Public hearing 21 - The experience of people with disability engaging with Disability Employment Services, Virtual - Day 2
Video transcript
CHAIR: Good morning everyone and welcome to the second day of this hearing Public hearing number 21 of the Royal Commission. I shall ask Commissioner Mason to make the Acknowledgment of Country.
COMMISSIONER MASON: Thank you, Chair. We acknowledge the First Nations people as the original inhabitants of the lands on which this hearing is sitting. (Speaks in indigenous language) We recognise Meanjin, Brisbane. (Speaks in indigenous language). We recognise the country north and south of the Brisbane River as the home of both the Turrbul and Jagera nations. (Speaks in indigenous language). And we pay respect to the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. Their land is where the city of Sydney is now located. We also pay respect to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation where the city of Melbourne is now located. We pay deep respects to all Elders past, present and future and especially Elders, parents and young people with disability. Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much, Commissioner Mason. Yes, Ms Eastman.
MS EASTMAN: Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. There is one matter before we commence the evidence this morning, and that is the tender of the photographs that were shown on the screen yesterday during Mzia's evidence. Commissioners, the approach we're taking with this hearing is that we're not tendering statements as the statements are read or addressed by witnesses. We propose to deal with the tender of all of the evidence at the end of the hearing after we've had an opportunity to consult with the parties with leave, made appropriate redactions and identified the material that is relevant to the matters that the Royal Commissioners will ultimately have to consider.
However, there may be some documents where it's appropriate to tender as we go along, and, for that reason, I ask the Commissioners to receive into evidence the photographs that were shown as part of Mzia's evidence yesterday. We'll identify them in an ultimate tender list and exhibits list as Email entitled Office 1 Photos, attaching a series of images. If it could be accepted as Exhibit 21.0. And the second is Image of Office 1, and if that could be received into evidence and marked as Exhibit 21.1. Thank you.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you, Ms Eastman. Those photographs referred to by Ms Eastman will respectively become exhibit 21.0 and 21.1 and admitted into evidence. Thank you.
<EXHIBIT 21.0: EMAIL ENTITLED OFFICE 1 PHOTOS, ATTACHING A SERIES OF IMAGES>
<EXHIBIT 21.1: IMAGE OF OFFICE 1>
MS EASTMAN: Thank you. And Ms Dowsett is going to take our witnesses this morning.
CHAIR: Thank you. Yes, Ms Dowsett.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. The first witness today is Mr Matthew Ting. And I see he's on the screen now. Mr Ting, can you hear us clearly?
MR TING: Yes, I can.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you.
CHAIR: Yes. Mr Ting, thank you very much for coming to the Royal Commission to give evidence today. I understand you have been affirmed or sworn, as the case may be, and that has been the practice with all witnesses at that hearing at this hearing. Just to be sure that you know where everybody is located, Commissioner Galbally whom you can see on screen, I hope is in Melbourne. Commissioner Mason is in the Royal Commission's hearing room in Brisbane. I'm located in the Sydney hearing room of the Royal Commission, as is Ms Dowsett. So that's where we are. I will now allow Ms Dowsett to ask you some questions.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Mr Ting, I begin by identifying your statements and corrigenda, and then I understand you've got some further corrections you wish to make. But just so the Commissioners are clear, you have made three statements. One is referred to as your AimBig Employment Statement, and it is dated 28 January 2022.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Is that correct? And you've provided a corrigenda to that statement dated 21 February 2022.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Commissioners, you will find those two documents in Volume B of the Hearing Bundle at tabs 1 and 14.
CHAIR: Yes, thank you.
MS DOWSETT: You made a separate statement on behalf of Rehab Management (Aust) Pty Ltd also dated 28 January 2022.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And there is a corrigenda to that statement dated 21 February 2022.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And those statements, Commissioners, are in Volume B at tabs 32 and 81.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: And finally, Mr Ting, there's a supplementary statement dated 21 February 2022.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And a corrigenda to that statement dated 22 February 2022.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And, Commissioners, you will find those in Volume B at tabs 15 and 82.
CHAIR: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, Mr Ting, I understand that there are some further corrections you wish to make?
MR TING: Yes, that's correct. So I just wish to highlight that there were some corrections that were listed in that the supplementary statement. I also wish to make one other correction where I refer to Office 2 in one of my statements. I refer to it being a Rehab Management office. I have recently been informed that that is not actually the case, and that there was a split in the business in the Region at that time between the Rehab Management office and the AimBig office. And that the BusyBeans program was actually run from the AimBig office in that Region.
MS DOWSETT: So Office 2 is an AimBig office?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. That deals with your corrections?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, I understand from your statement that you were employed as the National Innovation and Customer Engagement Manager for AimBig, but you no longer hold that position; that's correct?
MR TING: That's correct.
MS DOWSETT: And what is your position now?
MR TING: I'm currently working as a casual consultant for AimBig for the purpose of responding to this Commission.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And in terms of qualifications, you hold an MBA from the University of Sydney and a Bachelor of Commerce from the University of Technology, Sydney.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And are you aware, Mr Ting, that a statement sorry, Agreed Facts have been prepared between the Royal Commission, AimBig Employment and Rehab Management (Aust)?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And do you have access to that document?
MR TING: I will in one moment.
MS DOWSETT: Are there people present in the room with you?
MR TING: Yes, I'm here with Counsel.
MS DOWSETT: Just while that document is being provided to you, we may press on. We've got a lot of ground to cover this morning. I want to begin by asking you some questions about the DES system. You understand by that I mean the Disability Employment Services system?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you familiar with the DES Grant Agreement and the DES Guidelines
MR TING: Not intimately, but at a working level, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So you are aware that entry into the DES system can happen by referral or direct registration?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you are aware that in order to be referred, a participant needs to have undergone an Employment Services Assessment or ESAt?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Or a Job Capability Assessment, a JCA?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you're aware of the concept of benchmark hours?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And they are the number of hours a DES participant must work each week on average to achieve a full outcome.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And you are aware that the concept of "outcome" is linked to milestones in employment, in turn linked to outcome fees?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Outcome fees are the end of the process. I want to come back a little and talk about the initial interview and the job plan.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: You are aware of the requirement to for a DES provider to undertake an initial interview with a participant?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that at that initial interview, the DES provider must explain the types of services that they provide?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And they must explain the Services Guarantee?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And the Code of Practice?
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: Ms Dowsett, when you say the DES provider must do this, you are saying that it is pursuant to the Disability Employment Services Grant Agreement; is that where the obligation emanates from?
MS DOWSETT: From the Grant Agreement and the Guidelines that are made pursuant to that Agreement.
CHAIR: All right.
MS DOWSETT: And the DES provider must also negotiate a job plan with each DES participant?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: In the DES system, you're aware that there are several phases?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So the first phase is the employment assistance phase?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And what do you understand that to be?
MR TING: So the employment assistance phase, to my understanding, is the phase when a participant is still looking for employment and is receiving support from a DES provider to find employment.
MS DOWSETT: And then the next phase is the post placement support phase?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And what do you understand that phase to entail?
MR TING: So that's the phase upon which a DES participant has started work and is already working their benchmark hours and is able to access support from a DES provider or is expected to get support from a DES provider to maintain and sustain that employment.
MS DOWSETT: And how does a participant move from the employment assistance phase to the post placement support phase?
MR TING: So a participant would be moved between phases through the system when a job coach or an employment consultant deems that that participant is now working benchmark hours and anchors the participant, as the term is used.
MS DOWSETT: And "anchoring", that term you just used, that's the start date for measuring outcomes for 13 weeks, 26 weeks and 52 weeks.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: There's another relevant date for outcomes, and that's the employment start date.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that employment start date is relevant for the four week outcome fees; that's correct, isn't it?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And if an employee sorry, if a participant is placed in employment and doesn't achieve a 26 week outcome, that participant goes back to the employment assistance phase?
MR TING: Correct. That's on the assumption that the participant has lost that employment or is no longer working their benchmark hours.
MS DOWSETT: And if they if the participant is still in employment and is working benchmark hours when they reach their 26 week outcome, the provider has the opportunity to choose to deliver what's called ongoing support; that's correct, isn't it?
MR TING: No, that would be after the 52 week period, I believe.
MS DOWSETT: The Agreement and the Guidelines in fact provide that it is after the 26 week outcome.
MR TING: Okay. I'm mistaken. I believed it was at 52 weeks.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And do you understand that this is a choice that the DES provider makes?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And then an ongoing support assessment is undertaken?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And that assessment will tell you the level of support that the person requires?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And there are three levels: flexible, moderate, or high?
MR TING: I'm not very familiar with the workings of the ongoing support phase.
MS DOWSETT: Is that because you've never known a participant to reach it?
MR TING: Because that would not be part of my role within AimBig.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But you are the witness who has been proffered to answer questions before this Royal Commission?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. And are you aware that the ongoing support phase is also linked to outcome fees?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And that the level of support assessed impacts the level of fees that can be claimed?
MR TING: Sorry, I'm not familiar with the fees available in this phase.
MS DOWSETT: Right. You're not familiar with any of the fees available or just the ongoing support fees?
MR TING: Just the ongoing support fees.
MS DOWSETT: Right. If we can turn, then, to the ones that you are familiar with, there are service fees.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And can you explain to the Royal Commission your understanding of what they are.
MR TING: So service fees are fees payable to a DES provider for working with a participant in the employment assistance phase.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And they're paid in advance on a quarterly basis?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And the first two quarters are at a higher rate than subsequent quarters.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And then there are the outcome fees?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And these are paid by reference to those milestones we spoke of before.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Four weeks, 13 weeks, 26 weeks and 52 weeks.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And are you also aware that fees are not payable in respect of what the Grant Agreement calls non payable outcomes?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And a non payable outcome includes and I'm just giving a couple of examples volunteer work?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Work experience?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Where the wage paid to the DES participant is not equivalent to the minimum rate prescribed in the applicable Award?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And, if no Award applies, the National Minimum Wage?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Where the position is contrived employment?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Or where it's non ongoing employment?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And all of those outcome fees are linked to the participant's risk adjusted funding level score?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that score operates on a 1 to 5 basis?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And 1 is the highest likelihood of obtaining employment and 5 is the lowest.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Finally, I want to turn to the question of wage subsidies.
CHAIR: Just before we get there, what do you understand a contrived arrangement to mean, Mr Ting?
MR TING: My understanding of a contrived arrangement would be something that is employment that is not well, it's a counter to open employment. It is something that is created under false pretences solely for the purpose of claiming an outcome fee.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. So I was moving on to wage subsidies, Mr Ting. Now, these are a financial incentive that are available to encourage employers to provide opportunities to DES participants.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And you are aware that there are eligibility requirements in relation to subsidies?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And those requirements are linked to participants?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Employers?
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And placements?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So, for example, a wage subsidy cannot be paid to an employer who is part of the DES provider's own organisation or related entity.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Or in respect of a placement that leads to a non payable outcome.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Wage subsidies must not be more than 100 per cent of the DES participant's wage.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And there's a maximum value for a wage subsidy, which is $1,500 excluding GST.
