CASSANDRAPUB00351.DOC CASSANDRA PUBLIC
09/09/2003 pp.00351-00397
COPYRIGHT
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
MS I. MOSS, A.O., COMMISSIONER
PUBLIC HEARING
OPERATION CASSANDRA
Reference: Operation 191
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY
ON TUESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 2003
AT 2.11 PM
This transcript has been prepared in accordance with conventions used in the Supreme Court. Whilst the transcript is not a verbatim record, every effort has been made to ensure accuracy of evidence. Please advise the Commission of any significant inaccuracy.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Pedersen.
<PAUL THOLIEF PEDERSEN: [2.11 pm]
THE COMMISSIONER: Now, Mr Pedersen, you're on your former oath?
---Yes.
MR RUSHTON: Mr Pedersen, I may have said something incorrect to you about a particular day. Might I have access to Exhibit 59? Yes, might I approach, Commissioner?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR RUSHTON: I think I may have suggested to you that you obtained a 5099 exemption on 31 August 2002?---Yeah.
In fact the record shows that that was the expiry date, which means that it was on 31 August 2001, does that accord with your recollection?---Yeah.
Thank you, your Honour, I return that document.
Did it come to your attention whilst you were employed by Whyco that a number of employees of the business obtained green cards without having done any induction?---Yes.
Were you aware of how that came about?---No, I wasn't involved personally. I already had a current green card.
Having undergone an induction?---Yes, previously, yes.
How did you become aware of it?---Just through general talking in the yard itself.
Had employees made it known to you that they had obtained green cards without having undergone the induction?---Yes.
Did they disclose to you who had issued those cards?---No.
Did they indicate who had signed off on the cards?---No.
There is just one other matter I want to ask you about and that is, some tickets that you obtained on 23 July 2001?---Yes.
At that time you had a ticket to operate a crane, is that correct?---Yes.
Is it the C1?---Yes.
What did that permit you to do?---C1 allows you to drive a mobile crane up to 100 tonne, basically.
You also had a dogging ticket as well?---Yes.
On 23 July 2001 did you obtain notices of satisfactory assessment from a Armando Fassone?---Sorry?
On 23 July 2001 did you arrange for the issue of tickets?---Tickets, yes.
And did you arrange for them to be documented, for want of a better expression, by Armando Fassone?---Yes.
How did that come about? Did you ring him or did somebody put you in touch with him?---Yes, I spoke to him, yes. I rang him.
Did you believe, at the time of speaking to him, that he would be able to issue notices of assessment in respect of the classes you were applying for without you having to undergo any practical or knowledge test?---Yes.
How did you come to that understanding, that he would do that for you?
---He was just one of those people that you knew issued tickets without full training.
That was something that you heard within the industry?---Yes.
Can you have a look at these documents please, starting with Notice of Assessment, X116087?---Yes, sir.
Do you see that is an assessment summary which concerns a forklift truck?
---Yes.
Your signature appears on the document?---Yes.
As a result of that assessment summary being lodged with WorkCover New South Wales, did you obtain a ticket?---Yes.
Yes, I tender that document.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's Exhibit 60
#EXHIBIT 60 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116087 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: I also show you Notice of Satisfactory Assessment X116088 which relates to a basic rigging ticket. Again does your signature appear on the document?---Yes.
As a consequence of that document being lodged with WorkCover New South Wales, did you obtain the basic rigging ticket?---Yes.
I tender that document.
THE COMMISSIONER: That will be Exhibit 61
#EXHIBIT 61 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116088 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: I now show you another Notice of Satisfactory Assessment dated 23 July 2001 being Number X116089 which concerns an intermediate rigging ticket. Again, does your signature appear on that document?---Yes.
As a consequence of lodgment of that document with WorkCover New South Wales did you obtain an intermediate rigging ticket?---Yes.
I tender that document.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 62.
#EXHIBIT 62 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116089 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: I show you a further document being a Notice of Satisfactory Assessment Number X116090 dated 23 July 2001. It's for an advanced rigging ticket and again does your signature appear on the document?---Yes.
Again, as a consequence of that document being lodged with WorkCover New South Wales, did you receive an advanced rigging ticket?---That's correct, yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's Exhibit 63.
MR RUSHTON: I show you a further document being a Notice of Satisfactory Assessment Number X116090 dated 23 July 2001. It's for an advanced rigging ticket and again does your signature appear on the
#EXHIBIT 63 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116090 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: I show you a further Notice of Satisfactory Assessment, Number X116091 dated 23 July 2001. Do you see that that relates to a work platform boom type elevating work platform?---Yes.
Again does your signature appear on that document?---Yes.
Again, did you obtain that particular ticket with the consequence of the document being lodged with WorkCover New South Wales?---That's correct.
MR RUSHTON: I show you a further Notice of Satisfactory Assessment, number X116091 dated 23 July 2001. Do you see that that relates to a work platform - boom type elevating work platform?---Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Exhibit 64.
#EXHIBIT 64 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116091 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: Finally I show you Notice of Satisfactory Assessment Number X116092 dated 23 July 2001. That is for a slewing mobile crane. Is that over 100 tonnes?---That's correct.
That's the biggest one you can get isn't it?---Yes.
That's a very big crane?---Not necessarily, no.
No, but it can be?---It depends.
Well, that ticket would permit you to operate a very large crane, would it not?---That's correct.
Again does your signature appear on it?---Yes.
As a consequence of that did you receive your ticket from, being WorkCover New South Wales, did you receive your ticket for that class of crane?---Yes.
I tender that document.
THE COMMISSIONER: That's 65.
#EXHIBIT 65 - WORKCOVER NOTICE OF SATISFACTORY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT SUMMARY NO. X116092 IN NAME OF PAUL PEDERSEN
MR RUSHTON: How much did you pay Mr Fassone for these tickets?---I can't remember.
Did anyone else within Whyco Cranes, to your knowledge, obtain tickets in similar circumstances, that is tickets to operate cranes or other machinery without having undergone other than practical - or the knowledge assessment or both?---Within Whyco Cranes, no.
I think you first obtained your crane ticket in 1999?---If not earlier, yeah.
And in an answer you gave me a little while ago you said, "not within Whyco Cranes", do you have an understanding within the industry more generally that tickets are commonly obtained without proper assessment?---Yes.
In relation to items of heavy plant and equipment?---All sorts of WorkCover tickets, yes.
And as you understand that, generally well known within the industry?
---Yes.
It was as a result of that sort of information that you came in contact with
Mr Fassone?---Yes.
Yes. Thank you, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Muddle?
MR MUDDLE: Mr Pedersen, before you contacted Mr Fassone to get the tickets of the classes that have been mentioned in evidence, you were aware that it was a requirement that you undergo both practical and a knowledge assessment, weren't you?---That's correct. Yes.
And in effect you paid Mr Fassone a bribe to give you Notices of Satisfactory Assessment without undertaking the assessment?---I don't know if you'd call it a bribe, but he was paid money. Yes.
You knew that legally you were obliged to undergo an assessment and you were paying him a sum of money to pretend that you had undergone that when in fact you hadn't?---That's correct.
And when you lodged those Notices of Satisfactory Assessment with WorkCover you wanted WorkCover to believe that you had been properly assessed?---I personally did not lodge them with WorkCover.
I thought you said to my learned friend that you had put them into WorkCover.
MR RUSHTON: No, I don't think he did say that?---No, the instructor or assessor puts everything through WorkCover.
MR MUDDLE: Were you handed a pink copy of the Notice of Satisfactory Assessment or not?---Yes.
And you used that to obtain work within those classes, did you?---Until you receive a formalised ticket, yes.
And how did it come about that you received the credit card sized ticket?
---It's sent to you by WorkCover.
Did you pay Mr Fassone an amount in respect of the price for the ticket as opposed to the price for the assessment?---I don't understand.
Did you pay him a fee separately for the WorkCover card, or did you simply pay him a fee - - -?---No. No. No. There is a fee of $40 that goes to WorkCover for that card. That's as much as I know.
And you paid him that $40 as well?---Yes. Yes.
Intending that he pay that to WorkCover?---M'mm. Yes.
And that with that money he also submit the Notice of Satisfactory Assessment?---As far as I understand. Yes.
So, in other words, you were intending that WorkCover believe that you had been properly assessed so that you could that ticket?---Yes.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Kintominas?
MR KINTOMINAS: Sir, these certificates that you obtained through Mr Fassone, that was entirely off your own bat?---Yes.
You didn't tell anyone at Whyco that you were doing this?---Not - not that I can remember. No. It was outside of work hours.
Did they have anything to do with your employment at Whyco?---Those tickets?
Yes?---No.
You were asked some questions firstly about your 5099 certificate?---Yes.
