – application for arbitration Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland AND Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd (B/2004/1291) COMMISSIONER FISHER 21 October 2005 Application for arbitration – Industrial Relations Act 1999 s. 149 – Appeal decision – Allocated to another Member – Matters at issue during negotiations for the proposed agreement – Summary of Union’s draft determination – Requirements of s. 149(5) – Merits of case – Wages – Hours of Work – Delegates’ rights – Trade union training leave – Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 s. 70(4) – Apprentices, trainees and juniors – Casual and labour hire employees – Competency Standards – Few new rights sought – Merit argument not persuasive – Effects of proposed determination – Public interest consideration – Objects of the Act – Participation in industrial relations – Extent of good faith negotiations – Refusal to negotiate not evidence of negotiating in bad faith – Refusal to negotiate does not mean Commission may decline to make determination – Commission declines to exercise jurisdiction to make a determination. DECISION In Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland v Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd (2005) 178 QGIG 419, Hall P set out the background to the present matter: “On 22 July 2004 the Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland (AMEPKU) sent a notice under s. 143 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (the Act) to Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd, proposing the making of a certified agreement. On or about 25 July 2004 an organiser of the AMEPKU made a personal approach to the manager of Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd seeking to commence meetings to negotiate a certified agreement. He was informed that Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd did not wish to enter into a certified agreement. That oral advice was confirmed in writing by Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers (acting on behalf of Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd) by a letter of 22 July 2004. The peace obligation period expired on 12 August 2004. Two weeks later (on 26 August 2004) AMEPKU filed a request pursuant to r. 136 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunal) Rules 2000 (utilising Form 39), seeking the assistance of the Commission pursuant to s. 148(1)(a) of the Act to help the parties make a certified agreement. On 13 September 2004 the Commission (constituted by a Member acting alone) convened a conference for the purpose of conciliating between the parties pursuant to s. 148(2). By written communication of 15 September 2004 the AMEPKU informed the Commission that Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd was not prepared to negotiate with the AMEPKU and that in consequence, conciliation had been unsuccessful and the requirements of s. 149(1)(b) had been met. On 20 September 2004 the Commission reconvened the conciliation proceedings. Townsville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd informed the Commission that it was not prepared to enter into negotiations for a certified agreement. During an adjournment at that conference, the AMEPKU reduced its claim to the form of a log of claims. The conference reconvened on 5 October 2004, where once again Townville Engineering Industries Pty Ltd indicated that it was not prepared to enter into negotiations for a certified agreement. The Commission then determined that the requirements of s. 149(1)(b) had been met and that the matter should be arbitrated. There being no s. 149(10) consent, the matter then came into the hands of another Commissioner. When the matter was called for arbitration on 19 October 2004 an issue was raised about jurisdiction. That matter was heard on 1 December 2004. By decision published the following day and now reported at 177 QGIG 783, the objection to jurisdiction succeeded. The critical passage (ibid, at 785) appears to be: ‘It is my respectful view that the submissions of the respondent Townsville Engineering must be correct. Part 1 of Chapter 6 of the Act is all about agreement making, about negotiating and about breakdowns in that negotiating process. The Commission’s involvement comes about when there is a breakdown in that process. There is nothing in the Act, the Explanatory Notes, the Second Reading Speech of the Honourable the Minister or the Report of the Taskforce on Industrial Relations which requires that an employer must make an agreement or the Commission will arbitrate an ‘agreement’. In my view that would be a contradiction in terms. When it is proposed that an agreement be made, then any negotiations must be in good faith but if the employer does not wish an agreement at all and does not want to negotiate at all, then nothing in the Act operates to prevent that position. When the Commission is called upon to arbitrate, it must limit its considerations to the matters at issue during negotiations – s. 149(4) of the Act. If the employer does not want to enter into an agreement at all and there have been no negotiations, then there has been nothing at issue ‘during negotiations’. This is different to -- 1 of 8 -- 2 the situation arising where an employer enters upon negotiations but then makes a decision to opt out when ‘matters at issue’ become too complicated. What happens in that circumstance can be left to another day to determine, although I would prophesy a different outcome might ensue.’ The AMEPKU now appeals. The appeal must succeed.”. After the decision by Hall P was released the Vice President determined that the matter should be arbitrated by another Member and it was thus allocated to the Commission as currently constituted. Section 149 of the Act specifies the arbitration powers of the Commission when the matter is arbitrated. The arbitration powers are those that the Commission would have under s. 230 of the Act if that section applied to certified agreement negotiations instead of industrial disputes. In exercising the arbitration powers, then the Commission must limit its consideration to the matters at issue during negotiations for the proposed Agreement (s. 149(4)). The AMEPKU’s successful appeal has meant that the Commission is required to arbitrate where one party has consistently refused to enter into negotiations with another. What then are the “matters at issue during negotiations for the proposed agreement” as required by s. 149(4) of the Act? Townsville Engineering persisted with the position that there were no matters at issue during the negotiations because no negotiations occurred. The Union had provided to Townsville Engineering a log of claims as part of the conciliation process under s. 148 of the Act and at the request of the Member exercising conciliation powers. The Union does not now contend that the dot point items in the log are the matters in issue. From the log the Union developed a draft determination. The contents of the draft determination, excluding the machinery matters, were said to constitute the matters at issue during the negotiations. For reasons that will become evident later I am prepared to accept that the Union’s draft determination constitutes the matters at issue during negotiations. Summary of Union’s Draft Determination (excluding machinery matters)  Hours of Work – an average of 38 hours per week to be worked between Monday and Friday - span of hours – 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday to Friday; - ability to provide a RDO; - rostered ordinary hours to be determined between the employer and the majority of employees concerned.  Casual Employees and Labour Hire - full-time permanent employment to be the predominant form of employment; - casual employees not to be engaged for more than three months. If continued after three months to be converted to permanent employment; - labour hire employees to receive rates of pay no less than the rates provided by the determination.  Wages – increased rates of pay commencing 1 May 2005 - further increases to be payable from the first full pay period after the determination; - two further increases twelve months and twenty-four months thereafter.  Apprentices and Trainees - employer to pay fees and charges associated with attending training; - new and increased percentage rates of pay; - proportion of one apprentice for each five qualified tradespersons employed; - juniors to be paid at adult rates.  Implementation of Competency Standards - National Metal and Engineering Industry Competency Standards to be implemented in accordance with the relevant Implementation Guide.  Shop Steward Rights - provisions relating to the election of delegates; - provision for time and equipment; - time spent in QIRC proceedings to be paid for by the employer.  Trade Union Training Leave - all delegates and workplace health and safety representatives to be entitled to ten days training per union without deduction of ordinary pay. -- 2 of 8 -- 3  Health and Safety Committee - to meet monthly; - to be comprised of two elected representatives and two representatives of the employer. As Mr Moorhead, who appeared for the Union, acknowledged, the draft determination compiles a significant amount of entitlements that the employees have under the Engineering Award State – 2002 and puts them into the context of a particular workplace in order to clarify and promote the rights that employees already have (p 108 of transcript). Requirements of s. 149(5) of the Act Section 149(5) sets out the matters that the Commission must consider in exercising its arbitral powers. The section does not confine the Commission’s considerations to these matters but provides that it must consider at least the following: (a) the merits of the case; (b) the likely effects of the Commission’s proposed determination and any matters agreed before arbitration, on employees and employers who will be bound by the proposed determination; (c) the public interest, and to that end the Commission must consider – (i) the objects of the Act; and (ii) the likely effects of the Commission’s determination on the community, the economy, industry generally and on the particular enterprise; (d) the extent to which the negotiating parties negotiated in good faith. Section 149(6) requires that in its Decision the Commission must publish its reasons when determining a matter under this section. Section 149(7) provides that those reasons address each of the things the Commission considered under s. 149(5). No Full Bench principles have been established about the arbitration of certified agreements (s. 149(8)). Accordingly, the Commission proceeds to consider the matters identified in s. 149(5) of the Act. Merits of the Case This is a case where only one party has sought an outcome in the form of another piece of industrial regulation. At present, Townsville Engineering applies the Engineering Award – State 