MR TING: So that's the wage subsidy offered through through the DES program.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And it has a maximum value?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And
CHAIR: Sorry, you mean a total maximum payment of $1,500 per participant or per period or what?
MS DOWSETT: Per participant.
CHAIR: Per participant. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: And the actual amount of the subsidy paid to an employer is intended to be commensurate with the DES participant's level of disadvantage.
MR TING: Disability, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Well, their disadvantage in finding obtaining and maintaining employment because of their disability.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It is not anticipated that every employment every employer will receive a wage subsidy of the maximum value.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: The maximum duration of the subsidy period is 26 weeks?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And it can be paid in full once the DES participant has worked for at least 13 weeks at their benchmark hours.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And although the subsidy is paid by the DES provider, the DES provider can claim reimbursement of that subsidy.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. I want to move on now to the BusyBeans program itself. And this is addressed in the Agreed Facts. Just excuse me.
MR TING. .... next to me.
MS DOWSETT: I apologise, Mr Ting. I put my copy down in this pile of papers and now I can't find it. Just while that's happening, I will go to your statement. Here it comes. Thank you. So, returning to the Agreed Facts, we see in paragraph 3 a general description of the program. It's a barista training and employment program.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And prior to March 2020 the BusyBeans program operated in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Attached to your AimBig statement, if I can refer to it by that shorthand, you provided the Royal Commission with a report from 180 Degrees Consulting?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Do you have a copy of that available to you?
MR TING: Yes. In a binder in front of me.
MS DOWSETT: Commissioners, for your information, it is in Volume B at tab 4. I just want to take you to a couple of pages in this report if I can, Mr Ting.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Beginning with page 4.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And we see in the second paragraph on this page under the heading Background that the BusyBeans program is described as one which:
"Aims to train people with intellectual disability as coffee baristas and assist them in gaining sustainable employment."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you agree with that characterisation?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And then in dot points on that page, we see that since the program commenced in early 2019, there had been 167 participants.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: 20 plus companies employing a trained BusyBeans barista?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And 30 participants employed externally upon exiting the program?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So, just to be clear, external employment, that's when the BusyBeans participant or the DES participant moves out of the program and into a role either as an in house barista with another company or into a café.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So if I use the phrase "external employment" today, that's what I'm talking about.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Now, just to be clear on the date, this report is dated May 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So those 167 participants were from early 2019 through to May 2020, except that, of course, in March 2020, we had the onset of COVID.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And those restrictions had an impact for the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right. I want to take you over, please, to page 7. And we see under heading 1.1.3, again, there's a reference to those 167 participants and 30 of whom who have obtained external employment. And then footnote number 2 says that:
"Of those 30 who gained external employment, unfortunately, due to COVID 19, no BusyBeans are currently holding external employment."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So we're correct to understand that although they obtained the employment, by May, no one had external employment.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Now, I would like to take you to page 34 next. Now, this page is headed 3.3 Impact, Evaluation & Recommendations. And in the first line of text it says:
"A majority of participants, 75 per cent "
And I will just skip over the brackets for now:
"...had positive experiences with the BusyBeans program."
Do you see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you've cited that statistic in your statement?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the brackets that I skipped over said "N equals 8". You see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it's your understanding that 75 per cent is 75 per cent of eight people.
MR TING: Correct. It's a low number because this was done after the COVID lockdown restrictions started and it was quite difficult to get participants to answer a survey at that time.
MS DOWSETT: But you would agree that the value of saying 75 per cent, we need 75 per cent had a positive experience - we need to know what the sample size is?
MR TING: Correct. I do believe that it is indicative of the program as a whole
MS DOWSETT: And we do see, if we can go back to page 26, the final paragraph on the page says:
"Whilst many participants successfully found sustained employment outcomes, some individuals did not feel fully qualified after completing the training requirements of the BusyBeans program."
And it goes on to say that:
"This may have been a result of COVID 19 and the halt on the program” and that “more sustained analysis is required."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: But this consultancy did find there were people who didn't feel qualified when they finished the program.
MR TING: That's the finding of this report, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. I've finished with that document. You can pop it away for now. Returning to the Agreed Facts, paragraphs 64 to 91 deal with the program as it operated in what we are referring to as the Region.
MR TING: Yes. I have that in front of me.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And I trust that you understand that our inquiry is not into AimBig generally or the BusyBeans program generally, but it's a very specific case study about this Region.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so we see in paragraph 85 of the Agreed Facts that there were 56 participants in the Region in the period 1 January 2019 to 1 April 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: But, in fact, the real period is 7 May 2019 because that's when the to April 2020 - because the participants didn't start until 7 May, did they?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Of those 56, 34 were employees paid employees?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And two of those 34 were employed by Rehab Management (Aust)?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: If I refer simply to Rehab Management, will you take it that I mean Rehab Management (Aust) Pty Ltd?
MR TING: Yep, that's fine.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. And the remaining 32 were employed by a labour hire company, TMC Solutions Pty Ltd?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And that company traded as TLH Group Holdings.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So we've got those 34, and then we've got 22 who participated on a work experience basis.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So they're unpaid.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And then in paragraph 88, we deal with the qualifications that were obtained by people?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And we see that of the 56, five participants obtained their Responsible Service of Alcohol and Responsible Conduct of Gambling certification.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Five obtained what is referred to as a Part Qualification Hospitality Food and Beverage?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the remainder received no formal qualification or certificate.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Could you please explain to the Royal Commission what a Part Qualification Hospitality Food and Beverage is?
MR TING: So those are selected units from a full certificate that were selected on the basis that they were going to be probably the most beneficial for those particular individuals without putting them through a full certificate which may take six months to a year to complete. So a Part Qualification could be completed in usually between two to four weeks.
MS DOWSETT: And were all 56 of the participants in the Region offered the opportunity to obtain that Part Qualification?
MR TING: I don't believe all of them would have been offered that. This was something that was only brought into the program towards the end of 2019, and it also depended upon the individual's prior levels of education and whether they were eligible for funding for that course.
MS DOWSETT: So that's funding over and above their their being a DES participant and AimBig as their DES provider providing this post placement support to them?
MR TING: Correct. It was the [Redacted] funding was applied for this.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So was everyone who qualified for funding offered the opportunity to participate?
MR TING: I'm not aware if everyone who was eligible for funding was offered.
MS DOWSETT: Do you know, by reference to job title not the name of any individual do you know who made the decision about who to offer this qualification to?
MR TING: I know that the qualification was being arranged between the RTO and the Program Manager of BusyBeans at the time, Mr Rodrigues. So Mr Rodrigues would have relied upon referrals from the local job coaches and barista trainers as to who was potentially interested and eligible and who would be suitable for this training.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Thank you. Now, moving on, I want to go now to paragraph 89 and following. This is about the employment of participants who so their external employment.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And the information provided to the Royal Commission by AimBig shows that 15 of the 56 participants secured external employment while participating in or following the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Are you familiar with that statistic?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And four of those 15 obtained that external employment within one day to three weeks of ceasing the program?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And the remainder, it was some months after they ceased the program.
MR TING: Correct. Mostly it was because of the COVID lockdown period. If you see that participants participation in the program was disrupted in March 2020. A number of people were not able to get employment until later in 2020.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And just to finish off this part of the Agreed Facts, the last of the paid participants were enrolled in the Region in November 2019?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But the program continued on until it closed down or was suspended in March 2020.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Why were no more paid participants enrolled?
MR TING: So, at that time, we were working on more internal processes and documentation for the program, and it was the directive of senior management that we would not be taking on board any more paid participants in the program until those processes were finalised.
MS DOWSETT: Might these processes have been usefully finalised before the first participants were enrolled?
MR TING: A lot of the processes that went into that were based on what the learnings that we'd gained up until this time. Because this was a it was effectively a start up program and we were learning as we went. We learnt what was effective, what wasn't effective, and it was constantly improving. So I don't believe that we could have drafted a document of that quality before the program started.
MS DOWSETT: You could have drafted a document before the program started.
MR TING: Correct. We could have drafted any document before the program started.
MS DOWSETT: But you didn't?
MR TING: Not to that level of detail, no.
MS DOWSETT: Well, not to any level of detail, did you?
MR TING: Not in that sense, no.
MS DOWSETT: Well, in any sense?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. Now, I want to go to your AimBig statement now, please. And I just want to explore with you the intention of the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And I'm at paragraph 43. And in the second sentence you say:
"The intent of the BusyBeans program was always to assist participants to secure and maintain sustainable employment that suited participant goals and abilities."
Do you see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you go on to express your belief that the long term benefits were not realised due to COVID.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But the program as it was operating in the Region prior to COVID, it was designed to give participants the opportunity to gain work experience?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: To build their work capacity.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And to build confidence.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Participation in the program itself was never intended to be ongoing and sustainable employment.
MR TING: So the intent was that participants would be would take part in the program and, during this participation, we would continue to be working with them to then secure external employment.
MS DOWSETT: But it's the external employment that constitutes the ongoing and sustainable employment. Am I correct?
MR TING: So the goal was that there wouldn't be a gap or delay between the two, that people would move seamlessly from employment within the BusyBeans program into external employment.
MS DOWSETT: But even with a seamless move, if you finished on Monday in BusyBeans and went to work in an office on Tuesday, it's the work you're doing in the office that's the ongoing sustainable employment.
MR TING: So longer term, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Well, the because the BusyBeans program was conceived as a 26 week training opportunity. That's correct?
MR TING: Correct. But we didn't terminate or end people's participation in the program at 26 weeks. We did continue to engage them after that if they were still in the program.
MS DOWSETT: Well, if they were still in the program, meaning you hadn't terminated them
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But there was, in fact, a policy and there were internal communications about once a participant reached 26 weeks, they should be exited from BusyBeans?
MR TING: So the expectation was that after they'd reached 26 weeks, we would continue to be working with them and that the participants would still be involved in the program and would would just have reduced hours.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So when you say they would still be involved in the program and have reduced hours, these participants have a job plan?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And if the job plan has mutual obligation requirements, that may include the minimum hours they need to work each week?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: When AimBig decided to reduce the hours of participants, did it have regard to their minimum their mutual obligation requirements?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: So you've now got employees who were meeting their mutual obligation requirement who you reduced their hours and now they're not meeting it. Is that what you're saying?
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Ms Dowsett, perhaps you could explain mutual obligations for present purposes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Well, Mr Ting, perhaps you could explain first to the Commission what you understand mutual obligation requirements to be.
MR TING: So my understanding of mutual obligation requirements are requirements that a participant needs to meet they have agreed to in a job plan in order to continue to receive support through the Social Services system.
MS DOWSETT: When you say "they've agreed to them in the job plan", these are these are obligations that are imposed upon them by the support system. So that if somebody has to work 15 hours a week, that's not something they get to agree to; that's the statutory obligation imposed upon them?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: They just when they agree to a job plan, it includes that mandatory requirement.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So when we we speak of "agreement", it's almost a false use of the word.