I think you indicated that you got a renewal and you hadn't done the renewal training?---That's right.
You were then asked whether you had done some jobs which required the 5099 exemption - - -?---Yes.
- - - and you said, as best as I can remember, that you didn't recall exactly but it was highly likely?---Yes. Highly likely. Yes.
And do you agree with this, that 5099 jobs within the company were not that common?---Well, it's common.
Well, they occurred about the - - -?---(Indistinct) - - -
They occurred once or twice a month on average?---On the particular machine I was on. Yes.
When you say the particular machine, what do you mean by, "The machine."?---Well, my training was a 30 tonne truck training which did maybe 5 per cent of railway work. Whereas there's other machines in the yard that may have done 70 odd per cent of rail work. My machine that I was allocated to never had a high percentage of railway.
Well, what I suggest to you is that the company's work as a whole was about one or two jobs a month that required the 5099 certification. Would you agree with that?---But it's - it's easily accessible. Just go through the records and find out. Yeah.
But would you agree with that?---To the best of my knowledge, yeah.
You agree that there were other people who were qualified to perform the 5099 work?---I was aware, what, sorry?
That there were other employees who were qualified, who had exemptions to do the 5099 work?---Yes.
That is, employees about whom there is no question about a renewal which wasn't accompanied by retraining?---No, I don't really understand the question where you're trying to go. Are you asking me about other employees of the company or - - -
Yes?---Okay.
There were other employees of the company who, to your knowledge, had current 5099 exemptions?---Current. Yes.
And not only current, but there wasn't a problem about them not having done retraining?---To me, no. No problem.
I suggest to you that it was those employees who've had up to date qualifications and exemptions under 5099 who did the 5099 work?---Would of, yes.
You, yourself, were not sent to a job which required a 5099 exemption after you got your renewal?---If it's in - if that's in the records then it must be right. Yeah. I don't - we don't - sometimes we do four jobs a day. I can't remember each individual job.
Well, would you agree with this. That simply because you had to work near power lines did not make it a 5099 job, that's correct isn't it?---How near? You can't - it's not a vague question. It's - if we go to a job knowing quite well we're going to be close to the power, yes, it's a 5099 job.
But you understand that the 5099 exemption relates to certain distances to certain power lines and according to the voltage of the power. Is that correct?---If they're close proximity, yes.
On many occasions when you had to work near power lines you didn't have to work so close that it would - sorry, I withdraw that. On many occasions when the company had to do jobs near power lines - - -?---Yes.
- - - those jobs, although they were near the power lines they weren't so close as to require 5099 exemption people?---No. There was many occasions I'd done jobs which should've been 5099 exempt.
Did you draw that to anyone's attention?---Yes. Always.
And did you do so in writing, or orally, or - - -?---No. No, sir. No.
And when that was done - and are we talking about a situation where you went there expecting it not to be 5099 and then there and it turned out to be a 5099 job? Is that what you're talking about?---No, not necessarily. No.
What did you mean then when you said there were many occasions?---Well, we can go to - we could go to your home and you want to put a pool in the backyard and we turn up at a job where we've got to go within half a foot of power lines. Over the top of power lines to put somebody's pool in the backyard.
Well, then I take it that when that was reported - - -?---M'mm.
- - - that there were proper provisions put into place for the 5099 procedures to be observed?---No, there wasn't. There was no procedure put in.
What do you mean, you went ahead and did the job anyway?---Yes.
Well, weren't you supposed to not do it. Go back to management and say this has turned out to be a 5099 job?---That's correct.
Did you do that?---No. They were aware, but I did not say in those words. No.
You were sent out to do jobs - - -?---Yes.
- - - that you were told - you were sent out to do jobs that you expected not to involve a 5099 - - -?---That's correct. Yes.
- - - exemption, that's right?---Yeah.
And until each job site is specifically looked at - - -?---Yes.
- - - it's not possible to predict whether it's going to be a 5099 job or not?
---That's correct. Not until you turn up.
So when you turn up - - -?---M'mm.
- - - and it turns out to be a 5099 job, it's then after you, isn't it - - -?---That's correct.
- - - to let your supervisors know - - -?---Yes.
- - - that it is a 5099 job and only qualified people should go ahead and do it?---That's right.
But you didn't do that. You didn't report that back to the company, you just went ahead and did the job anyway?---On - on which occasion (indistinct)?
Well, the occasions you're talking about?---You can't just generalise the - the industry. There's no - there's no (indistinct) the same - - -
No. I'm talking about you personally. You've given evidence - - -?---Yes.
- - - that this occurred?---Yes.
You were involved in it?---That's correct.
Why didn't you let your supervisors know?---I'd spoken to the supervisors when we returned to the yard.
After the job was - - -?---Verbally - yes. He said why did I do the job. It's just part of our industry, you don't do the job, you don't keep your job.
No-one from Whyco Cranes ever threatened your job, did they?---No, sir.
Nobody t old to do 5099 jobs, did they?---I've been told to do a 5099 job, yes.
When?---On many occasions on the rail.
When you say, "to do a 5099 job," when you were told to do it was it understood to be a 5099 job, or did it turn out to be a 5099 job - - -?---No, it was understood - - -
- - - and you would then - - -?--- - - - understood to be a 5099 job, yes.
This was when you had your prior certification?---It could've been, yes.
When you were authorised to do the 5099 jobs?---Yes.
There was no question about it?---No question.
You're not saying that you were asked to do 5099 jobs after your qualifications expired?---We have to go through the records and check. As I said, I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.
You're not willing to say that - - -?---No, it's not a matter of not willing to say, it's - how do I remember four jobs a day for the last three years? As I'm not a - it's not something you remember off the top of your head.
Nothing further, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cooley, did you want to - - -
MR COOLEY: Just very briefly thank you, if I may, Commissioner.
Sir, you've told us about obtaining a number of different tickets from Mr Fassone?---Yes.
At that stage, when you obtained those tickets from him how long had you been working, be it as a crane driver, or a dogman, or in some other - - -?
---(Indistinct) 12 years.
Nearly 12 years?---Yes.
Had you been working consistently throughout that period in that similar sort of work?---Yes.
In terms of the certificates that you obtained from Mr Fassone, and there were a number of them, the basic rigging certificate, the intermediate rigging ticket - - -?--- Yes.
Just dealing with those first of all how did you consider your degree of knowledge and skill in terms of be it basic or intermediate rigging?
---Extremely high.
Was that knowledge that you'd obtained, and skill that you'd obtained through your work?---Yes, practical work, yes.
Dealing with the advanced rigging certificate, how would you rate yourself in relation to the skills and knowledge that are required - - -?---Extremely high.
Once again, was that as a result of work that you'd performed in the field?
---Yes.
You also told us about getting a ticket in relation to a boom type elevated work platform?---Yes.
Had you done that sort of work previously?---Yes, for many years.
I know it's - - -?---When you did not need a ticket.
When you didn't need a ticket?---Right.
I know this is a matter of opinion, but how did you rate yourself in terms of your ability to conduct that sort of work?---Extremely high.
In terms of the slewing mobile crane - I hope I've got this down here, cranes over 100 tonnes - - -?---Yes.
- - - had you had any experience working with those prior to obtaining the ticket from Mr Fassone?---I have a log book of four months solid driving a 200 tonne mobile crane whilst I was with Wills and Cranes.
Was that before you obtained a ticket from Mr Fassone?---That's correct, yes.
Once again, how do you rate yourself in terms of your ability to conduct that sort of crane?---Extremely high.
Can you tell us why it is that you didn't in fact go through the proper channels, that is to say to sit the tests and do the assessment and the practical training to obtain the tickets in a legitimate way?---It was a - a time thing. I never had time to do it - - -
Why was that?--- - - - correctly, because I'm always working.
Yes, thank you.
MR RUSHTON: Can I just raise one matter with the witness?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR RUSHTON: Was there a technical officer employed by Whyco called Paul Churchill?---That's correct.
Was one of his responsibilities, to your observation this, that he had to go before a job was carried out and assess the site?---That's correct.
Does it follow from that that if there was a 5099 problem the company would know about it before you got there?---That's correct, yes.
Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: There are no further questions for you, Mr Pedersen. Thank you for coming, and you're excused.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.26 am]
MR RUSHTON: I call Adrian Prentice.
MR COOLEY: Once again, may it please the Commissioner, I appear for Mr Prentice with the Commissioner's leave.
THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted.
Mr Prentice if you could come down to the witness box.
MR COOLEY: I'd indicate, perhaps if I may, Commissioner, Mr Prentice is suffering from an injury to his neck at the moment. He's in a bit of discomfort but he's taken some pain killers. In addition to that I have
explained to him the s.38 declaration. He wishes to have that made and he understands the penalties for not being truthful to the Commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for that, Mr Cooley.