2002 (the Engineering Award) and, since the Union attempted to negotiate a certified agreement, Townsville Engineering has offered, and some employees have accepted, Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs). Mr Gillespie, who appeared for Townsville Engineering, advised that s. 170VQ of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) provides that during its operation an AWA operates to the exclusion of any State award or State agreement that would otherwise apply to the employee’s employment. Section 4 defines a State award inclusively and means, amongst other things, a determination made by a State industrial authority. Thus, Mr Gillespie submitted and Mr Moorhead accepted, that the AWAs that apply at this Company would prevail over any determination made by the Commission arising from this process. If a determination is made as a result of this arbitration its application will be limited to five employees and eight apprentices. The evidence shows that Townsville Engineering’s adherence to the industrial regulation is less than optimal. For example:  Townsville Engineering is a member of the Australian Industry Group Industrial Organisation of Employers and thus is a respondent to the (Federal) Metal Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1988. This Award is not applied at the workplace.  The terms of the Engineering Award are applied selectively.  The terms of the AWAs are not implemented in full, but are also applied selectively.  The provisions of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 that allow employees to elect a workplace health and safety representative have been ignored. Townsville Engineering’s Workplace Health and Safety Officer is the Fabrication Division Manager and minority shareholder, Burnie Byrnes. Townsville Engineering’s selective application of industrial regulation is not intended by it to disadvantage their employees. Indeed, the evidence before the Commission shows that in terms of wages, amounts well above the Award, and indeed, above the AWAs, are paid. Rather, the approach is consistent with the traditional and paternal management style that has been adopted by this privately owned Company. Support for this view is drawn from the evidence of Byron Carter, Manager, Director and majority shareholder. His evidence touched on the financial support being -- 3 of 8 -- 4 provided to a long term employee who is absent on extended sick leave and who has exhausted his sick leave entitlement. Other evidence went to the “counselling” and support offered to younger employees about personal and financial issues. Although concern was expressed about the attitude and some of the actions of AMEPKU Organiser, Darren Trask, nothing was explicitly said against unions generally or the AMEPKU in particular. It is apparent that the management prefers to retain control over decision making and to deal with its employees directly. These comments are not intended to be criticisms. It is a matter for each employer to determine the management style it wishes to adopt and it is not the role of the Commission to dictate to a particular employer the type of management style it should adopt. But the particular management style that is in place has caused this arbitration. Townsville Engineering’s refusal to have the Union involved in its workplace left the Union with little option except to formally pursue the rights available to it under Chapter 6 Part 1, Division 1 of the Act. That is a risk any employer runs in refusing to participate in industrial relations processes that are provided by the Act. The refusal to negotiate and the referral of the matter to arbitration does not necessarily mean that a determination will be made. The decision to make a determination involves an exercise of discretion and there must be reasons to support that. In examining the merits the Commission must consider the competing arguments that have been put by the parties. In this case the Union must advance reasons supporting the items that it contends were the matters at issue during negotiations and equally Townsville Engineering must argue why those provisions are unnecessary. Between those two positions the Commission must determine whether, based on the evidence, submissions and other material before it, and, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Act, a determination should be made containing any or all of the provisions sought by the Union. Wages The evidence showed that employees are being paid wages that are well above the Award. Mr Carter’s evidence was that above award (and above AWA) wages had to be paid in order to attract and retain trades employees. In a time of a skill shortage employees could easily change employment to workplaces where higher rates were being paid so such rates had to be constantly reviewed. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that the wage rates paid to employees or the timing of wage increases are matters that require the Commission’s intervention. Hours of Work The determination also seeks to insert the Hours of Work provisions that are contained in the Engineering Award and to add provisions allowing for local discussions about a rostered day off and that ordinary hours of work may only be varied by agreement. These provisions reflect the Union’s desire to encourage more formalised local consultation and perhaps their frustration with management by not formalising consultative processes. An arbitration is about determining new rights and there seems to be little purpose in arbitrating when rights are already available under the Award or legislation. Clause 6.3 of the Engineering Award provides a mechanism for enterprise level discussions to occur about the implementation of the 38 hour week. Further, clause 2.1 provides a mechanism for more flexible working arrangements to be implemented, albeit through the establishment of consultative arrangements that may involve the Union. There was no evidence produced that the hours of work arrangements are unsuitable to employees or that they have sought to change them unsuccessfully. In the absence of any such evidence I am of the view that sufficient consultative provisions are available to allow for the type of consultation sought by the Union so as to not warrant the provisions sought. If legitimate concerns exist about any refusal or failure to discuss more flexible arrangements and consultative arrangements these can be dealt with through the grievance procedure in the Award and, if necessary, dispute notification. A determination to include the hours provisions sought by the Union is thus unnecessary. Delegates’ Rights The claims for:  shop steward rights;  trade union training leave; and  the establishment of a Workplace Health and Safety Committee -- 4 of 8 -- 5 are in response to some unfortunate experiences of the Union delegate at the site. Detailed evidence was given about the events by Mr Trask and Messrs Byrnes and Carter but not by the delegate. That person, who no longer works for Townsville Engineering, had provided a witness statement but failed to attend the hearing. It is not my role here to determine the truth of the events concerning that delegate. What the events evidenced from the Union’s perspective was a failure on Townsville Engineering’s part to recognise the role and function of a delegate. Townsville Engineering acknowledged that it was not familiar with some of the industrial courtesies extended when a delegate attends Commission proceedings but denied that it acted in retribution of the delegate’s activities. In any event it seems that further proceedings before the Commission resolved the Union’s complaints concerning the treatment of the delegate. Townsville Engineering argued that the Union Encouragement clause in the Award is sufficient in terms of providing rights for delegates and that trade union training leave provisions are not required because it has no intention of devolving negotiations. The provisions sought by the Union in its draft determination in relation to shop stewards primarily relate to the provision of time and equipment and the payment for time spent involved in Commission proceedings. In my view the latter issue has been satisfactorily addressed with Townsville Engineering being aware of the accepted industrial practice in light of earlier proceedings before the Commission. In relation to time and equipment Townsville Engineering indicated that a noticeboard is available. I accept that this does not go as far as the Union seeks but I consider that the Union Encouragement provisions of the Award are sufficient as they were designed to recognise job delegates as well as the work they perform. Again, were there to be any issue about these matters then it is capable of being dealt with through the disputes procedure, including, if necessary, recourse to the Commission. The trade union training leave provisions are intended to cover both delegates and workplace health and safety representatives. The Union submits that such training will allow such delegates and representatives to more effectively represent employees. It will provide them with the confidence to raise issues as well as engendering confidence in their fellow employees that they have the skills to raise issues in the workplace. Section 3(h) of the Act provides as one of the objects of the Act the encouragement of participation of both employees and employers in industrial relations. One of the ways to achieve that object is to ensure that the parties have the necessary skills and training to understand the requirements of the Act as well as their role in the process. Trade union training is one way that those skills can be developed. While Townsville Engineering has to date been able to exclude the Union from negotiations and keep industrial relations informal, it is a likely consequence of these proceedings, resulting from the attitude of Townsville Engineering, that this approach will not be able to be sustained indefinitely. In that context I was initially inclined to favourably consider the Union’s proposal that delegates and workplace health and safety representatives have access to trade union training. At the time of the hearing of this application trade union training leave was not a provision of the Engineering Award. Since that time, an application by the Union to amend the Engineering Award to include trade union training leave has been heard and determined. By decision dated 13 October 2005 the Commission decided to substantially grant the Union’s application. As a consequence trade union training leave will be available to employees covered by the Engineering Award, including those employed by Townsville Engineering. The exemption that was granted to small employers would not apply to Townsville Engineering because it relates to employees employed in any calling and not those specifically covered by the Engineering Award. In the circumstance I find it