MR TING: I absolutely agree with you, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Yes. And so just to come back to my point, we've got participants with job plans and some of them will have mutual obligation requirements?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I take it you're not in a position to say whether all of the participants in the Region in fact had mutual obligation requirements about the minimum hours they had to work?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: But you would agree some of them did have?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And AimBig had no regard to that when it reduced their hours.
MR TING: So that wasn't one of the considerations, no. Part of the mutual obligation requirement would have been to continue to search for employment and to apply for jobs. And that's what the AimBig job coaches would have continued to support the participants with.
MS DOWSETT: So if you've entered out of the employment assistance phase and into the post placement support phase, is the usual process you get a new job plan at that stage?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so that job plan wouldn't have you looking for work because you're in a job.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Do you agree?
MR TING: Correct. Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so the mutual obligations requirements in your "in a job" job plan would be about how many hours a week you work.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the participant can't comply with that because AimBig has reduced their hours.
MR TING: In this particular instance, yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you talked about reducing hours, and there are some there's some material before the Royal Commission that indicates that AimBig did propose to offer one four hour a week four hour shift per fortnight?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Or unpaid work experience.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So these are people who've reached their 26 weeks.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. There is also correspondence and I can take you to it if you need me to that shows that when people reached their 26 weeks, AimBig was seeking to exit them from the program. Not offer them the work unpaid work experience, not offer them the one shift a fortnight, just exit them. You agree there's some correspondence to that effect?
MR TING: Exit from the BusyBeans program or from the DES program?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, from the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: Yes, I believe there was correspondence around that.
MS DOWSETT: If a participant in the DES system has reached a 26 week outcome and they lose their employment, they have to be exited from the DES system, don't they?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So if you
MR TING: Or they'll return back to the employment assistance phase.
MS DOWSETT: Well, that's if they don't reach their 26 week outcome.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So by exiting them from their employment after 26 weeks you are, in effect, exiting them from the system? You agree?
MR TING: Correct. Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Now, just on these participants, in so DES participants in the BusyBeans program were employed on contracts?
MR TING: Through the through TLH, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Well, the first two through Rehab Management?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And are you familiar with the terms of these contracts?
MR TING: I'm not, no.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So you wouldn't know if they were what might be called a specified term contract, one that says it's from this date to this date?
MR TING: I'm not aware. I've not reviewed that contract.
MS DOWSETT: And that does that answer apply both to the TLH contracts and the Rehab Management contracts?
MR TING: So the participants hired through TLH were on a on a casual basis. And I don't believe that there was an end term to those agreements.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Who was responsible for those contracts?
MR TING: The which contracts are we referring to?
MS DOWSETT: The contracts entered into by DES AimBig's DES participants in the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: The employment contracts?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: With TLH?
MS DOWSETT: And Rehab Management.
MR TING: So the contracts with Rehab Management would have been prepared by the Rehab Management People and Culture team. The contracts the casual arrangements through TLH would have been done directly with TLH.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so from AimBig's perspective, are you saying there's nobody in AimBig as the DES provider who has any oversight of or responsibility for these contracts?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Ms Romero is giving evidence this afternoon and she is as I'm sure you're aware involved in both AimBig and Rehab Management. Do you know if she would be aware of the content of these contracts?
MR TING: Not at the time, no.
MS DOWSETT: No, you don't know? Or, no, she wouldn't be aware?
MR TING: She wouldn't have been aware at the time. She may be aware now, having reviewed documentation.
MS DOWSETT: Would anyone have been aware at the time of the content of these employment contracts?
CHAIR: Sorry, anyone
MS DOWSETT: So anyone at AimBig?
MR TING: Of the details of those contracts?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: I can't think of somebody who would have been intimately aware of those details, no.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Okay. I just want to take you back to that 180 Degree report, which we were looking at before. So, again, this is Volume B at tab 4.
MR TING: Yes, I have that.
MS DOWSETT: Go back to page 12, please. Just let me know when you have it.
MR TING: Yes, I have it.
MS DOWSETT: So on page 12, on the bottom third of the page there is a heading Duration.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And there are three dot points. I want to direct your attention to the second dot point. Just one moment, I will check with the Chair. Do you have the document?
CHAIR: Sorry. Carry on.
MS DOWSETT: You have that second dot point there, Mr Ting?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it's the final sentence there. The authors of the report are talking about the duration of involvement in the program and they say:
"For example, if 80 per cent of BusyBeans participants were contracted for 26 week periods, a 26 week turnover would be most suitable."
So it's talking about the period to measure something over.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I take it from your previous answers to me that you are not in a position to say whether 80 per cent of BusyBeans participants were contracted for 26 week periods?
MR TING: No, I don't believe that they were contracted for a fixed term 26 week period.
MS DOWSETT: So if there is internal correspondence in AimBig referring to people's participants' contracts coming to an end after 26 weeks, are you able to tell the Royal Commission what that might mean?
MR TING: So I would take that to mean I don't think that that would be technically factual. I think that would be taken to mean that a participant is coming towards the end of a 26 week period within the BusyBeans program.
MS DOWSETT: Coming back to that point, that they were only supposed to be in the program for 26 weeks, it's not ongoing, sustainable employment in and of itself?
MR TING: So, no, the intent wasn't to keep them within a BusyBeans café or environment indefinitely.
MS DOWSETT: It was your hope that you would be able to find them external employment?
MR TING: Absolutely.
MS DOWSETT: Right. I want to move now to the trainers who were delivering the training in the Region. And this is addressed in the Agreed Facts at paragraph 65 and 66.
MR TING: Yes, I have that.
MS DOWSETT: Now, I just want to confirm, it was no requirement of AimBig that these barista trainers have any experience in or qualifications supporting people with disability.
MR TING: No. That was a a desired trait, but not an absolute requirement.
MS DOWSETT: And you have provided us with what you say is a copy of the advertisement that Mzia responded to in order to gain her employment as a barista trainer.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Commissioners, you have that at Bundle B, tab 16.
CHAIR: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do have you that there, Mr Ting?
MR TING: I will in one moment
MS DOWSETT: Have you got it?
MR TING: Not just yet. Okay, yes, I have that now.
MS DOWSETT: You have that now?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It doesn't say in that ad anything about the desirability of the experience and qualifications I just asked you about, does it?
MR TING: No. That was part of the selection criteria though.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So you're saying there's another document that we haven't been provided with?
MR TING: No, that's not correct.
MS DOWSETT: So where were these selection criteria?
MR TING: That was it wasn't written as a selection criteria. There was no document about that. But that was one of the things that was kept in mind when interviewing applicants.
MS DOWSETT: And when you say "we", who is the "we"? Who was interviewing applicants?
MR TING: In this case, it was either the People and Culture team or it was myself. For the case of Mzia, an initial interview was conducted by our National Operations Manager, and I conducted the second interview.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And we understand from her evidence that Mzia was also involved with the National Operations Manager in interviewing potential barista trainers.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: You weren't involved with her in that process?
MR TING: At that stage, no.
MS DOWSETT: At any stage?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: And the barista trainers who were engaged in the Region did not have qualifications and experience supporting people with disabilities?
MR TING: Some of them did, but not all. I believe at least one of them, for example, had previously worked in the DES system.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So you may be referring to BT 3?
MR TING: Yes, correct.
MS DOWSETT: And her background was she was described as having a DES and hospitality background?
MR TING: Correct. So, to me, that was an ideal combination.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So that's one of the five?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: The barista trainers were expected to do much more than just train people how to be a barista, weren't they?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: For example, one of the baristas, BT 3, who we've just spoken about, was nominated as a person who could fill a support gap. Do you recall these documents?
MR TING: I don't recall that at this time. But that was
MS DOWSETT: Right. So in September 2019, it was identified that there was a gap in support between job coaches who were available and telephone PPS providing support to participants in the café. The document relevant to that is in the Hearing Bundle Volume D at tab 54.
MR TING: Okay. One moment. We're just going to look for that. Okay. I have that email now.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So it's an email chain. It begins on 17 September?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And there's reference there to a gap in support?
MR TING: There's a reference to that, yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then, ultimately, if you follow through the chain, it is agreed there will be a four week trial of BT 3 working an extra five hours a week to fill this support gap.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you recall that?
MR TING: I don't recall this at the time. I wasn't CC'd into these emails.
MS DOWSETT: Can I take it from that answer that you won't then be able to assist the Royal Commission with the results of that trial?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to say whether BT 3 continued to work the extra hours?
MR TING: I know that BT 3 did work a significant number of hours, but I'm not aware of this being a key part of her role.
MS DOWSETT: Providing support to BusyBeans participants?
MR TING: My understanding was that her primary job was as a barista trainer.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Are you aware of whether any similar gap in support was identified at any other training locations in the Region?
MR TING: Not that I'm aware of.
MS DOWSETT: Are you aware that in September 2019, Mzia reported that she didn't think participants were getting enough post placement support?
MR TING: I am aware of this, yes.
MS DOWSETT: You are. And when did you become aware of that?
MR TING: I believe that I would have been made aware of that at the time.
MS DOWSETT: And what steps did you take to investigate whether her concerns were well founded?
MR TING: I believe, at the time, we would have had conversations with Mzia about the program, and I believe, at the time, I would have had a conversation with people within the post placement support team about that. My recollection is that PPS0-1, as in the name list, was assigned basically to be responsible for delivering a large amount of the PPS to BusyBeans participants. But it wouldn't have been exclusively her.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So there were a total of 56 participants over the period that we are concerned about, but there weren't 56 at any one time. Is that correct?
MR TING: No, that's throughout the period.
MS DOWSETT: Right. What were the maximum number of BusyBeans in the Region at any at its highest within that one year period?
MR TING: I haven't got that exact number, but in terms of participants who have required PPS, it would have only been the 34 paid participants. And I don't I believe the highest number would have been I'm estimating close to 30 at most, at one time.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So PPSO 1, perhaps with some assistance from other post placement support officers, was providing support to 30 participants and Mzia?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And in your
MR TING: I believe it would have been other PPS staff members as well involved. Not just solely her.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So when I asked you what steps you took to investigate if Mzia's concerns were well founded, you spoke about what you believe you would have done. Do you have an actual recollection of what you did?
MR TING: This that is my recollection of what I did.
MS DOWSETT: Right. I'm sorry. I understood the "I believe" to be thinking, "Well, maybe I did something like this." But you're saying it's a positive recollection: You had a conversation with Mzia, and you had a conversation with PPSO 1?
MR TING: Yes. I haven't seen any documents in the while reviewing for this this hearing specifically around that, but this is my recollection.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And have you seen documents in which Mzia describes that she herself is providing post placement support to BusyBeans participants?
MR TING: So I don't believe that that's that's correct. Because that was not her role. She may have referred to it as that, but that is not what post placement support is as part of the DES program.