<ADRIAN LESLIE PRENTICE, affirmed: [2.27 pm]
THE COMMISSIONER: For the record, your full name - - -?---Adrian Leslie - - -
- - - and occupation?---Adrian Leslie Prentice.
Occupation?---Dogman/rigger.
Thank you. I'll make that s.38 declaration for you. Pursuant to s.38 of the ICAC Act I declare that all answers given by you and all documents and things produced by you during the course of today's hearing are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection, and accordingly there is no need for you to make objection in respect of any particular answer given, or document and thing produced. This order is for the duration of your evidence today and if you're required to give evidence on other days and you wish to avail yourself of this protection you will need to apply for another order. Thank you.
MR RUSHTON: Mr Prentice, are you currently employed?---I am.
By whom?---Whyco Cranes.
Were you so employed during the years 2002 and 2003?---I was, yes.
Did you hold the same position as dogman/rigger?---Yes.
In October of 2002 did you participate in a training course and assessment exercise at Swanns - - -?---(Indistinct).
Swan Cranes for the purpose of obtaining a 5099 exemption?---That's correct.
Did you go to the course with any other person from Whyco?---Mick Boland and Marty Douglas.
Were there also some employees of Swan Cranes present as well?---Yes.
How long did the course take?---It would've been duration 8 hours, give or take, plus.
Just on the one day?---One day.
What did the course cover ?---Awareness of electrical hazards.
Who was the trainer who conducted it, do you know?---Ray Anthony.
Was there any practical assessment carried out on the day, I mean, did you have to do anything in connection with power lines or machinery, or the like?---No, not in such - yes, look at power lines, determine difference between conductors, but - but not actually walk and have a look.
If one looked up at the power lines - - -?---At the power lines outside in the street, yes.
- - - you could tell by the number of conductors on the line what it's power was?---Yes, that was explained, that's correct.
For an 11,000 volt line there'd be a certain number of conductors - - -?
---Yes.
- - - for less than that, there'd be less conductors?---Less and smaller conductors.
Had you had any prior experience in electrical training or the like?
---I haven't, no.
Electricity was by and large something new to you?---Of course, yes.
Have you ever been required to use the 5099 ticket you obtained - - -?
---Yes.
- - - October 2002?---Yes.
On one or more than one occasion?---Twice.
Has that been recently or - - -?---Recent, it would've been - an educated guess, 2 months ago, on an RTA job.
And before that?---It was over at Heathcote, after Mick's death.
And that was on the same site where he died?---Yes.
What role did you perform - - -?---I'm actually observer spotter. I must add that the power lines were out that day but the State Rail Authority did want somebody from Whyco out there after that incident.
When you say they were out that day they had no - - -?---They were cut. They had no power.
Had been de-energised?---Yeah, they were not live.
You performed the role of observer. And when you did the job for the RTA a couple of months ago what role did you perform then?---Observer.
If I can just go back to the Heathcote site once more?---Yes.
Did the work you involved yourself in on that day consist of observing whilst reinforced steel - - -?---No.
- - - casings were dropped into holes?---No.
What did it involve?---Now I've got to think back. I think we put a couple of columns in but I could be wrong. I just can't remember that specifically. I know we did not do a great deal that day. I must admit it was a very quiet day. I'd have to go with the memory on that one.
But it involved, did it, working under the power lines?---No, it didn't involve directly working under the power lines where Mick was killed. It was on the opposite side of the line. My observation was only to the overhead rail lines on track.
Did you obtain a green card issued by Mr Anthony?---No. I obtained a green card. Now can I explain what I've got here and show you?
Yes, certainly?---Okay. The situation that I have here is - that was an induction that I had done in March 1999.
Might I approach, Commissioner?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
THE WITNESS: An 8 hour authorisation and WorkCover had so-called green cards back then but green cards were just coming into the industry and this was the type of thing that we were going towards in that point of time. At that point of time I was working with another company - a different company with a 8 hour induction course. The problem with this one nowadays is that, that number there didn't have the C number on it, so it was becoming to the situation where it was getting questioned on building sites not having the C number. It came to Whyco's attention that this one here was not going to be relevant and it was actually probably starting to get taken off sites. So this one was handed to me by Tony, Tony Clapham, the safety officer, at Whyco, stating that, "This is my new green card", Because I had done this one previously on an 8 hour course that this one here now would just become a refresher course, on 19 May I will be doing it. I wasn't available on the 19th - I was available on the 19 May and I weren't available. He told me it would be in the afternoon, a time given. I didn't get the time. It never eventuated. So that's my situation with that one. This one still is current as far as I'm concerned. That course never eventuated at all.
MR RUSHTON: Do you mind if we just take copies of those?---Of course.
Before I leave this topic, you said you were going to do the induction training on the 19th or a refresher?---Only a refresher on 19 May.
This says that, "He satisfactorily completed the course on 1 May"?---That's incorrect.
Was there anyone else that you know of was in Whyco Cranes who obtained an up to date green card from Mr Anthony which was dated prior to them undergoing any induction?---Sorry, no, I can't - no, no, not to my knowledge.
Had you experienced particular problems going on to building sites with your old card yourself?---No, I haven't, no, because I think there was like a transition stage where they were allowing that card still on building sites and it was up to the people to get training, retraining on the new green card, just to obtain that C number.
Might I approach again, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR RUSHTON: I show you an assessment document which has your name?---M'mm M'mm.
Dated 4 October, '02?---That's correct.
Is that in your hand?---Yes, sir, that's mine, yes.
So it's assessment - - -?---That's my 5099, yes. Yes.
To the best of your recollection how did the assessment proceed. Did you receive training before you completed this paper?---Yes, that paper - is that the - that was the typed sheet of the test in the afternoon, yes.
Yes?---Yeah. Training was provided right through the day up until the time that came out.
Did you all then just sit down and complete the paper?---Yes.
Was any assistance given to you in providing answers?---I would call that type of exam myself as an open book exam, yes, sir. I mean there was discussion whilst it was happening, yes. But under my understanding that that was actually the way things were.
I think in fact you're right, it is permitted. So it is conducted on the basis of its open book?---Yeah.
So you had course materials with you which you referred to whilst you were to complete your assessment?---Yes.
I tender that document.
THE COMMISSIONER: It's Exhibit 66.
#EXHIBIT 66 - TRANSGRID CRANE AND PLANT ELECTRICAL SAFETY TRAINING COURSE ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT IN NAME OF ADRIAN PRENTICE DATED 14/10/2002
MR RUSHTON: I've nothing further but I do want to tender those documents when they come back and then I can give them back to the witness.
THE COMMISSIONER: In the meantime, Mr Muddle, did you want to ask any questions?
MR MUDDLE: I have no questions at this stage, thank you, Commissioner. I would just like to see those certificates when they come back.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Kintominas?
MR KINTOMINAS: You gave evidence about the green card. Now, it was your understanding that this new green card that begins with the C, that that strictly was not necessary for anybody other than new entrants, to the industry, and people who hadn't worked for at least 2 years?---That wasn't my understanding, yes.
That wasn't your understanding?---No, that new entrants and people that did not work in the industry within 2 years, no I didn't know that. That's where the C number came into it, no. I've never been explained that. I just - my understanding was that it's a whole new change in the green card situation. That green card is becoming obsolete and the new green card has got the C number on which would enable - to go onto a building site.
Your qualifications, did you have any qualifications which require, as far as you understand it, any compulsory retraining once a year or once every 2 years, or anything - - -?---No. PW1 on railway I think every 4 years by memory, but that would've been the only thing that I had acquired since starting with Whyco Cranes. Prior to Whyco Cranes I was in the rigging field where green cards - well that card there was part of the daily work practices. Other things where retraining was concerned, no.
You indicated that you went on a job at the same site as where the fatality occurred?---Definitely.
What did that job entail?---Keeping an eye on the end of the jib of the crane or the jib of the crane, not to go nowhere near the overhead lines on the railway system.
The job as a whole, what was the crane used for?---The job on that specific day as far as I can remember we were lifting - well, the dogman and a driver were lifting beams or columns.
From where to where?---From the top of the ground area down to the lower side. But - like I say my memory on that day, on that specific job, is not 100 per cent, and that's just unfortunate.
As best as you can recall was it a similar job?---Yeah.
To the job that was undertaken by Ricky Shaw and the deceased?---No, because their job had overhead power lines where this site didn't have any at all.
Yes, I have nothing further. Thank you, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cooley?
MR COOLEY: I have no questions either, thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Right.
MR RUSHTON: I will just return to the witness the originals and I'll tender the copies.
THE COMMISSIONER: That will be Exhibit 67.