unnecessary to consider the inclusion of trade union training leave in any determination made as a result of this process. I do not intend to include in the determination provision for a workplace health and safety committee. This is a matter provided for by the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. As the Union has itself pointed out s. 70(4) of that Act allows the Commission to hear and decide as an industrial matter an application by a person aggrieved by the failure of a negotiation between workers and their employer about workplace health and safety representatives at the workplace. In my view as the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 adequately deals with the issues raised by the Union it is unnecessary to duplicate the requirements in a determination. Apprentices, Trainees and Juniors The Union has concerns about the proportion of apprentices to trades staff. Such matters are best raised with either the training provider or the Department of Employment and Training. Other matters affecting trainees and apprentices included in the draft determination are: -- 5 of 8 -- 6  that Townsville Engineering meet all fees and charges associated with apprentices and trainees attending training; and  improvements in the percentage of the adult rates of pay paid to apprentices. The evidence from Mr Carter was that apprentices are paid well above the percentage of the adult rates set by the Engineering Award. The Commission was not provided with the fees and charges associated with attending training. I am aware that the obligation rests with the apprentice or trainee to pay fees and charges but the employer may elect to pay the fees on behalf of the apprentice or trainee. To require apprentices and trainees to pay for the costs of attending training in the context of above award wages being paid is not so unreasonable as to require the Commission’s intervention. The above award wages paid to apprentices also persuades me that a new scale of percentage rates is unnecessary. Only one junior is currently employed and his conditions are regulated by an AWA. It is thus unnecessary to consider the proposal for juniors. Casual and Labour Hire Employees The draft determination proposes improvements in the casual conversion provisions contained in the Engineering Award. There was no evidence that this had been a problem and is thus not considered for inclusion. The Union’s proposal in respect of labour hire employees is to ensure that such employees are paid the same rates as Company employees. The provision is sought in order to bolster the employment security of Townsville Engineering’s employees as well as to ensure that such employees are not put at a competitive disadvantage by lower rates paid to employees of labour hire firms. Townsville Engineering argued that the provisions sought might in exceptional circumstances be included in an agreement but should not be included in an arbitrated determination. In any event the evidence showed that Townsville Engineering does not and has not used significant numbers of labour hire employees. Had the Union been able to point to specific problems in Townsville Engineering that had arisen from the use of labour hire employees I may have been more inclined to accept their argument. Competency Standards The Union was concerned that the competency standards were not being properly implemented in the workplace thus disadvantaging employees. Townsville Engineering contended that the competency standards were irrelevant in light of the wage rates paid. This is a matter that is comprehensively dealt with in clause 5.4 of the Engineering Award. Accordingly, for the same reasons given in respect of other matters contained in the Award I decline to include it in any determination. Conclusion on the Merits As the Union itself has conceded there is little novelty about their proposed determination. It largely takes provisions from the Engineering Award that gives rights to the employees and encapsulates them in a stand alone document. That there are few new rights being sought to be established by the determination is a persuasive argument against the making of a determination. Of course whether the Commission decides to make a determination involves an exercise of discretion. The arguments in favour have to be persuasive and here I have found that they have not been so. In consideration of all of the above I have not been satisfied that merit exists in making a determination. Despite this I am obliged by s. 149(5) of the Act to consider other factors. Effects of Proposed Determination: s. 149(5)(b) The provision requires the Commission to consider the likely effects of the Commission’s proposed determination. It does not require me to consider the likely effects of one party’s, here, the Union’s, proposed determination. Given that I do not propose to make a determination this provision is irrelevant. Public Interest: s. 149(5)(c) What is the public interest in making a determination that largely seeks to repeat existing rights and otherwise goes to the relationship sought to be established by one of the parties to the proposed determination? The public interest requires that parties in an industrial relationship know their rights and obligations and allows for enforcement of those -- 6 of 8 -- 7 rights. Most of the rights and obligations that the Union seeks in the determination are already well set out in existing regulation and are capable of being enforced