MS DOWSETT: So if Mzia thought that was what she was doing, she was mistaken?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So answering queries from the participants and helping them address their concerns, that's not post placement support?
MR TING: Well, that would have been something that would have been handled or should have been handled by the post placement support team.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Should have been.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And have you seen correspondence in the Tender Bundle in which the National Operations Manager asks PPSO 1 to call Mzia about post placement support for BusyBeans?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And, in your understanding of Mzia's role, is that an appropriate thing? Should she be talking to PPSO 1 about the support needs of the participants?
MR TING: I think it is I think it is relevant, because she was somebody who was there with the participants, who understood the individuals and their their needs and their requirements, and I think she, as somebody working within the organisation, was able to give that level of detail that maybe PPSO 1 may not have gotten directly from the individuals.
MS DOWSETT: And then you would also agree that it is appropriate for her to Mzia to proactively seek PPS so post placement support for BusyBeans?
MR TING: If if she deemed that it was needed, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And are you aware do you recall seeing documents in the Tender Bundle in which the Regional Manager of the Region we're interested in expressed concern about the level of post placement support available in her Region?
MR TING: Correct, yes.
MS DOWSETT: You recall seeing that?
MR TING: Yes, I believe that was later in early 2020, if I recall correctly.
MS DOWSETT: 14 February 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And do you recall what steps were taken to address that identified shortcoming?
MR TING: I believe that was a time when an additional PPSO officer was assigned in the area, in the Region to be delivering more face to face PPS with participants.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So an extra resource was brought in in February?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: I want to move now to the topic of training and induction material.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Just excuse me a moment. I'll just do this last topic, and then we will take the adjournment. It's scheduled for 11.15 so we've got 10 minutes. I think we'll be fine. So you addressed the the question of training materials in your both in your primary AimBig statement and in your supplementary statement?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And if I have understood correctly the material that you provided which has the so these were documents MT 10 and MT 11 sorry, MT yes, 10 and 11 in your initial statement, they have a footer, November 2019.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And you now accept that this material was available was not available at the outset of the BusyBeans program in the Region?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And, in fact, I think you agreed with me earlier that there was no material available at the outset of BusyBeans in the Region?
MR TING: No training material; correct.
MS DOWSETT: And no induction material?
MR TING: That's not correct. There was induction material that was used and that was used for the Rehab Management participants who started in May 2020.
MS DOWSETT: So for those two participants, that Rehab Management induction material was provided?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But for the 32 others, there was no BusyBeans induction material?
MR TING: I don't believe that that that that Rehab Management induction was used with the TLH employed participants, but TLH themselves did have induction material that was sent to participants as well.
MS DOWSETT: Have you seen that material?
MR TING: I have. It's it's not BusyBeans specific.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So there is no at the until at least November 2019, there's no BusyBeans specific induction material?
MR TING: Other than the one that was used with the Rehab Management employees.
MS DOWSETT: Well, that's not BusyBeans specific either, is it?
MR TING: That one was BusyBeans specific. And that was used in from at least in March with the initial intake of BusyBeans participants nationally and also used in May in this Region.
MS DOWSETT: Right. This is in Volume B at tab 18.
MR TING: One moment. So which document are we looking at, sorry?
MS DOWSETT: The induction material.
MR TING: One moment. We're just looking for that. That's Bundle B; is that correct?
MS DOWSETT: Bundle B, tab 18.
MR TING: We're looking at Bundle B in tab 18. It looks like a different document, unless I've got the wrong thing.
CHAIR: Is the first page headed Work Safety & Injury Specialists?
MR TING: Yes. It looks like I'm looking at the wrong document at the moment.
CHAIR: Well, keep going, because the next page says BusyBeans Induction.
MR TING: I think I know the document you're referring to. I do have the (indistinct).
MR MOORHOUSE: I wonder if Counsel might assist by giving us the MT attachment number?
MS DOWSETT: Pardon?
MR MOORHOUSE: I wonder if Counsel might assist by giving the MT number so we know which attachment.
MS DOWSETT: MT 03. To the supplementary statement. There are three MT 03s.
MR TING: It looks like we've found it. Okay. Apologies. There is a lot of documents here. Yes, I have it now.
MS DOWSETT: Okay. So this is the only BusyBeans specific material that was provided to participants in May 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And this was provided to the two who were employed by Rehab Management?
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: Sorry, I'm confused. This is a document that appears to have nothing to do with induction of people in the program.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, Chair. Mr Ting, did you hear the Chair?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So perhaps you could explain what this document has to do with inducting people into the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: So it talks about their or work health and safety. It talks about new starter paperwork, registration and so on. It's not it was prepared by the People and Culture team as a very plain, simple English document with the understanding that it was going to be used with BusyBeans who may have intellectual disability. It doesn't talk about training or the BusyBeans program specifically.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So, just to be clear, this is the BusyBeans specific induction and it doesn't talk specifically about the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: It doesn't talk specifically about the training that would be they will be getting and so on. It talks about being inducted within Rehab Management.
MS DOWSETT: Right. If I can take you to the new starter paperwork page.
MR TING: Are we looking at the same document?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, it's part of this document.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So there are a series of bullet points. I want to direct your attention to the final two on the page.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So the paperwork, we understand, is going to be either emailed to a participant or given to them in hard copy.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it says the job coach can help them fill this out.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to comment about whether that assistance from the job coach was available only for BusyBeans participants? Or was that something that was offered to all AimBig DES participants?
MR TING: Only BusyBeans participants in this case.
MS DOWSETT: So, for example, Mzia wouldn't have been offered the assistance of a job coach with her new starter paperwork?
MR TING: I don't believe that she would have, no.
MS DOWSETT: Why not?
MR TING: So this document was written with the intention that many of the BusyBeans commencing they may be young people and this is their first job. They're not familiar with what employment is like, what paperwork is needed, what it means to get paid, have all of this set up, many of whom may have an intellectual disability and so on. So the rationale for this is that a job coach may be needed to support that type of participant to go through the paperwork.
CHAIR: This is the sort of information that has to be given to every employee in every organisation, isn't it?
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Yes. Right.
MR TING: Yes. But for these participants if most of whom or probably all of whom this was their first ever job, this is all very (indistinct).
MS DOWSETT: Well, we will come to Mzia's employment contracts and how difficult they might have been a little later, but sticking with training materials for now, paragraph 67 of the Agreed Facts. It is agreed that Mzia began developing training materials in June 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that she provided copies of that material to the National Operations Manager, Mr Rodrigues and the Regional Manager.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the final sentence in that paragraph says:
"Training materials were used in the BusyBeans program from at least 30 September 2019."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: The training material that was being used was the material that was developed by Mzia. That's correct, isn't it?
MR TING: I believe that material was used in that Region, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And we had a look at that job description before, and you note in your supplementary statement that the job description refers to "developing and managing a training schedule."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you understand that point in the job ad to be saying, "You will have to draft the training materials before you deliver it"?
MR TING: No. At the start of the program, it wasn't my expectation that we would need this level of or this amount of training documents and materials. My my expectation was that the program was going to be more around that hands on, experiential training and learning the kind of thing that would have been delivered we'd looked at, for example, barista schools, coffee schools. We had trainers from coffee companies, for example, delivering that kind of hands on training. So that's why, at the start, that wasn't something that we believed that we needed and didn't have from the beginning.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But you did have, from the beginning, participants who had been in the employment assistance phase and then moved into the post placement support phase. They'd had an anchor date set and were working towards an outcome.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And because they were working towards an outcome, AimBig was working towards an outcome fee?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you were doing this without any training documentation?
MR TING: At the start, because we didn't believe that that was needed.
MS DOWSETT: When did you decide it was needed?
MR TING: So this was this would have been based on feedback from people such as Mzia and as she started working on training material, and that we agreed that, yes, this would absolutely be something that would be useful, particularly around having something that we could then hand to new barista trainers going forward and also to ensure some consistency in the training nationally. So we definitely agreed that it was something that was going to be beneficial.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So feedback from Mzia and you said "and other people". I assume other barista trainers?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So the people you'd employed to deliver the training said to you, "You need some training material"?
MR TING: That was that was feedback, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, in the Agreed Facts at paragraph 68
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: there is a reference to Mr Rodrigues seeking input for training materials?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you say in your supplementary statement that the document I've referred to before, which are MT 10 and MT 11 Commissioners, for your information, at Bundle B, tabs 11 and 12. Sorry, back to you, Mr Ting, you say it's your understanding that these documents were being used in November?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Even though it's 4 November that Mr Rodrigues sends his email seeking input for a training manual?
MR TING: Yes. My recollection is that that we did have a draft that was being used in in November 2019.
MS DOWSETT: A draft. Do you know
MR TING: Yes, approximately in 2019.
MS DOWSETT: Do you know when it was finalised?
MR TING: I think it was a document that was continually being worked on and refined even towards the to the end of the program.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And in paragraph 21 of your supplementary statement, you note that Mr Rodrigues says in an email that, you know, the materials will be finalised, but you don't know that they ever were?
MR TING: I think they were they were finalised to the extent that they were useable and were being used by barista trainers.
MS DOWSETT: And when was that?
MR TING: My recollection is that that was from November 2019 onwards.
MS DOWSETT: Well, no, sorry, I'm directing you to paragraph 21 of your supplementary statement. And you say:
"On 20 January 2020, Mr Rodrigues sent an email to Mzia and other barista trainers that stated, 'Induction Manual will be finalised by the end of January with two versions being available (one for work and one for work experience)'."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So my question to you is when was it finalised after 20 January 2020?
MR TING: So that refers to an induction manual. That's not the training material. That's a different document. I don't believe that there was ever a confirmed final version of that document. I do believe it was being used.
MS DOWSETT: I'm sorry, I missed the end of that.
MR TING: I do believe it was being used by barista trainers.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And is that the document that you have annexed at BT 11, this is Bundle B, tab 12 sorry, tab it is MT 11 at tab I will get it right in a second it is MT 10 at tab 11.
MR TING: One moment. Let me find that. So this is the document that's labelled BusyBeans Induction Manual?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, and if you turn to the second page, you can see it has the footer Version 1, 19 November 2019.
MR TING: Yes. Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And so this is the document that I understand you are referring to in your paragraph 21 when so this has been circulated. Barista trainers and others have commented on it. And then Mr Rodrigues is saying it will be finalised by the end of January.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I'm asking you when it was finalised.
MR TING: Yes. I believe my recollection is that it was being used, but I'm not sure what the difference in definition of "finalised" is, because it was certainly in use.
MS DOWSETT: We will move on. One last series of questions. I apologise, Chair. I did think that I would get there in the 10 minutes, but this is the last two on these documents. If you could turn
CHAIR: You're the very first Counsel in three years to have gone longer than was anticipated.
MS DOWSETT: I wear the badge with honour, Chair. Tab 12 in Volume B, Mr Ting. This is the training manual.
MR TING: Yes. One moment. Which tab was that again?