#EXHIBIT 67 - WORKCOVER OH&S INDUCTION TRAINING FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK CERTIFICATE IN NAME OF ADRIAN PRENTICE DATED 01/05/2003
THE COMMISSIONER: No further questions, Mr Rushton?
MR RUSHTON: No.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for coming and giving evidence, you're excused.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.51 pm]
MR COOLEY: Might I also be excused.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR COOLEY: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR RUSHTON: Commissioner, I think I indicated to my learned friend, Mr Kintominas, that I was going to call Mr Whyte next. I'm not, I've changed my mind. I propose to call Mr Anthony.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Anthony - - -
MR RUSHTON: Sorry, no, I've got one further witness. I do apologise. Mr Brocklebank.
<ROBERT LESLIE BROCKLEBANK, affirmed: [2.52 pm]
THE COMMISSIONER: For the record, your full name and occupation?
---My name is Robert Leslie Brocklebank and I'm a project officer with WorkCover Authority of New South Wales.
Mr Muddle?
MR MUDDLE: Yes, I appear for Mr Brocklebank. He understands that the certificate under s.38 doesn't protect him against prosecution for giving false evidence this day and he would like to have such a certificate.
THE COMMISSIONER: Pursuant to s.38 of the ICAC Act, I declare that all answers given by you and all documents and things produced by you during the course of today's hearing are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection and, accordingly, there is no need for you to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. This order is for the duration of your evidence today and if you are required to return to give evidence on other days and you wish to avail yourself of the protection afforded by that order, it will be necessary for you to apply for another order.
Mr Rushton?
MR RUSHTON: Mr Brocklebank, I want to ask you some questions concerning the green card process since about the mid-1980s and how it may have changed. In the mid-1980s did something occur which resulted in a 3-hour induction course being developed as the industry standard by CITAB?---Yes.
How did that come about?---There was an agreement with WorkCover and basically the industry and a group now called CITAB which was then Building Industry Skills Centre and they came together and agreed that there should be some form of safety education in the building industry and agreed that a course would be developed in that group and that the industry would agree that their members, that is those who work in the construction industry, should undergo a 3-hour training course every 18 months, and this was to be called - this turned out in the end to be the green card.
There was both training for persons entering a site for the first time and refresher training every 18 months?---Certainly. There was - in those days there was - there was - everyone was to do it and everyone was to do it every 18 months.
Did that change in 1999?---Certainly. What happened then, the Construction Safety Act was changed and basically before the others were -
the original course was just an agreement, an industry agreement, we all agreed it would happen. In 1999 it was legislated for and then there was the requirement that those newly entering the industry or those who had not been in the - who had been out of the industry for a period of 2 years or more would then undergo training.
Could you tell us what was involved in that particular training?---The new course, the legislated course, you're talk about?
Yes?---Sorry, yes. It was a 5 - a minimum of 5 hours' training. It was a once only requirement. There was no provision for refresher training. That then resulted in the issue of a statement of training which we've seen here, that was issued to the person who successfully - satisfactorily completed the training.
Might I have access to the last exhibit, please.
We've heard some evidence which suggests that workers who had been accredited under the old system, that is that operating from the mid-1980s, were required to go out and get accredited again with this 5-hour induction. Is that your understanding of what the requirements were?---No. The new legislation provided an exemption for those who had conducted - had worked or carried out any construction work at all in the 2 years prior to the introduction of the legislation. They were exempt from having to undergo the induction training.
For example, we've heard some evidence suggesting that if the letters NW appeared on your green card that that wasn't good enough on particular sites and you had to go and get a C card?---Look, there's - it's hard. You - you really need to understand the mythology I suppose of the green card. There isn't a requirement for a green card. The requirement exists in the legislation for a statement of training. The green card was created with that initial course and unfortunately has carried through into this new legislation in the industry and there's this - and I suppose it's really good advertising in the sense, there is still - everybody recognises the need for a green card, but in fact, it's a need for a statement of training, and this green card name has carried through and somewhat muddies the waters in terms of what's required.
Let's talk about it in terms of a certificate?---Yes.
Was it the case that if you obtained a certificate pursuant to the scheme that operated from the mid-1980s you had to go and get another certificate after 1 April 1999?---The only time you'd be required to do that is if you had left the industry for a period of 2 years.
You've heard the evidence of the previous witness, Mr Prentice, suggesting that he had been told that he needed a new one. On the assumption that he
had not been outside the industry for a period of 2 years, I take it from what you say, that was just completely unnecessary?---It is the requirement - the legislation provided an exemption for him and he need not have undergone the training.
That would apply equally to other witnesses who have said that because they had an NW number rather than a C number that wasn't really necessary provided they had been in the industry for a period of 2 years prior to 1 April 1999?---Yes.
The certificates that are issued since 1 April 1999, what is it that they actually certify as you understand it?---They certify that the - the participant has satisfactorily completed an approved course, that is a course approved by WorkCover in terms of the - well, first of all from 1999, it was the Construction Safety Act, and from September 2001, it was the - the OH&S 2001.
That's the 5-hour induction?---The 5-hour course, yes.
Yes, thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Muddle?
MR MUDDLE: Mr Brocklebank, the certificates that you've just spoken about, they are in fact issued by the trainer, aren't they?
---Yes, they are.
No fee or charge is made by WorkCover to the person receiving the training in respect of that, is there?---Not by WorkCover, no.
As a matter of course WorkCover doesn't even know who has received those certificates, does it?---We know the name of the trainer but we don't know the name of the individual who receives the certificate, or the statement of training.
Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Kintominas.
MR KINTOMINAS: Yes, I have a couple of questions, Commissioner.
If I've understood you correctly, you have explained that as far as the legal requirement for anybody who had been working continuously in the industry and had an old green card, he was not required to undergo an induction course?---If he had not left the industry for 2 years, that's right.
That's right?---Yes.
However, would you agree with this, that what was happening from a practical point of view is that there were inspectors from WorkCover who were going out on sites asking to see people's C cards?---I don't know that, no.
Are you aware of advice that the Construction Industry Training Advisory Board put out on this?---No, I don't.
Have a look at this document and see whether you've either seen that document at all or whether at least its general contents have ever been drawn to your attention?---I can't say I - I've seen it but I'm aware of CITAB's views.
You're aware of CITAB's view?---M'mm.
CITAB's view was that there were people who were being incorrectly asked to produce green cards with the letter C?---I'm not aware of that view. I'm aware of the view that's expressed here but I'm not aware of that view, no.
You've already agreed that somebody with the old numbered green cards didn't need to do an induction course?---As long as they'd had not left the industry for - - -
As long as they hadn't left the industry for 2 years I think we've got that loud and clear?---Okay.
I'm not suggesting to you otherwise, I'm not trying to creep that in through the back door. Now, if somebody like that wanted to get a C card to avoid being wrongly challenged about not having a C card, he could get a C card without doing the induction course, couldn't he?---No. No.
The C card stated that he'd had proper training?---I don't quite know what you mean by the C card. There's - there's green card, which is issued by CITAB and there is a WorkCover statement of training which has a C number on it. So which one are we talking about?
The WorkCover statement of training that had a C number on it, that was a statement of training?---Yes.
What was the difference if the statement of training had been obtained earlier rather than more recently?---How early? It really makes a difference as to how early in the sense that the statement of training that we're talking about applied from 1 April 1999. The course - the approved course actually without the trainers, about December of 1998 and I note from that previous statement of training that I saw, it didn't have a number on because from December 1998 until 1 April 1999 they didn't bear a C number. Whilst they'd undergone an approved course the legislation didn't actually come into force until 1 April. So as an example the certificate that I saw - the
statement of training I saw from that other fellow obviously was an appropriate - he'd done appropriate training in terms of the legislation that came into play on 1 April. But - does that answer it?
This is the situation then, if somebody had been in the industry continuously without a break, had his qualifications, and apart from certain specific qualifications where you had to have renewal every year, he didn't need to undergo any further training?---The legislation exempted him, certainly.
That's right?---Yes.
Would you agree that there would arise situations where people would be wrongly asking to see a C numbered qualification?
MR MUDDLE: I object to that question. It's pure speculation.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Is that all you wish to ask? I mean, I don't know if Mr Brocklebank will be able to answer that.
MR KINTOMINAS: I thought if he couldn't, he'd say so.
MR MUDDLE: He already has actually.
THE COMMISSIONER: That he couldn't?
MR KINTOMINAS: If he can't, I don't press it any further.
In respect of that document that I've given you, you've seen that paragraph that begins, "As a result of a WorkCover blitz in New South Wales"?---No, which paragraph is that?
Might I approach, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR KINTOMINAS: The WorkCover intervention?---Sure. Well, I'm not really aware of any intervention blitz, no, so - - -
You weren't aware of any intervention blitz by WorkCover?---No. Well, I'm - I'm not an inspector and I - I don't go in the field so I'm not aware of any intervention blitz, no.