in various ways. I do not consider the public interest would be served by duplicating these rights in a determination. (i) Objects of the Act Unlike the Workplace Relations Act 1997 (Qld), the Industrial Relations Act 1999 does not give agreement making, or more particularly, enterprise agreements, pre-eminence over awards. Section 3(j) of the Act deals with “promoting and facilitating regulation of employment by awards and agreements” but it does not require agreements to be the prevailing form of industrial regulation. Section 3(h) provides for “promoting participation in industrial relations by employers and employees”. The Union sought to meet this object by attempting to negotiate a certified agreement in the first instance and when that failed, by resort to Commission assistance through ss. 148 and 149 of the Act. The Commission’s decision not to make a determination should not be construed as not facilitating employees’ participation in industrial relations because a number of avenues remain open to the Union to secure the participation of employees and this Company in industrial relations. That Townsville Engineering’s view has prevailed in the arbitration should not be seen as encouragement to keep employees from participating in legitimate industrial relations processes and to preclude them from seeking to secure their rights and entitlements under awards or legislation. The legitimate complaints of the Union can be addressed in more targeted ways other than through a determination. Moreover, the provision of trade union training leave in the Award should help prepare employees for the changes in industrial relations that are likely to occur stemming from this arbitration. (ii) Likely effects: s. 149(5)(c)(ii) This provision requires the Commission to consider the likely public interest consequences of the determination on the broader stakeholders in industrial relations as well as the particular enterprise. The comments with respect to s. 149(5)(b) apply. Extent of good faith negotiations: s. 149(5)(d) As has been frequently stated, Townsville Engineering refused to participate in negotiations. In Asahi Diamond Industrial Australia Pty Ltd v Automotive, Food, Metals and Engineering Union (Print L9800) a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Commission decided that the Commission cannot direct a person to negotiate. As the Full Bench said: “An agreement cannot be reached with a person who does not want to agree and negotiations cannot take place with a person who does not want to negotiate.”. That decision was made in the context of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) which helped facilitate the shift from a centralised system to a decentralised one. The Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Qld) also provides for a decentralised system through the making of enterprise and individual agreements. However, as noted above, the system in place here does not give agreements (or determinations) a pre-eminent position over awards or vice versa. They have equal standing and it is a matter for the parties to determine the system that best meets their needs. In that context I consider that a person cannot be forced to negotiate. Certainly, the Commission may try to encourage negotiations and it is always open to the person (or party) who seeks to negotiate to use the means available under the Act to have negotiations commence. But, in my view, drawing on the decision in Asahi, a person cannot be forced to negotiate and a person who does not negotiate then cannot be characterised as negotiating in bad faith. Such a description implies that the person has acted inappropriately, for example, by withdrawing offers capriciously or by consistently not attending scheduled meetings. A refusal and consistent refusal to negotiate can only be characterised as that and the absence of negotiations cannot be described as bad faith negotiations. However, as I mentioned earlier, a person who refuses to participate in negotiations may find themselves involved in an arbitration under s. 149 of the Act. In a case where the merits were more compelling than here, then the prospect of the Commission imposing a determination in a case where a party has refused to negotiate would be very real. The refusal of the employer to negotiate in this case may mean that the employer may face disruption through dispute notifications and the involvement of third parties. Again that is a risk and consequence of a person’s refusal to participate in legitimate industrial relations processes. For the reasons outlined above, s. 149(5)(d) does not apply. -- 7 of 8 -- 8 ***** For all of the reasons given in this Decision, the Commission has decided to decline to exercise its jurisdiction to make a determination. I would encourage Townsville Engineering in light of the comments made herein to consider meeting with the Union in order to avoid the very real likelihood of disruption because of their unwillingness to consult with the Union and abide by industrial regulation. The Commission orders accordingly. G.K. FISHER, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2005 6 May 27 – 29 July Released: 21 October 2005 Appearances: Mr E. Moorhead of Automotive, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Industrial Union of Employees, Queensland, the Applicant. Mr G. Gillespie (Gillespie Consulting Services Pty Ltd) for the Respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2005. -- 8 of 8 --