1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.285—Annual wage reviews to be conducted Annual Wage Review 2017–18 (C2018/1) JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY COMMISSIONER HAMPTON MR COLE PROFESSOR RICHARDSON MR GIBBS MELBOURNE, 20 SEPTEMBER 2017 RESPONSES TO VIEWS ON A PRELIMINARY HEARING — BUDGET STANDARDS RESEARCH [1] On Friday 25 August 2017, a Statement was issued inviting parties to comment on the utility of holding a preliminary hearing to discuss the outcomes of a new report on budget standards research.1 [2] Five submissions were received. Submissions from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Australia Industry Group (Ai Group) and United Voice did not support holding a preliminary hearing. [3] The ACTU and Ai Group submitted that the research is able to be addressed in submissions and consultations for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18.2 Both the ACTU and United Voice were concerned that holding a preliminary hearing may be seen to elevate the research or the consideration of relative living standards and needs of the low paid over other factors.3 ACCI did not consider there to be any efficiency in holding a preliminary hearing on what it described as ‘a small subset of research of contestable relevance to only one of the limbs of consideration within the minimum wages objective’.4 [4] The Australian Catholic Council for Employment Relations (ACCER) supported a preliminary hearing and stated that it would enable parties to discuss methodological issues and provide an opportunity to seek further evidence.5 [5] In its submission in reply, ACCER commented that there is no reason that inviting parties to comment on the utility of the research should compromise the Expert Panel’s [2017] FWCFB 4885 STATEMENT [2017] FWCFB 4885 2 decision-making process.6 It added that the matters from the research that require consideration and discussion cannot be raised during the time allocated for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18.7 [6] The ACTU replied that a preliminary hearing would be less desirable than if the research was considered in parallel with all other relevant information.8 [7] In the circumstances, the Expert Panel does not propose to hold a preliminary hearing to discuss the budget standards report. Interested parties are invited to comment on the report and its relevance to the adjustment of minimum wages in the context of the Annual Wage Review in their submissions to be filed in accordance with the Statement confirming the timetable for the Annual Wage Review 2017–18. [8] Fair Work Commission staff may also seek views from parties on whether to hold a discussion of the budget standards research through another forum. PRESIDENT Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <Price code A, PR596215 > 1 [2017] FWC 4403. 2 ACTU submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 5; Ai Group, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at p. 1. 3 ACTU submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 8; United Voice, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at p. 1. 4 ACCI submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 11 September 2017 at para. 52. 5 ACCER submission, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 8 September 2017 at para. 7. 6 ACCER submission in reply, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 15 September 2017 at para. 16. 7 Ibid at para. 18. 8 ACTU submission in reply, Views on a preliminary hearing – Budget standards research, 15 September 2017 at para. 4.