I may intend to tender that document later when one of my witnesses is called. I don't know whether you wish to have it marked or just take my word for it that it's the same one.
MR RUSHTON: I have no objection. If my friend wants to tender it, I have no objection.
THE COMMISSIONER: It's up to you. Do you want to tender it now?
MR KINTOMINAS: I'll tender it now.
THE COMMISSIONER: That will be exhibit 68.
#EXHIBIT 68 - CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY TRAINING ADVISORY BOARD INFORMATION SHEET "CITAB GREEN CARDS"
MR MUDDLE: May I just have access to it?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, certainly. Are there no further questions, Mr Kintominas.
MR KINTOMINAS: Thank you, Commissioner, no.
THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McGlinchey?
MS McGLINCHEY: No.
MR RUSHTON: Sir, I think you said in answer to some questions from Mr Muddle, that WorkCover doesn't play any role in the issue of the certificates?---Which - I'm sorry, which certificates?
The certificates which certify that a particular person has satisfactorily completed the course in occupational health and safety induction training for construction work?---We issue them to the - the trainer who then issues them to the participants.
They've got a WorkCover stamp on them, haven't they?---Yes, they certainly do, yes. We - we supply them to the trainer.
"WorkCover watching out for you" at the bottom of them?---That's our - yes, our statement.
In the middle of them they say "Dawn Peacock, Co-ordinator OH&S Educating Unit, WorkCover, New South Wales" and her signature appears?
---Yes. The - the statement I think is issued by - I think there's provision there for a signature by the trainer and - and other items in terms of his qualifications on - on that bottom right-hand - on that.
That's from exhibit 67 and I return it. Thank you.
THE COMMISSIONER: Just one last question. The statement of training you said it required 5 hours of training. What does that cover for that period, roughly?---Basically, hazards that those who work in construction will encounter on the work - on the work site, general occupational emergencies. I can't actually remember each individual item but it's a general introduction, a brief introduction to occupational health and safety in respect of the construction - the sorts of things they would encounter on site.
It's quite broad ranging?---Yes, it is and really quite brief, really.
The depth, I suppose, because it's only 5 hours, would necessarily not be too deep in terms - - -?---I think you'd probably describe it best as an awareness course.
These are the sorts of things we should be better aware about?---Yes.
Electrical hazards, that sort of thing?---And we briefly touch on a number of items. The - the requirements for the course are actually contained in the - the code of practice which came into play on 1 April and it sets out the sorts of things that should be contained in the - in the training.
It's more like a contents, all the things that you should be aware of but we can't give it to you in great depth?---It's given in a very - in a fairly brief form, certainly.
You don't really have to pass an exam. You just have to attend for 5 hours?
---Well, we - there is an assessment and there can be an assessment at the end of the - the 5 hours and the legislation requires that they satisfactorily complete and so - that satisfaction being to the satisfaction of the trainer, of course, but certainly the certificate - the statement of training requires that they satisfactorily complete that particular course.
Thank you. Thank you very much for giving evidence, you're excused?
THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.09 pm]
MR RUSHTON: I call Mr Anthony.
<RAYMOND WILLIAM ANTHONY, sworn: [3.10 pm]
THE COMMISSIONER: For the record, your full name and occupation?
---Raymond - my name is Raymond William Anthony and my occupation is safety officer with Transgrid.
Ms McGlinchey, you seek leave to appear?
MS McGLINCHEY: I seek your leave to appear, Commissioner.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes; it's granted.
MS McGLINCHEY: I have given Mr Anthony advice on the effect of the declaration should it be made and he instructs me to request that the declaration pursuant to s.38 be made and he is aware of the limits of that declaration and that he is not protected should he give any false or misleading information to this Commission.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Pursuant to s.38 of the ICAC Act, I declare that all answers given by you and all documents and things produced by you during the course of today's hearing are to be regarded as having been given or produced on objection and, accordingly, there is no need for you to make objection in respect of any particular answer given or document or thing produced. This order is for the duration of your evidence today and should you be required to return to give evidence on other days and you wish to avail yourself of the protection, you will need to apply for another order. Thank you.
MR RUSHTON: Mr Anthony, what's your full name?---Raymond William Anthony.
And your occupation?---Safety Officer with Transgrid.
How long have you held that position?---I've been a Safety Officer with Transgrid since approximately 1987.
Thank you. What day to day duties do you perform as a Safety Officer at Transgrid?---Just general duties in health and safety. Anything that's required or been given to me by Transgrid to complete in health and safety.
Where are you currently working?---I'm working on what's known as, "The 42 cable project", which involves laying an electricity line between Picnic Point and the city.
During the course of your employment as a Safety Officer did you acquire accreditation to teach and assess the Crane and Plant Safety Awareness Certificate?---Yes, I did.
Now, that was a course I think which applied in relation to what has become to be known as, "The 5099 Exemption."?---Yes, sir. Yeah.
And subsequently with the introduction of the New Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 were you similarly accredited to teach and assess the Overhead Power Line and Electrical Safety Course ?---No.
All right. Was there a course that was taught and assessed which replace the Crane and Plant Safety Awareness Certificate?---To my knowledge, no.
Rather than being based on Regulation 133A of the Construction Safety Regulations, did it come to pass - - -?---The interim guide. There - - -
There was some interim guidelines, was there?---The interim guide (indistinct) Crane and plant electrical safety Course.
But essentially both prior and after the enactment of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 2000, the courses covered substantially the same matters?---Yes.
And you were accredited to assess and to teach throughout that period?
---Yes. Yes. I did the accreditation. It went back to approximately - goodness knows. Almost when it started I think in 1995 - - -
In 1995 I think?---Yeah, something like that.
For what purpose, as you understood it, did you obtain such accreditation as an employee of Transgrid?---Well, I guess for no other reason than it was there, like, you know it'd be my supervisor at the time. Looking back I can't recall everything, but we had just - the Electricity Commission or Pacific Power as we were, was not a part of the Electricity Association. About that time when we sailed off to be a separate identity or a transmission authority we then had some input to the - to the - to the Electricity Authority and my supervisor at the time, for whatever reasons, we went down and got accredited to do that course.
Well it was the case was it not, then as it probably is now, that from time to time employees of Transgrid had to go within distances of electrically charged wires and apparatus at a distance which would be regarded as unsafe without an observer?---Transgrid - Transgrid for about 50 years, I think it came through, has had a system in place far in excess and far safer than was ever required by that crane and plant - the requirements of the Crane and Plant Certificate.
All right. Does that mean then that the course and assessment were use primarily for the purpose of training and assessing people who weren't Transgrid employees?---I can't speak entirely for Transgrid because there's a whole lot of other systems in place over and above that course. Transgrid has its own set of safety rules and it incorporates that (indistinct) - - -
Did it apply this course to its own employees or didn't it?---At times we did. Yes.
And at times - - -?---When I say that, there was - there was - if I was asked to run it we would run it.
Similarly, from time to time, courses would be carried out on behalf of persons who were not part of Transgrid such as crane companies - - -?
Yes.
- - - and the like, because their employees might, from time to time, come within close vicinity to power lines and the like?---Yes, sir. Yes.
And you had the accreditation to carry out such - - -?---Yes.
- - - an assessment. Did you similarly acquire accreditation to carry out the construction safety induction?---Yes.
And was that then carried out on behalf of Transgrid for Transgrid employees and others?---Yes.
And when - - -?---I think we were a bit slow picking it up on Transgrid employees.
In relation to both the 5099 exemption course and its successor and the Construction Safety Induction Course, when you taught and assessed external parties such as crane operators and the like, did Transgrid charge a fee?---Yes.
What did it charge?---I - I can't put a value on that. I - I - I - just straight off the cuff I can't put a value on it.
Well, did you arrange for the issue of invoices to - - -?---Yes.
- - - companies or businesses?---Yes. Yes. Yeah. Well, at the time. Yeah.
Did, to your knowledge, Transgrid have a policy on secondary employment?---Yes, sir. One. Yeah.
What was it?---Secondary employment, I'm not sure. I think - yeah. Can you ask me the question again.
Did Transgrid have a policy on secondary employment?---I wasn't too sure.
Well, did you ever ask anybody?---At one stage I - there's a couple of issues came into place here. At one stage I said about - about the 5099 or the crane and plant course, I approached my supervisor at the time and - and I said, you now there's - there was a bit of a market - I believe there was a market. We were told to find external work at the time. I approached my supervisor at the time and - and said, "Now, there's a market." I was quite prepared to sort of do weekend work or even night time work, and he said, "No." And I said, "Well, you know, what about me can I have a go." He said, "Don't tell me about it."