MS DOWSETT: 12. The very next tab after the one we were just at.
MR TING: Okay. I have that.
MS DOWSETT: Do you have that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. I would like to direct your attention first to page 15. Do you have that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So at the bottom third of the page, there is a heading Discrimination.
MR TING: I think I'm not seeing that on was it page 15, you said?
CHAIR: Are you talking pages at the top left?
MS DOWSETT: My apologies. While the footer says Participant Training Manual, it is, in fact, in the induction manual. I have given you all a wrong steer. So please go back to tab 11, MT 10.
MR TING: Which Bundle was that?
CHAIR: Page 15 at tab 11?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: That indeed has a heading Discrimination, Sexual Harassment and Bullying, and then another one Discrimination.
MR TING: Yes, I have that now.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So under the heading Discrimination, direct discrimination?
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: Refers to "personal characteristics that are protected by Victorian law."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So this policy has been provided to us in response to a notice seeking material relevant to the Region.
MR TING: Yes. So this was the document that was being drafted. It was the Victorian team that was responsible for most of the compilation of this and it seems that they have slipped and kept that Victorian reference in there.
MS DOWSETT: Is there a version, then, that would apply in other states and territories where the BusyBeans program operated?
MR TING: No. I'm not aware of a different document. So I believe that this is something that should have been corrected once spotted.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Okay. Page 17 of that same document.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the heading on this page is Reasonable Adjustments. It's just a little from the top.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And I'd like to direct your attention to the paragraph immediately preceding the two bullet points at the bottom of the page. It begins, "When thinking about …"
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Please take a minute to read that and then tell me, is this AimBig's Reasonable Adjustment policy?
MR TING: So I'm not aware of the content of AimBig's Reasonable Adjustment Policy or where this particular wording came from, whether it was derived from there or whether it was drafted separately.
MS DOWSETT: Is that something, perhaps, that Ms Romero will be able to assist us with this afternoon?
MR TING: I would probably think that she wouldn't be aware of the specific wording of that.
CHAIR: Mr Ting, have I understood your evidence correctly that you were essentially responsible for the introduction of the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: And you did that without having any knowledge of the company's policy with respect to reasonable adjustments. Is that your evidence?
MR TING: I would say that this document was not compiled by myself and that
CHAIR: No. My question is, did you construct the BusyBeans program that you've described without knowing what the company's your company's policy was with respect to reasonable adjustments?
MR TING: It's not a policy that I would have been intimately familiar with.
CHAIR: Can we remove the word "intimately"?
MR TING: It's a policy that I would have been aware of, but I wouldn't have probably would not have
CHAIR: Which policy are you talking about?
MR TING: About reasonable adjustments.
CHAIR: Yes, but where did you where was the document which is the document with which you had some familiarity?
MR TING: Yeah, I believe that there would be such a policy document.
CHAIR: But you can't identify it at the moment?
MR TING: Not off hand, no.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: So leaving to one side whether or not you can identify the particular policy, are you aware of the requirements for reasonable adjustments?
CHAIR: Perhaps we could be more specific. Which one?
MS DOWSETT: Well, the statutory requirement to make reasonable adjustment for a person with disability.
CHAIR: Now, again, do you mean State law, Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act? I think you need to be a little more specific.
MS DOWSETT: Well, I'll begin with any of them. Are you aware that there is a there is a series of statutory requirements? As the Chair has just said, they exist at Commonwealth law and State and Territory law.
MR TING: Yes, I'm aware that that exists.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And are you aware of the [Redacted] version of that law?
MR TING: I'm not aware of any specific differences or distinction between them.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And are you in a position to agree with me when I put to you that when is described in paragraph on page 17 is wrong? As a matter of law, you where it says:
"In some cases, BusyBeans can discriminate on the basis of disability if adjustments needed are not reasonable."
MR TING: So I wouldn't be I wouldn't be able to comment on that.
MS DOWSETT: As the person developing sorry, you did agree with the Chair that you were responsible for the development of the BusyBeans program? Is that correct?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And do you agree that you should have been aware of statutory requirements in relation to people with disability in the workplace?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you should have been aware, as part of that, about what reasonable adjustments are and when they need to be made?
MR TING: So it's not something that that I recall reviewing for the purposes of developing the BusyBeans program.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, I understand that. I'm asking if you accept you should have.
MR MOORHOUSE: I object. I object. Chair, the question is premised on the basis that Mr Ting has given evidence he wasn't aware of any reasonable adjustments obligation. I don't think that was quite his evidence. His evidence was that he was aware of such an obligation but not the detail.
CHAIR: I do think it's a fair inference from his evidence up to date, but I will ask Ms Dowsett just to clarify it so that there is no ambiguity.
MS DOWSETT: So, just to be clear, you your evidence is that you were aware that an obligation existed but not of the content of the obligation. Is that fair?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you accept that you should have been should have made yourself aware of the content of the obligation?
MR TING: In hindsight, yes, if that was relevant. Yes.
MS DOWSETT: If it was relevant?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you not accept that it is relevant?
MR TING: Yes. I'm not aware of any BusyBeans participants who required any reasonable adjustments.
MS DOWSETT: Chair, that might be a convenient time.
CHAIR: Yes. Just one question just before we break, Mr Ting. How is it possible to construct a training program without documentation that explains what's to be conveyed to the people who are being trained?
MR TING: So my my expectation was, at the start of the program, that it was going to be mostly around that hands on learning. It wasn't meant to be a classroom environment. It wasn't it was going to be different from, say, a certificate course or a certified training. It was definitely not accredited training, and, in my view, that was what was needed for these participants. They needed to get their hands on suitable equipment and to be able to get that work experience as a barista, whether in a café or in a within that office environment. So
CHAIR: So I take it by November 2019, your view had changed?
MR TING: My view was still the same that the hands on component was absolutely the most important part of this. But I certainly didn't oppose having this documentation. I agreed it was definitely going to be useful.
CHAIR: Yes. So by November 2019, it's correct to say that you realised that a manual of some kind was going to be very useful in the training of the participants in the program?
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: Thank you. It is now 11.35 or just after Sydney time. We will resume at 11.50.
ADJOURNED 11:35 AM
RESUMED 11:53 AM
CHAIR: Yes, Ms Dowsett.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Mr Ting, I'm going to move on to the topic of the training location and equipment.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And I want to begin in Office 1, and I want to begin by showing a photo that you provided to the Royal Commission as MT 05, which is behind tab 6 in Volume B. And if this photo could be brought up on the screen, number 2. So, Mr Ting, you'll see that the people have been pixilated in this image, but, subject to that, do you recognise this as a photo you provided to the Royal Commission?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it is a photo of Office 1, the reception area at Office 1?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And we can see in the foreground of the photo the coffee machine?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Did you ever visit Office 1 when the coffee machine was set up in this scenario?
MR TING: No, I've never visited Office 1.
MS DOWSETT: Never at all?
MR TING: Never at all.
MS DOWSETT: This photo is taken on 7 May 2019. It's the first day of the program in Office 1. And, as I said, it shows the coffee machine on the reception desk. Is that your understanding of where the program started?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the coffee machine was never set up out the back?
MR TING: Not on that day, no.
MS DOWSETT: Or at any stage.
MR TING: My understanding is later it was moved away from the front reception area.
MS DOWSETT: After Mzia left?
MR TING: No, during during her period.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So, initially, we have it here in reception?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: If we could now go, please, to we will start with photo 3, if we can. Were you watching the evidence yesterday, Mr Ting?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So you saw the four photos that were put up of Office 1?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So we're going to have a look at those, and, as it's coming up, I will start with the questions, but if you feel that you need to see the image before you can answer, please hold off. Mzia said of the photo I'm about to show you that the large partitions that you will see that are joined together were pulled across when one of the participants was training. Were you aware that training was conducted in the scenario now shown on the screen, that is, closed off from the rest of the reception area?
MR TING: Yes, my understanding was that that was due to the specific requirements of that participant.
MS DOWSETT: And so, in that scenario, this participant, the particular participant, is in that very segregated environment?
MR TING: At at her I'd say either request or based on what was going to work the best for her.
MS DOWSETT: But, otherwise, when the coffee machines were out here in reception they are, in any event, away from the work area of the office.
MR TING: Correct. The intent of the program was also to be able to service visitors to the office, clients and so on. So you'd have a welcoming environment at the front with participants able to offer coffee. That's similar to an arrangement that happened in a number of external employers as well who hired an in house barista.
MS DOWSETT: If we could please go to photograph number 5. So this is with the partitions pulled back. This is the welcoming environment you were describing?
MR TING: No. So that's so this is the back room. So I think yesterday when this was presented, I think that was the first time I had seen this particular image. This is not what I believe the set up was. This does not look at all suitable.
MS DOWSETT: Well, the evidence Mzia gave is that this isn't the back room, that this is off to the side of reception. So you can see in the bottom sorry, on the far left of the image, the foot of the partition that's been slid away.
MR TING: So that's my misunderstanding. I thought this was a back room or within the office. As I mentioned, I've never visited Office 1.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And were you aware that the coffee machine, as pictured, was sitting on a computer stand?
MR TING: No, I it boggles my mind why that was set up like that and who did that. I don't understand a reason for that. It that does not look suitable to me.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Who would you have expected to have oversight of this training environment? You said you'd never been there. Who is responsible for this?
MR TING: I would have thought that Mzia would have been responsible for ensuring that the set up was suitable. But, ultimately, that would have also have fallen on the Rehab Management and AimBig management in the Region. My understanding is that the National Operations Manager with AimBig assisted with this, and I would have assumed that the Rehab Management manager would have also been aware of this set up.
MS DOWSETT: Well, Mzia sent emails to the National Operations Manager, to Mr Rodrigues and to yourself about the training environment. That's correct, isn't it?
MR TING: Correct. And I don't believe that I've seen this photo before yesterday.
MS DOWSETT: No, I'm not asking about the photo. I'm asking about whether you received emails from Mzia in which she expressed her concerns about the training environment?
MR TING: She would have sent emails about that, yes.
MS DOWSETT: She did send emails like that. You you accept that that's true?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So was it part of your responsibility to have ultimate responsibility for this training environment?
MR TING: I would have expected that the the team the local team would have had responsibility for the layout and set up of their specific office and, if they'd seen something that was not suitable, to have taken relevant actions.
MS DOWSETT: So by reference to position title don't name any names if it's not appropriate to do so. But who is which position is ultimately responsible for this training environment?
MR TING: At the time, it would have fallen under the National Operations Manager who was at the time the acting Regional Manager for this Region.
MS DOWSETT: And
CHAIR: Ultimately, it would have been you, wouldn't it?
MR TING: At the time, Mzia was reporting to the National Operations Manager, and the this site was under that Region.
CHAIR: But, ultimately, it would have been you, wouldn't it?
MR TING: I don't I never have reported to the National Operations Manager.
CHAIR: I'm not asking that. All right.