Well, that would suggest very much, would it not, that he was saying that what you were doing was not the correct thing to do and he didn't want to know about it?---Well, I expect - as I sit here before today, that's - that may be right. At the time I didn't see it that way.
Well, did you think he was giving you work at the time, did you?---No.
What did you think? It must have occurred to you at the time if he didn't want to know anything about it that what you were doing was wrong, or what you were about to do was wrong?---No. Well, I didn't see it that way. I didn't see I was stepping on anyone's toes if there was a - a market there.
And this was your supervisor at the time, was it?---It certainly was.
Following that discussion with your supervisor did you then commence to do these courses and assessments in your own right?---Yes.
And when you did that, did you charge for it?---Yes.
What rate did you charge?---I don't know. I - I - I haven't done a lot of these for some time. Like, probably maybe $300 or something. Whatever I believed what the going rate was.
$300 per person?---Something like that. Yeah.
And, similarly, did you charge or make a charge when you carried out - I withdraw that. Did you also carry out green card inductions as a private matter as distinct from - - -?---I certainly did. Yes.
And did you do that often?---Yeah, pretty frequently.
And did you make a charge in relation to those courses?---I did. Yes.
How much per person did you charge for giving green cards?---I did green cards for about 2000. I started doing it for a bit of private work and I guess my charges have ranged from $50 to $80.
Per card?---Yeah.
Per card?---Yeah. It may be less in some case. Just depends on the - on the circumstances.
Did you obtain the approval of anyone within Transgrid to the conduct of - that you've just described, that he's doing green card inductions in a private capacity?---No, sir. There is a lot of things happened in my life in Transgrid at that time when I started doing this, and I was a little unsecure in my job and - - -
Yes. I'm sorry. Yes?---I beg your pardon?
I cut you off. Keep going?---Yeah. At the time when I started - when I got into this I was extremely unsecure in my job and I didn't know and possibly even now I still don't know what my future is after 3 years in my job and I believe, well, okay, I did charge for cards but I was a bit worried where my future was going.
Does it mean - are you saying that because you had some concern about job security you didn't feel that it was appropriate to disclose to your employer that you were engaged in these private activities?---I guess that's what I've done, yes.
It was quite a lucrative business to you though, was it not?---Yes, sir. I got, yeah - - -
Would it be fair to say that you made many, many thousands of dollars out of, for example, green card induction?---Yes.
Over the period that you have done it in a private capacity how much do you estimate that you have made?---I don't know.
Are we talking hundreds and thousands of dollars?---I don't think so. Probably somewhere around I'd say in the last year maybe - well, with doing other little bits and pieces too maybe about $40,000.
In the last years, $40,000?---I think so, yeah.
If I can deal first with the 5099 course, we've heard some evidence today, as no doubt you have too from Mr Aberley that in his expert opinion it is not possible to properly carry out the course in less than 2 days?---M'mm M'mm.
is that a view you share?---No.
Is it the case that from time to time you, in a private capacity, carried out the 5099 exemption, full course, in a day or less?---Some of them have been a very - extremely long day. We started at 7 and probably finished at 5 and 6,
or on a Saturday or something like that, yeah, that's going back some time though. I wouldn't say I've ran too many 5099 full courses in a 5 or 6 year period.
When you conducted 5099 courses on behalf of Transgrid?---M'mm M'mm.
Did those courses extend over a period in excess of 1 day?---No, I - in - no, I've ran the full course in a day, for Transgrid, yes.
Was it your view then that the course could be properly completed in 1 day rather than 2?---Yes. We started - when we first got into this we used to run the course in 2 days and I thought that we were sort of over extending them and I heard very well what the gentleman said this morning, yes.
One of the things he said, for example, was that there was a requirement to have rescue and resuscitation training for a period of half a day in addition to the 2 days?---Sir, I ran the crane and plant course and when we ran that course I made it quite clear that was in the requirements of training. There was a requirement to run the crane and plant course and there was also other requirements to do CPR and rescue - I think you said.
I think it's rescue and resuscitation?---Whatever. Anyway, I've made it quite clear because when we went through, at a point in the course we would go through that - the requirements of training and I would make it quite clear that we went and do a rescue and resuscitation and to the fact - one of the things we would have demonstrated is why you don't step off the back of vehicles if there's electricity on them because of step and touch potential.
But sometimes, no doubt, you would be aware people do and there's a need to resuscitate them as they drop to the ground. Are you saying that you were prepared to certify them knowing that they hadn't received that training?---My obligation was to do the crane and plant course, that's what I was certified to do. I've never been a first aid person.
You would be aware, would you not, that the trainers manual issued by Transgrid says that the course time, excluding assessments, is some 14 hours?---Well, I knew that yes.
Are you seriously saying to the Commission that you believe that you could teach it in less than a day?---Not the manual that's listed by Transgrid. Are you referring to the manual listed by the Electricity Association?
With the Transgrid stamp on it?---Well, that would have been our front cover, yeah.
You see wasn't it a requirement that you had to first successfully complete the first module and be tested on it before you could move on to the second module?---Yeah, and that's how I ran the course.
You're aware, are you not, that the guidelines issued by the Electricity Association indicated that the course would take 14 hours excluding assessments?---I knew it was dedicated to what - they had originally a 2 day course, but I guess if I - after listening to that gentleman this morning it's easy, with hindsight, I'd like to say that, you know, I've been brought up in a way with Transgrid. The bottom line of that course was keeping, apart from the hazards of electricity, was reading a chart and keeping a certain distance from electricity, live electricity. I guess, as I always thought was that, you know, ultimately, that was it. In recent years Transgrid has radically modified its training. But I would have saw - anyone who worked in the Transgrid switch yard, and I feel that Transgrid probably set the pace or the Electricity Commission set the pace in its safety requirements, switchyard safety requirements, set the pace in Australia let alone anywhere else because I believe our safety rules were used as the pattern to set up others. And certainly I always felt that that course was communicated in about 2 hours, 2 maybe 3 hours. I'm not saying so much to date because the Transgrid, you know, they'd modified in the pattern of training and putting itself into line with a lot of other requirements, but that's how I saw the situation in my experience in running this course.
Are you saying that in your experience in running this course you could teach it in 2 to 3 hours?---No, not at all. I'm saying that that was one of the basis. It took it into more finesse. The bottom line - the bottom line of - is the clearance distance as from live electricity.
That might be the bottom line, sir, but you were aware were you not when you started doing these private assessments that the guide lines provided that the course would take 14 hours excluding assessments, weren't you?
---Yeah. Well, yes, it's a 14 hour requirement. I knew it was 2 days I would say or a period of 2 days, yeah.
But your position is that you considered it could be done in a day and therefore you did it in a day?---Yes.
Did you tell your employer Transgrid that you were doing the courses in a day rather than two?---No, because I think probably - no.
If what you say is correct, that is if you could properly do it in a day, there would have been no reason, would there, to have concealed from Transgrid the fact that you were doing in 1 rather than 2 days?---But we did training for Transgrid in a day too.
Would you come back to my question please? If as you say there was nothing irregular in doing it in 1 rather than 2 days, there would have been no reason, would there, for you to conceal that fact from Transgrid?---I know as I'm standing here before you now, no.
You would have been open with them, had you been asked, and told them that the course was taking 1 rather than 2 days?---Yes.
You wouldn't have represented to Transgrid that in fact it was taking 2 days when you'd only spend one?---I don't believe so, no.
Because had you done that, that would be utterly false, would it not?---I never, no. I don't believe I've done that.
Would you have a look at this document please? Do you know a person by the name of Rachel Steadman?---Yes.
Is that an email that you sent to her on 15 August 2002?---Yes.
What's her role within Transgrid?---She's the secretary of the health and safety section.
Does she issue certificates at your request?---Yes. She designed the certificates.
Including 5099 exemption certificate?---That's - this is - this is after the implementation of - of the - - -
Mr Anthony, did she or did she not arrange - - -?---She does, yes.
Thank you very much. Would you please read it, "Rachel, can you please create a certificate for the crane and plant electrical training course for" then you name four individuals?---Yes.
Date, 15 to 16 August 2002?---Yes.
That was false, was it not?---Yes, we did that over 1 day.
That's right?---Yes.
Why, might I ask, were you making false statements such as that one to Transgrid if indeed you believed that the course could be done properly in a day?---I have no answer to that. I - I guess - at this stage I have ran two full courses since Transgrid owned the course. This was one of them and the second one I ran 1 day and - and this one I put a - if I ran it in a day I'd put 15th and 16th for no reason. I'm not denying anything. I ran it in a day.
It's a false statement, is it not?---Well, I didn't see it as such but I - you know, as I sit here before you now, I have to say yes.
You sent it on the 15th - - -?---Yes.
- - - knowing that you weren't going to teach on the 16th. Can you think of any reason other than the fact that you knew the course had to be done in 2 days and not one, why you would have said that to Ms Steadman?---No.
Isn't that the case, that you knew that the course had to be done in 2 days, not one, and you couldn't properly do it in one?---No. I was - I said to you and I - and - and I was quite happy to run that course in 1 day.
But you weren't quite happy to let Transgrid know that that's what you were up to, were you?---Well, I did on the next course.
You didn't with this one though, did you?---Well, no, I guess if it's got it there, yes.
Can I suggest that you didn't tell them that you had done it in 1 day because you believed that they understood that you were doing it in 2 days like you were supposed to do?---I don't believe anyone in Transgrid knew much about it.
I want to be fair with you?---M'mm.
Would you mind offering any explanation you can as to why you were representing to Transgrid that this course was going to be conducted on the 15th and 16th when you knew it was going to be conducted on the 15th only or indeed may have just been conducted on the 15th only?---No, sir, no.
If, as you say, it was proper for you to do the course in 1 day rather than two, there would have been no reason, would there, to falsely represent on the applicant's certificate that he or she had completed the course over 2 days rather than one?---No.
You know, don't you, that in respect of the individuals there, Mr Bucher, Mr Shaw, Mr Linton and Mr Copeland, that on their certificates there is a representation for the course that the training occurred over 2 days rather than one, don't you?---Yes.
That information was false?---Well, yes.
Because it was based on false information which you had given Ms Steadman?---Yes.
It was information which you knew was false at the time that you gave it to her?---I'm a bit reluctant to answer that question.
Please do?---Yes. Sir, I - - -
The people who were involved in the course on that day in the document that's in front of you, were, as you understood it, crane operators and dogmen, were they not?---Yes.
They were people, as you understood, who had had absolutely no experience in electricity at all?---They were people who were experienced in driving cranes.
Obviously?---M'mm.
You're not seriously suggesting, are you, that you are of the belief that they came to your course with some prior knowledge of electricity and its dangers?---No, but I took them through all the requirements. You - you have all the - you have the - the course notes for that - for that training course.
Where did you send this email from?---Probably from - from Woolgrow, what we call Woolgrow. Rachel Steadman is in Newcastle.
Where did you conduct the course?---We conducted this particular course at Whyco Cranes.
Do you see the time on the email, 3.09? That suggests, does it not, the training was well and truly over by them?---Okay. All right, yes.
Isn't it the case, Mr Anthony, that you were prepared to issue these certificates without giving the crane operators and the like any proper training at all?---No, I - I - I don't think so. I - I - I work my way through the course as I thought proper.
Would you like to withdraw the evidence you gave a little earlier saying it was a very long day?---Well - well, I withdraw the evidence.
It's obviously wrong, isn't it?---We started - I don't know, we started at around 7.00 and we finished around probably quarter to 3.00, half past 2.00.
How many hours does that give you?---6, 7 - 6.
Are you seriously suggesting that you could teach the 5099 course in 6 hours?---Well, that's what I did, sir.
Are you seriously suggesting that you could properly do it in 6 hours?
---Well, I think they were happy and - and - you know - and - and I was certainly, you know, we covered everything. We had - - -
I bet they were happy, they got their tickets, but are you seriously suggesting that you could properly teach the course in 6 hours?---Well, I did and I can't retract from that.
It's obvious you did, but are you seriously suggesting that you could properly teach this course in 6 hours?---Well, yes.
What about the refresher course, how long did that take?---That took about 3 to 4 hours.
You heard Mr Aberley say this morning that in his experience it would generally take about 9 hours. They barely get it in in a day. Is that a view with which you disagree?---No, but I think his view today was - was doing resuscitation and all that. I think the - if I remember, the - the - the refresher course was - the refresher course was 4 hours. I think that was there and in that time.
Did you engage in refresher courses from time to time?---Yes.
Did you carry out a refresher course on 31 August 2001?---I don't remember. I don't recall that.
Have you ever issued refresher certificates in circumstances where those whose names appear on them have not engaged in a refresher course?
---There is potential that I have.
You know you have, don't you?---No.
You heard Mr Pedersen give evidence today, did you not?---Yes. At that - in that period - can I talk about something that happened last week in the private hearing?
I'll come to the private hearing in a moment?---Right, sorry.
Because you were asked a number of times there, and you denied it. Do you want to change that evidence now?---In that period of time - - -
Do you want to change the evidence you gave concerning whether or not you have in the past - - -?---I gave - I gave an answer the other day that I believe to be correct. You showed some - when I - when I gave those answers, you showed some concerns and I went - when I left here I was concerned myself. I thought and thought and thought and I'm confused, but I would explain myself.
Let me ask it again. Have you ever issued certificates to individuals representing that they have undertaken a refresher course when in fact they have not?---There's potential that I have.
I'll ask you one more time, have you or have you not - - -?---Because I'm in front of this Commission I would say yes.
No, we want the truth. Have you or have you not issued certificates representing that certain persons have undertaken refresher courses when they have not?---In view of the evidence given this morning I will say yes.
Commissioner, I'd ask you to direct the witness to answer my question. He's being totally unresponsive.
THE COMMISSIONER: If you could answer yes or no?---Well, I'd say yes.
MR RUSHTON: How often did that occur?---To my knowledge that was the only time, the date that is quoted on 31 August.
2001?---2001.
How many individuals were involved in this refresher certification process?
---In that period of time, in that period of time - - -
Please stop?---Sorry.
Answer my question?---I don't know.
How many people?---I - I - - -
Might the witness be shown Exhibit 58?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR RUSHTON: Perhaps we can put it up on the screen.
I'll show you the third page of some records which have been extracted from the Electricity Association database. Do you see there are certain entries for 31 August 2001?---Yeah.
Your name is shown as the trainer?---Yeah.
Do you see, starting from the bottom there's a Greg Taylor, Trevor Gilham, Paul Churchill, Edward Boyan, Peter Freeman, Andrew Hardy, Paul Pedersen, Kerry Whyte, Lyn Coveney, Dave Whitmore and some more as they go up the line?---That's - that's what I was looking for. My confusion came - I can't remember the other day - the other week you quoted 31August and, yes, I - I - I did not carry out that training. I did 14 August once and that's all the - there's Canibrook Cranes and Whyco Cranes and they'd merged. The name Paul Churchill was mentioned this morning and my confusion the other day was I had in my mind that those people had come to my place. I did not recall 31 August people but to the best - and - and you've produced that evidence. All I can say is, no, I did not do that training, that I can recall anyway.
You know you didn't do it, don't you? Please?---Well, I'd have to say that, yes.
The people who are listed there on 31 August 2001 were certified as having done the refresher courses but they didn't do them?---Yes. I'd like to just say that the other day and in questioning - - -
We'll get onto the other day in a moment - - -?---Sorry.
- - - but if we just start with today?---Yes, okay.
Today you clearly and unequivocally agree with me that those people whose names appear against 31 August 2001 were not assessed or trained by you?
---No.
When you say no you're agreeing with me?---Yes.
As you understood it they obtained certification that hey in fact had undergone the refresher training?---Yes.
The 31 August column, can I suggest to you, lists the date of training. There is then your name and then it says application received and there's a date of 4 September 2001. What sort of application has to be filled out for a worker to obtain a 5099 refresher certification?---I don't - - -
I'm sorry?---I don't know. I mean, I just - I guess I sent the names into the - to the Electricity Association.
Presumably there was some sort of form you had to fill out representing that they had undergone the training on a particular day?---I don't recall.
What was the usual practice? Let's go back to the 14th when you say you did it properly. How would these people have got their tickets?---I just sent a list of names to the - to the Electricity Association.
With nothing more?---No. Probably a covering letter or something.
Would it be a letter saying that these people had done the training on 31 August 2001?---I guess so, yeah.
Surely you would've had to falsely represent to the Electricity Association because they had done it before these tickets issued?---I guess I did.
You know you did, didn't you?---Yes, I did, yeah.
How much money did you receive in relation to the tickets which were issued for the entries on 31 August 2001?---I don't recall that and I - and I like to think I - I - I don't know - I do not recall, like, as I said the other - last week, I do not recall that and I do not recall sending them a bill or - or anything. I - I don't know it.
It's highly unlikely, is it not, having regard to the nature of your business, that you would've been doing these things for free?---I do not recall sending them a bill because you will find - you know, you've got my records and certainly for the training that I carried out on 14 August I would've sent Whyco or whatever a bill, or Whyco or - or Canibrook a bill. But I do not recall sending them a bill if it's in my records, nor do I recall getting payment.
Do you recall any occasion upon which you did this sort of work for free?