MS DOWSETT: As I understand your evidence, you have said that Mzia initially reported to the National Operations Manager.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then you say, in July 2019, Mr Rodrigues started.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And all of the barista trainers reported to Mr Rodrigues, who reported to you, and you reported to the General Manager.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So once from July, when we've got, on your evidence, that reporting structure
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: do you then become responsible for this training environment?
MR TING: So the specific training environment this was within a Rehab Management office. So I would still say the layout and the equipment there was the responsibility of the local team as well to to oversee.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so on a national quality assurance level, it's not your job?
MR TING: No, that would have fallen to the to the local team.
MS DOWSETT: And so Regional Manager?
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Who did the Regional Manager report to?
MR TING: To the General Manager.
MS DOWSETT: To your knowledge, did the General Manager ever attend Office 1?
MR TING: Yes. I'm not aware if he attended during this period.
MS DOWSETT: Did you ever attend Office 2?
MR TING: No, I've never visited Office 2.
MS DOWSETT: So you can't say if it's a similar kind of set up or not?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Mzia's evidence was that it's the same kind of coffee machine. And I think you agree with that.
MR TING: Yes, that was the machine that we were using in this environment.
MS DOWSETT: It she said it was set up on a long table and that the the cords were draping across the table. We don't have a photo of that to show you, but would you accept that that could be an accurate description?
MR TING: I have not seen a photograph of that. So I couldn't say whether that was accurate.
MS DOWSETT: I don't have a photograph to show you, just to be clear.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And so Office 2, again, you would say the responsibility of the Regional Manager.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But, ultimately, the program is something you're responsible for, isn't it?
MR TING: The program, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And the program includes the equipment and locations at which it's delivered?
MR TING: It would not have included the the oversight of facilities. Specifically facilities offices that have been used for other purposes within the business. It would have included oversight of the cafés, for example so, for example, the café that was opened later in this Region.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And pop up cafés?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: But just not anything inside a Rehab Management office?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right.
CHAIR: Is the Regional Manager to whom you have been referring still with the relevant company?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: If we could please have photo 7. So I'm changing to another photo now. Just have a moment while that comes up. You would have heard Mzia giving evidence yesterday about what you can see now in this image, the grey bucket sitting on the bench next to the coffee machine?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And how the hot water was put into that bucket and then had to be carried through the office and out into the sink?
MR TING: Yes
MS DOWSETT: And, from your earlier evidence, I take you it you weren't aware that was the scenario in which the training was delivered.
MR TING: No, this is not that I was aware of. It's not something that I recall from the time.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And you said you saw the photos yesterday.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: This photo you're looking at now, when did you see it for the first time?
MR TING: I don't recall when I saw this photo for the first time. I do recall I did see it during preparation for this hearing.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And during the preparation of this hearing, did you preparation for this hearing - did you have a look at Mzia's statement?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And did you have a look at her email of 24 June that attached those four earlier pictures?
MR TING: Is that in the in the Bundles?
MS DOWSETT: Well, it is, but I'm just asking if you remember having a look at it.
MR TING: During the preparation for this hearing?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: I recall that there was some emails which had images attached that I was not able to access, and I believe that the Arriba Group was not able to view. So I don't recall seeing this earlier.
MS DOWSETT: Do you have Volume A of the Tender Bundle accessible to you?
MR TING: Just one moment. This is I have got Volume A.
MS DOWSETT: You have Volume A?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Please go to tab 8.
MR TING: Yes. So there's an email there from Mzia to yep.
MS DOWSETT: To the National Operations Manager?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Dated 24 June 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it says:
"Some photos of the basic set up. The walls can be pulled across when "
- The name of the participant
"Is here and slide back for "
Etcetera. Do you see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the photos are the photos that were displayed yesterday.
MR TING: Yes, this photo that's currently being displayed is not in what I'm seeing in this Bundle.
MS DOWSETT: That's right. It's not. I asked you about these earlier photos. We can take that down, if that's distracting to you.
MR TING: Yes, that's okay.
MS DOWSETT: I was asking you about when you saw these photos, these four photos attached to Mzia's statement, and you said you saw the email but the images weren't accessible to the Arriba Group. Do you remember giving that answer?
MR TING: Yes, there were some photos which were not visible.
MS DOWSETT: Attached to this email.
MR TING: It may have been this email.
MS DOWSETT: So if this is an email to someone in the organisation, the National Operations Manager, those images should be accessible to you. Do you accept that?
MR TING: No, I remember Mzia was sharing some images that were I believe were being stored on a Google Drive which was which was her personal Google Drive. We don't have access to some of those images any more.
MS DOWSETT: I'm talking about this email, Mr Ting.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: That was sent to the National Operations Manager.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: Is it your evidence that any of these four photos attached to this email were not visible to you?
MR TING: I don't recall which specific photos. So I can't recall if I saw these specific photos.
CHAIR: Just so I'm clear about it, do you accept that you saw the email just leave the attachments for the moment.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: You saw the email.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: And your evidence is that the attached photographs were not accessible to you. Did you attempt to open the attachments?
MR TING: We did, yes, but we couldn't do it. So I don't recall specifically which photos we could and could not see. I do recall there was one email which I believe had four photos, and I believe we could view one of the four.
CHAIR: So your memory is that you could open one of the four attached photographs but not the other three?
MR TING: Yeah. That may have been a different email, but I recall that there was this issue with some of the emails sent from Mzia.
CHAIR: But to the extent that you were unable to open the attachments, did you do anything about that?
MR TING: No, that would have required contacting Mzia to ask for access.
CHAIR: What about going back to the person who sent the email and asking the photographs to be sent in this a different format?
MR TING: That was Mzia.
CHAIR: I understand that.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: Why couldn't you have asked her to do it in a way that was more accessible?
MR TING: So we have not contacted Mzia in relation to this hearing.
MS DOWSETT: Are you saying that you couldn't access the images in preparation for this hearing? You're not talking about in 2019 when the emails were sent?
MR TING: Correct. I was not a recipient to this email in 2019. So I'm not sure whether they were accessible at that time.
CHAIR: That was what I was asking you about, whether you had received this email.
MR TING: No, this email was sent from Mzia to the National Operations Manager.
CHAIR: And the National Operations Manager you don't know what, if anything, the National Operations Manager did?
MR TING: No, I'm not aware.
CHAIR: Is the National Operations Manager presently the same person as in June 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: I'm beginning to wonder, Mr Ting, why are you nominated to provide evidence to the Royal Commission?
MR TING: That would be because the BusyBeans program was overseen by me nationally. But various
CHAIR: The program was overseen by you nationally.
MR TING: Yes. But various portions obviously would have relied upon the the work of others within the organisation in various other areas, such as local teams, such as People and Culture and so on. So I would not have been aware of every specific item.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Now, it is my understanding that the BusyBeans program operated in a number of offices a number of Rehab Management offices, including the head office in Sydney?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And there is referred to in your statement to a video that's taken in the Rehab Management head office in Sydney.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And I have been asked to and have declined to show that video because that is not part of the Region that we are looking at. But as I understand it, the point you seek to make is that the set up shown in that video is different to the set up shown in the photos we've been looking at. Is that am I correct in understanding that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you have also provided the Royal Commission with a photograph from another office, and if it could just be brought up. This is MT 01. Commissioners, you will find in Volume B at tab 2. Can you see that now, Mr Ting?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Is this a photograph of an office in the Region that we are looking at?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: Is it a photograph of a Rehab Management office?
MR TING: No. This is an external employer.
MS DOWSETT: Is it a photo an external employer?
MR TING: Yes. So that was people working in an external employer in Sydney.
MS DOWSETT: Okay. And we see, again, in the foreground in front of the participant, the Breville coffee machine?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And behind her what appears to be a pod coffee machine?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Am I correct in understanding that the BusyBean only makes the coffee using the Breville machine?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And is this are we looking at the BusyBean's work environment here? This is where she would be expected to be working all day?
MR TING: I believe so. I have not visited this particular employer's premises.
MS DOWSETT: Right. How did you come to select that photo to provide to the Royal Commission?
MR TING: So this was an example of to demonstrate what we believe that a BusyBean working as an in house barista would have entailed. This is a photograph that was taken by this employer. I believe we we got it through their social media and where they were talking about the benefits of the program. And we wanted to highlight participants working successfully as a BusyBean, as an in house barista in external employment and that this was the intent of the program.
My understanding is that this particular individual in this photograph was working there up until a 52 week outcome, at which point they would have left AimBig Employment Services. So I'm not sure what happened beyond that. But, to me, this is an example of the what we were intending for the program and the success that could come from it.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you for that. Moving on, the café as a working environment.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, this is addressed in your supplementary statement at paragraph 23. And there's the issue that I want to explore with you is the difference between establishing a café and opening a café. So, as I understand your evidence, the lease was entered into in about July 2019?
MR TING: In June 2019.
MS DOWSETT: June 2019. And participants were enrolled on 24 and 27 June 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you say in your statement that they were enrolled to assist in the to commence training and prepare the café for opening.
MR TING: Yes, to be ready to be open to the public commercially.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. So what were they doing to prepare the café for opening?
MR TING: So they were they were not preparing the café for opening. They were receiving training themselves to be ready for that opening, which to my the best of my recollection would have occurred in July 2019.
MS DOWSETT: And when you say it would have occurred in 2019, that this is the opening, you say in your statement that the café wasn't trading to the public. You weren't selling coffee.
MR TING: At that stage yes, that's correct. At that stage when it first opened, we knew that it was a new business and we knew that the participants hadn't received much training at that time, not yet. So what we were offering was, effectively, free coffee to local businesses for a short period.
MS DOWSETT: And you say in your statement that BusyBeans' family members came in to have a coffee.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And sorry, I'm just trying to find the correct reference in your statement. So we've got support workers, parents and carers and other AimBig staff coming in.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And these people are all having free coffee?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you observed and were told about workers from local businesses coming to have free coffee.
MR TING: Yep.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But I just want to come back to paragraph 23(c), where you talk about "to commence training and prepare the café for opening". This is the BusyBeans. Was I clear in correct to understand your oral evidence today is they weren't preparing the café?
MR TING: Yes. I think my intention in wording it was to be to have a café that's ready to open you need you need qualified, trained baristas. So part of preparing the café for opening is to have BusyBeans workers able to make a coffee.
MS DOWSETT: Now, in your statement in your AimBig statement, you refer at paragraph 28(a) to a promotional video that we are told was shot in the café in September 2019.
MR TING: So that was shot in late August 2019, and it was then loaded to YouTube in early September 2019.
MS DOWSETT: And there are people depicted in that video and they are participants, trainers and family members.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: There are no paying members of the public there.
MR TING: In that video, correct.
MS DOWSETT: And the video shows some café furniture.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And, again, I've been asked to show the video today and I am not doing so because it shows participants and people whose names we are not publishing. But I just want to understand, your reason for asking it to be shown is because it shows the set up and it shows the furniture. Is that correct?
MR TING: Yes, I wanted to show, I guess, the difference between what the set up was in Office 1 as the photographs that have been seen and what we were operating at a larger scale at the café by July August 2019, that it's a very, very different environment. It was open more broadly to the public. At that point not commercially trading, as in not taking money for coffee. That came later. But my my feeling was that looking at the photographs of Office 1 as they were in June 2019 gave a wrong impression, in my view, of what the program was.
MS DOWSETT: It is the correct impression of what the program was in Office 1. That's the truth, isn't it?
MR TING: Yes. But it's not the correct impression of what the program was for the the larger number of participants.
MS DOWSETT: But for any participant who worked at Office 1, who was enrolled at Office 1, that was their reality, wasn't it?
MR TING: That's as of June 2019, yes.
MS DOWSETT: When did it change?
MR TING: My understanding is that we did have a a larger coffee cart that did come in several months after that, upon which we which was a more professional coffee set up, set up within the office, and the coffee machines were placed on top of that. So that would have solved some of those issues that were seen in in that photograph.
MS DOWSETT: So the
MR TING: I hope that shortly after that photograph, some of the other issues were resolved too, because I think that I can't understand why some of those things would have been allowed to have remained as seen.
CHAIR: Where does the understanding you've just described come from?
MR TING: Because I remember we had the coffee carts custom built for various pop up events and then distributed to various locations.
CHAIR: But you have no knowledge of what actually happened with this particular program, though, do you? No personal knowledge?
MR TING: In Office 1?
CHAIR: Yes.
MR TING: So that coffee cart would have been sent to Office 1 later, several months later in towards the end of 2019.
CHAIR: How do you know?
MR TING: Because I arranged for that to be sent there.
CHAIR: Why?
MR TING: Because it was no longer being used for the pop up café that it was originally ordered for, and I knew that it could be used in other locations.
CHAIR: So it was surplus to requirements elsewhere.
MR TING: It was something that was very useful that could have been used in the other locations, so which is why we did that.
CHAIR: Yes. Yes, Ms Dowsett.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Back to the café and this distinction between establishing and opening, if I could please get you to turn to tab 67 in Volume D.
MR TING: Is that sixty or fifty seven?
MS DOWSETT: 67.
MR TING: In Bundle D?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: One moment, I’m going to find that. Okay. Is this the email entitled Café launch date?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, that's correct. And so the end of the email chain, so the top of the page, is 27 September 2019.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So this is an email exchange an email chain in fact, the whole chain is dated 27 September. And it is about, as you've read out, the opening date of the café. And you are included in this email exchange?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so if you turn to the fourth page into the email, I want to direct your attention to the email sent by you on the 27th at 1.48 pm. You see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so you're addressing the National Operations Manager and you say:
"I don't understand what's stopping us from having a soft opening and start selling to the public."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT:
"We have Square for payment, disposal cups for takeaway. We can start selling to the public and schedule a proper launch event at the end of October."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So then there is a reply from the National Operations Manager to you. And it says:
"Square isn't set up. We have no furniture and no suppliers other than "
… The name of a business
"If these are organised, we can open."
Are you able to explain to the Royal Commission why the National Operations Manager is saying "we have no furniture" when the video that you tell us was shot at the end of August pictures furniture?
MR TING: I can't answer that. This is why I believed that there was no reason why we couldn't open to the public at that time. So I can't say why we couldn't open and commercially trade with the public at that time.
MS DOWSETT: Well, you were talking about using disposable cups and selling takeaway. So you're not talking about having people sit down for coffees anyway, are you?
MR TING: Well, my I would have been to the to the café by then. I can't remember the first time I was there. But the first time I was there, the furniture was there, as seen in that video. So the in my mind, we could have easily been selling coffee with takeaway cups. We had furniture there for people to sit at. I didn't understand what was stopping us from doing that.
MS DOWSETT: And then Mr Rodrigues replies at 1.59 pm and he says and this is the second paragraph:
"You don't need furniture to start selling takeaway. We should start immediately."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: He's not saying, "There is furniture. What are you talking about", is he?
MR TING: No, that's not what he's saying. But he would have been aware that there was furniture. I recall being at the café with him at some point during these this early period when there was furniture.
MS DOWSETT: So you're unable to explain why either you or Mr Rodrigues didn't just write back to the National Operations Manager and say, "There is furniture. What are you talking about?"
MR TING: No, we obviously didn't send an email worded that way.
MS DOWSETT: No. Well, but you didn't send an email suggesting that it was ready to open for sit down service either. Both of you are talking about selling takeaway coffee. You agree with that?
MR TING: Yes. But, to me, I didn't particularly care whether it was takeaway coffee or sit down service, as long as it was open and public and commercially trading. That was, to me, the important part to that.
MS DOWSETT: I think it's important for the Royal Commission to know when the café actually opened. And this email exchange is about having a soft opening and starting selling takeaway. And you will see that in Mr Rodrigues' email sent at three sorry, 4.33 pm. He says, "There's no reason we can't start trading from Monday."
MR TING: Exactly.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But that's with the with the takeaways that you're talking about.
MR TING: Yes, whether it was with takeaways or with sit down with the furniture that was there, I didn't see a reason why we couldn't start trading.
MS DOWSETT: But you also didn't say, "The furniture is there."
MR TING: No, I didn't explicitly tell that to the National Operations Manager, who should have known anyway.
MS DOWSETT: Well, clearly he didn't know. You agree with that?
MR TING: I I would disagree. I think he would have known, because he lives not that far from this particular location. And I'm aware that he did do work out of this the café from time to time during this time.
MS DOWSETT: In any event, the public opening sorry, the selling of coffee to the public didn't begin until approximately October 2019?
MR TING: Correct. That was when we had the Square terminals installed. The reason why we wanted the Square terminals involved was because we initially, part of the program we didn't want it to be BusyBeans was about being an in house barista, and we wanted to remove a lot of the money handling side of things from the training. Because that's not relevant to somebody working internally within an office. So we didn't want to be dealing with cash, cash payments and such.
But when we did open the café up to the public for commercial trading, we found that the Square terminal was very suitable for that. It was very easy to use, and very easy for maintaining those accounts, that we weren't collecting cash.
MS DOWSETT: Was your expectation that everyone who participated in the BusyBeans program would become an in house barista?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: So some of them may have gone on to work in café environments as their external employment.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Do you not think that part of the training you would need to deliver to someone to work in a café environment is the handling of money?
MR TING: Well, that wasn't the original intent of of the program. And once we did have that café publicly trading or commercially trading, that's why we did have the Square terminals, which are also commonly used in cafés.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And as a result of changes brought about by COVID 19, there's far less cash used for these kinds of things. You'd agree with that?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But in late 2019, it would still have been reasonably common for somebody to pay for their coffee with cash?
MR TING: Reasonably common. I know that one of the things that was discussed with cafés was hiring BusyBeans participants not necessarily in a cash handling position but in the in making coffee as part of a team so they themselves would not be working the terminal or working the till.
MS DOWSETT: So not able to take the orders, just make them.
MR TING: Taking orders, making orders, but not necessarily being given training from to the BusyBeans program on collecting cash.
MS DOWSETT: But in it an external employment, in a café environment, when you take the order, wouldn't you expect also to take payment at that time?
MR TING: That would be depend on the the set up at the individual café, I believe.
MS DOWSETT: You weren't training your participants to do that?
MR TING: We were training them to use the Square terminal in the café.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Moving on. The ratio of barista trainees to trainers was based around a ‘four trainees per trainer’ model. Is that correct?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that ratio was decided by AimBig?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it wasn't based upon any advice or an assessment about optimal training environments?
MR TING: No, it was based on what we believed was going to be workable and suitable.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But you didn't take any advice about how many trainers you needed for how many participants?
MR TING: No, we didn't take external advice on that.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And when you say what would be workable and suitable, that's a financial consideration, how much a trainer costs versus how much you make out of the trainees?
MR TING: That was one of the considerations, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Well, what were the others?
MR TING: What's going to deliver a suitable experience for the participants. What's what can a trainer actually manage at a time. What are people going to be doing during this period. Space capacities, issues like that.
MS DOWSETT: And so in your conception of the program, is there one person, one trainee, on a coffee machine at a time?
MR TING: Yes. And we'd have with more than one coffee machine.
MS DOWSETT: So we saw in Office 1 there were two coffee machines.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And in the video of the café, there's one coffee machine?
MR TING: There was more than one coffee machine in the café. We did have that larger commercial coffee machine, and I believe we did have at least one or two of the smaller Brevilles there as well. Again, that was to familiarise participants with different models of machine.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So on the larger commercial machine, it's still one participant per machine?
MR TING: On that particular model, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so you've got the commercial machine and some of the Breville models in the café?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And how many of those were there?
MR TING: At least one. I'd probably wouldn't be surprised if there was maybe two. I can't remember the exact number.
MS DOWSETT: So maximum three coffee machines in the café.
MR TING: That sounds right.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so with a trainer to trainee ratio trainee to trainer ratio of 4 to 1, you've still got one trainee, one BusyBean, who doesn't have a coffee machine in that scenario.
MR TING: That's in a scenario where everybody is just standing at a coffee machine. But I think there is plenty of other things that could have been happening within the environment, whether they're either just observing or whether they are working on cleaning the premises, maintaining the site. Part of the training involved customer engagement, how do you deal with customers in a hospitality setting. So there were a lot of things that could be done.
MS DOWSETT: So the BusyBean who wasn't on a coffee machine might have been role playing the position of a customer?
MR TING: They could have been.
MS DOWSETT: They might have been attending to cleaning?
MR TING: They could have been.
MS DOWSETT: And you said maintenance of the site. What maintenance were they doing?
MR TING: Well, like cleaning, maintaining the coffee machines, which is very important, especially at the start and end of the day.
MS DOWSETT: I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you there. How can they be maintaining a coffee machine while another BusyBean is using it?
MR TING: So that's at the start or end of the day.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, what I'm trying to explore with you, Mr Ting, is what the fourth BusyBean is doing while the three machines are occupied. I accept coffee machines need cleaning at the start and end of the day, I'm not cavilling with that evidence. What is the fourth BusyBean doing?
MR TING: So they could have been doing any number of tasks within the café.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, please tell us what they are.
MR TING: So as I mentioned just now, some of it could be could have been dealing with customers. It could have been participating in the training in a role play situation. It could have been cleaning. It could have been attending to stocktake of supplies. Any number of activities.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And in the Office 1 scenario where we've got those two machines, then we've got potentially we've got two BusyBeans who don't have a machine. Are they doing similar non coffee making tasks?
MR TING: There were never four participants at a time in Office 1. I believe that the most we ever had was maybe one to two.
MS DOWSETT: Right.
CHAIR: Ms Dowsett, are you going to perhaps I've missed this. Have you referred or do you intend to refer to the email behind tab D68?
MS DOWSETT: I haven't, but I can do so now.
CHAIR: Well, it does seem to be relevant.
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
CHAIR: Bearing in mind who's received a copy.