MR KINTOMINAS: I object. He says this sort of work, but does he mean work when the certification courses were done, or is he implying getting a certificate without the certification being done. I think there's some confusion there and the witness's evidence really should reflect a proper appreciation of what's being put to him.
MR RUSHTON: Are you confused, Mr Anthony?---Yes, I - no. Yeah - no. I am - I've done work for Whyco, I've had - Terry Whyte was the - when we were told to look for outside work Terry Whyte came to Transgrid at the time looking for training and for whatever reasons we've had a - and I don't want to sort of put it the wrong way - for whatever - between Canibrook Cranes and Whyco Cranes, we've had a bit of a relationship with the person. He's advised me on certain questions. It's my business if I charge people and I've certainly - I would've charged him for the certificates and of course we're going to talk about green cards eventually, green cards are OHS induction courses, but I can certainly say that there were occasions, and I can't say this was it but I certainly done jobs for him, or for Whyco or Canibrook where I've just charged them for the - for the cards.
On the occasions when you charged something more to Mr Whyte and his company, what did you charge?---When I've charged them I've given them an account.
What have you charged?---I did - I did a green card for them not very long ago and I charged them $80 I think, yeah, $80.
Was that a card which was issued to somebody who at that time had done the induction?---No.
Was it issued to a person who at that time had not done the induction?
---That's the one, yes.
It was a false certificate?---No.
We'll come to that in a moment anyway.
You - - -?---No, that's - no, can you clarify that please?
We'll come back to it. You were asked questions when you gave evidence in private session about whether you had ever issued refresher certificates without conducting training or assessment and you denied it, didn't you?
---I did, for the reasons that I - I did - I just said a few minutes ago, I had the date, now that you've established it, on the 14th. I did not recall the 31st. And the reason for that - - -
Just hang on a second?---Sorry.
I just want to get very, very clear onto the record why it is that you understand what I'm asking you today but you didn't understand what I was asking you on 3 September when you gave evidence in private session. What is it about my questioning today, if anything, that has caused you to change your - - -?---Well because - I suppose last week when you were asking me the questions and I was trying to provide answers. My reflections of the past at the time I did not recall that piece of information, but when I left here, you know, we wrapped up pretty suddenly and you asked me that question again and we just suddenly wrapped up. I spoke to my solicitor when we got back to the office and I went on - and I thought and thought and thought and sort of what proof, you know, what could I have done?
What piece of the information did you have today that you didn't have on 3 September 2003?---Can you ask me that question again? I had - there were a few other things going on in my life at that time. I can remember those people coming to my place but I didn't remember that bit last week and I can't say, you know, I've got - I gave evidence last week that I believed was accurate and as I say I was quite concerned. I actually rang my solicitor the next day and I said I'd done some soul searching and I'm - and I'm not sure if I'm right or wrong. I mean you've proved today when you've tendered this evidence.
Isn't this the submission that you've found something and you've been caught out. There are people who are willing to come forward, on oath, and say, contrary to the evidence you gave last week, that you never tested them. Whereas on the 3rd of the 9th 2003 you were prepared, on three occasions, to deny that that had ever occurred. Isn't that the case? You've been caught out and you now recognise it?---No, no. I just only can reiterate what I've just said to you. Last week I did not recall that point of issue. I can't say any - you know, I mean you've pointed out to me, I could not - I could not recall that last - that point of issue at the time. There were lots of things going on in my life.
Mr Anthony, what point of issue, I don't understand what you mean?---I did not - when you asked me the question last week I had in my mind, I could see people coming to my house to do training. That's what - I could not put a date on it. You had a date on it and that's all I saw it as.
Let me just remind you what happened, so we can test that answer a little. I asked you this question at private transcript, 93, "Do you remember on 31 August 2001 doing some refresher courses for Whyco?" You said, "Very possibly". And I said, "What does that mean, very possibly?" You said, "That means that I was ill and I was off ill at that time, I can - I recall if I and they actually came to my place. That was a course I ran myself, that was refresher training"?---That's right.
Now we know that that was refresher training on 31 August 2001?---M'mm.
Are you seriously suggesting that you believed I was referring to some other incident?---No, I was referring - the point in my mind was that it was on 14 August.
I went on at page 95 of the transcript to you, "I want you to reconsider that evidence in light of what I'm about to tell you. The Commissioner has received evidence and statements from a number of the persons who were issued certificates on 31 August 2001. Do you understand that?" And you said, "Yeah". Question, "And they say they didn't attend any refresher training at all, that you had the certificates issued on the basis of no refresher course. What do you say to that?" Answer, "I do not - I do not even - I don't know what to say. To my knowledge I have never done that". Now are you seriously saying that in light of being told that you were confused in some way?---Yes. That's - I answered that. But all I can say, I know it, and I'm here today before a lot of people. All I can say is that's what I've just said to you is that's what I had in my mind at the time.
Having got to the point where you now acknowledge that you did it, why did you do it?---At the time I think the - I - what was happening was the Electricity Association was closing down and therefore there would be no more certificates. I don't know my association with Whyco Cranes. I believe I would have spoken to Terry and sort of said, you know, there's these certificates. I don't know, I can't recall everything at the time, if everything was going to shut down or whatever was going to happen if what was happening to 5099. But I believe I would have said, "We'd better get this training done or get these certificates".
That's just mumbo jumbo. You know for example, don't you, that one of these men had absolutely no training at all. He hadn't even done the original course and you gave him a refresher certificate?---I did not know that.
You know it now, don't you? You've heard him give evidence and he wasn't challenged about it. Now, would you mind telling the Commissioner if you've got any reason at all, apart from the garbage you've just dished up, why on 31 August 2001 did you do it?
MS McGLINCHEY: Commissioner, I really object to the tone. I think the answers can be given in a slightly more refined way. I just think that with some witnesses that kind of approach is - actually doesn't assist getting at the truth.
MR RUSHTON: I will be a little gentler.
MS McGLINCHEY: Thank you.
MR RUSHTON: Do you agree with me that what you did on 31 August 2001 was absolutely disgraceful?---In light of it, it was probably - it's wrong.
It's disgraceful, I suggest?---I'll say it's wrong.
Do you recognise that in doing what you did you may have put the lives of these people at risk?---At that time, sir, the only - to me they would have been refreshers and I don't know how certificates were issued by the Electricity Association.
But you arranged for their issue, sir?---Well, they must have got a refresher.
But you were the person who was accredited to do the refresher course and you were pretending they had done it when they hadn't?---Yes.
Why did you do it?---Well, I guess for no other - I haven't got any reasons, I guess at the time, looking back, that at the Electricity Association I had liaisons with Whyco Cranes and that's about all I can tell you.
Did you have a gambling problem at the time?---No, not at all.
Did you put many thousands of dollars through the poker machines at Parramatta Leagues Club?---No. I don't believe I - I don't recall, or even remember charging them for those certificates. I don't remember. As I said I didn't remember that last week and I can only answer that honestly.
So you don't know - - -?---Well, to the best of my - - -
You've got no recollection of - - -?---Because I don't want to say the wrong thing. I know the seriousness of what I said. I do not - I do not recollect conducting that training. Well, now, I - I issued those certificates but I do not recollect charging him or whatever. I don't know if I got any money for them.
You have been unable to tell us what you charged Whyco Cranes, from time to time. Is that right? You don't know?---If I've charged them I've issued them with an invoice.
Yes, but you haven't been able to tell us just what amount you charged?
---No, I can't recall.
You haven't been able to tell us why you issued these cards?---No.
On the 31st?---The Electricity Association was closing down, and then there would be, I could - what was happening it was that - well, I didn't know what was - but the course was then owned by Transgrid, because I would understand the course and there wouldn't be any Electricity Association cards and the cards were about to come from Transgrid and I said, you know, well you'd - because he was - they're due all about that time and I probably - either I heard it from him or he contacted me or whatever and suggested that we had better get all these cards into line.
Why, and if the Association was closing down then somebody else would take responsibility for issuing them surely?---I guess I didn't see it that way.
What way did you see it?---I don't recall, I just did it.
Commissioner, is that a convenient time?
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, we'll adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow.
MR MUDDLE: Commissioner, before you adjourn. You asked some questions earlier today about the conduct of the induction training course.
THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.
MR MUDDLE: Can I assist in that regard by tendering the outline of the course? There are some 21 topics and it gives a short description of each at the time.
THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much. So that will be Exhibit 69, thank you.
#EXHIBIT 69 - OH&S INDUCTION TRAINING COURSE FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK IN NSW
THE COMMISSIONER: If you could return tomorrow for further questions. We'll adjourn for the day and resume tomorrow.
MR RUSHTON: Thank you, Commissioner.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW [4.01 pm]
AT 4.01 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2003 [4.01 pm]