MS DOWSETT: Mr Ting, could you please turn to the email in Volume D at tab 68.
MR TING: Yes. I believe this was one of the emails which we couldn't view the attachments. But the email does reference the at that time, the current set up with the red cart. So that was the larger coffee cart that we had sent to to Office 1.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So, as the Chair noted, you are a recipient of this email.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And it was sent on 7 November 2019.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so, at that stage, is that when you're saying you couldn't access the photos?
MR TING: I'm saying that I have not been able to access these photos in preparation for this hearing.
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: I don't recall if I saw them at the time.
MS DOWSETT: So you don't recall whether you opened them at the time.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: All right.
CHAIR: Why was Mzia sending an email to you?
MR TING: It's CC'd to me. It's addressed to Miguel Rodrigues who was her direct manager.
CHAIR: Yes, but it was CC'd to you.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: But you've said you didn't visit this place. Why would she be copying you in by name?
MR TING: I she doesn't address me by name. I'm CC'd in it.
CHAIR: That's called sending a copy to you, isn't it?
MR TING: Yes, correct.
CHAIR: Yes.
MR TING: Mzia – obviously she knew who I was. We did work together. For most operational matters, day to day matters, she was dealing directly with her direct manager at that time, Miguel Rodrigues.
CHAIR: That just tells me she was dealing with her direct manager. But it doesn't tell me
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: But it doesn't tell me why you're a named recipient of the email she's sending to the manager.
MR TING: So I'm not aware of the specific reason why she would have done that.
MS DOWSETT: Could that reason have been because have you overall responsibility and oversight of this program?
MR TING: That could be a reason.
MS DOWSETT: And you don't recall whether you tried to open these emails at the time?
MR TING: I don't recall specifically, no.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, I missed that.
MR TING: No, I have no specific recollection of of opening and viewing this email.
MS DOWSETT: Right. We can tell that two of the image numbers in this email so IMG2749 and IMG2747 are copies of images that were in the 24 June 2019 email. Those same JPEG image numbers appear as attachments in that email.
MR TING: Okay.
MS DOWSETT: So when you gave evidence earlier that you didn't recall whether you'd seen sorry, I'll rephrase that. I think you said that you hadn't seen those photos until you were preparing for this hearing. Is that correct?
MR TING: Yeah. I don't believe I had. But if those photographs were included in this email, those photographs were dated June 2019. This email is November 2019. This is five months later. So I don't think that would have been an accurate depiction of the set up at that time.
MS DOWSETT: Well, she says in the November 2019 email:
"Some photos to give you an idea of the training space at Office 1. The kitchen is at the back of the office and the cart is in reception. The last photo is the current set up with the red cart in front of the two tables."
So perhaps her purpose in including the June ones is to show, well, this is what it used to be and this is what it is now. Do you accept that could have been her purpose?
MR TING: That could have been the purpose, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so at least from 7 November you had an opportunity to have seen images of Office 1.
MR TING: As it was in June 2019.
MS DOWSETT: And November 2019.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Was it your practice not to open emails?
MR TING: I don't think that's a fair assessment.
MS DOWSETT: Was it your practice not to open attachments to emails?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: So if you were the CC of an email, which we've just seen, then, in accordance with your usual practice, you would have opened the email and opened the attachments?
MR TING: So, in all likelihood, I did see this, but I did not have a specific recollection of this or what the image looked like.
MS DOWSETT: And does it follow that you also have no recollection of taking any steps to address any deficiencies you might have observed in the photos?
MR TING: So I believe that that would have been addressed through Mr Rodrigues at the time.
MS DOWSETT: But if you're ultimately responsible, don't you get on to your 2IC and say, "Mr Rodrigues, what are you doing about it?"
MR TING: I'm sure I did have that conversation. And I don't recall the outcome of that.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, you're sure you did have a conversation with him about what he was doing about that training environment?
MR TING: I probably I believe I probably did, yes. But I don't have a specific recollection about that.
CHAIR: But you told us earlier on that you weren't ultimately responsible for any of this. Why would you have a conversation with the manager?
MR TING: I wasn't ultimately responsible for the layout of this office. But I certainly was in a position where I could be working with other members of the business to try to improve things.
CHAIR: I'm not sure I understand the distinction. Were you or were you not responsible for the conduct of this program at Office 1?
MR TING: No, I don't think I was directly
CHAIR: You just intervened from time to time to have a conversation with someone who was responsible?
MR TING: So, in this instance, because I I was not responsible for Office 1 and there were other managers in that area, I didn't have direct responsibility for this for this office, no.
CHAIR: Yes. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Mr Ting, do you understand there to be a difference between direct responsibility and ultimate responsibility?
MR TING: I believe ultimate responsibility would imply to be all the way up to the top of the chain.
MS DOWSETT: So it's Ms Romero who's ultimately responsible for this training environment?
MR TING: But that's not something that she would personally be engaged with. That's the purpose of having staff to deal with these matters.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. Moving on. The topic I want to go to now is selection of participants. So AimBig as a DES program has a number of DES participants on its books.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And are we correct in understanding that those participants are collectively referred to as a caseload.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so the selection of participants for the BusyBeans program is selecting people from the AimBig DES caseload to participate, to join, enrol in BusyBeans.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And this is addressed in paragraphs 77 to 84 of the Statement of Agreed Facts?
MR TING: One moment. Which paragraph was that, sorry?
MS DOWSETT: 77 to 84.
MR TING: Yes, I've got that now.
MS DOWSETT: And so it is an agreed fact that the process adopted by the process adopted by AimBig clients to participate had the following steps: A job coach made a referral, and from around August 2019, Mzia was involved in an assessment of the client's suitability for participating in the program and gave a recommendation. The National Operations Manager, or other AimBig managers, would undertake a further assessment, and Mr Wilson would make the final determination.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Were you one of those other AimBig managers who would undertake the further assessment?
MR TING: Not at a probably at a pretty a low level. Mostly around looking at suitability in terms of number of participants that we already have, ensuring that we're not going over the ratios that we want, and also having a look to see that have these participants have they been asked if they want to be part of the program and also looking at potential the benchmarks and funding levels attached.
MS DOWSETT: I should have perhaps asked you this earlier when asking you about your qualifications. Do you have any qualifications or experience in working with people with disability?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: So when you're talking about an assessment of suitability, you're really the extent you're involved in this process, you're looking at the the ratios and financial side of it from a from a business perspective rather than a person centred participant perspective?
MR TING: Correct. I would have been relying upon job coaches to have looked at it from the person centric point of view and had these conversations about whether this is the program that was of interest to the individual.
MS DOWSETT: And when you were talking about funding levels, that's a reference to the risk adjusted funding?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: This rating of 1 to 5 we spoke about earlier today?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it's correct, isn't it, that you also had regard to potential BusyBeans benchmark hours.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that AimBig's focus was to look for potential participants with an eight hour benchmark.
MR TING: That would have been ideal for the program, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And people with a 15 hour benchmark were considered where they had a higher funding level?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that's because it cost AimBig more in terms of the hours of work if a person had a 15 hour benchmark rather than an eight hour benchmark.
MR TING: Correct. That was part of that financial assessment around viability. The BusyBeans program was an expensive program for AimBig. Ultimately, it did lose quite a good deal of money for AimBig. But what we wanted to ensure that we were doing was trying to minimise that that financial burden.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Mr Ting, I'm going to ask to be put up on the screen in a private shot so it will be visible to the Commissioners and the leave to appear parties, but not to the public. I'm going to put up your attachment MT 07. Commissioners this in Bundle B at tab 8. So just to be clear, Mr Ting, the public won't see this. And, Commissioners, it's the final page in this email that I want to go to.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I don't know if you can read that, Mr Ting. We will try to see if we can get it bigger, or do you have the paper copy in front of you?
MR TING: I can see that. I have got the paper now in front of me as well.
MS DOWSETT: So just by just to introduce the document, this is a projection that was prepared of the revenue that could be received by 26 week placements being achieved and the cost of those placements. Would you agree that's a fair assessment of what this document is?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it shows in the revenue section, the columns are headed Role and then Name, and the name of the BusyBeans have been redacted, save that we can see Mzia identified and BT 1.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Then in the next column over, we have their risk adjusted funding level.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you can see, for example, that the first BusyBean listed has a funding level of 2.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the final column is Outcome Fees.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So for a BusyBean with a funding level of 2, the outcome fee payable after 26 weeks is $7,785. That's correct?
MR TING: Yes
MS DOWSETT: And then if we could go down the list there, you can see there's a person who has a funding level of 5?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: That's the fifth person from the bottom. For that person, if they achieve a 26 week outcome, the funding payment to AimBig would be $27,472. That's correct?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so that's that's what we're talking about, about the difference between funding levels. It is quite a significant difference even between a 2 and a 5.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then at the the bottom part of the page is cost for 26 weeks. You see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the first row in that part refers to 13 BusyBeans on an eight hour benchmark at $33 an hour.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, these 13 BusyBeans, these are TLH employed BusyBeans. That's correct?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Because we saw sorry, I should have made this point before when we've listed the role up in the first column where we have got all the BusyBeans, two are marked as RM employed.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Those are the Rehab Management employed BusyBeans.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Then the two trainers underneath them.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So everybody else in that list is a TLH employee.
MR TING: So yes. So there's only three people in there who are employed by Rehab Management. Two BusyBeans plus Mzia.
MS DOWSETT: Plus BT 1. Sorry, plus Mzia. Yes. Right. But when we're looking back down in this costs, the 13 BusyBeans, $33 an hour, can you just confirm for me that's the amount that's paid by AimBig to TLH?
MR TING: Correct. That's a rough figure. It's not exactly $33.
MS DOWSETT: But it's not what the BusyBeans receive.
MR TING: No. So that $33 would be inclusive of the their hourly rate, super, WorkCover, insurances and a margin for TLH's admin as well.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And it is listed here under Costs and I've referred to it in my question as costs that were paid by AimBig. But I just want to test that with you and say and ask you, who was paying this cost? Was it AimBig or was it Rehab Management?
MR TING: I believe it was Rehab Management paying these invoices.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Because my understanding is that the café was rented by Rehab Management.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And yet we see it listed in the Costs section, the rental there.
MR TING: Yes. So we're looking at the overall cost to the group at this point.
MS DOWSETT: In any stage, either in this projection of cost and revenue or in the actual figures that are in your statement and we'll come to later is there any place in which it's divided between AimBig and Rehab Management? Or do you always consider the cost and revenue for the group as a whole?
MR TING: I think, for the most part, we would have been looking at the group as a whole.
MS DOWSETT: And just before I finish off on this document, if we look at the in the Costs section, the two participants who are so the second and third rows are BusyBean participant, 15 hour benchmark, $25 per hour. And then BusyBean participant, eight hour benchmark, $25 an hour. So they have both the same hourly rate, but when we go over to the calculation column, this is the point I was seeking to make. It costs you more to have someone work for $15 an hour 15 hours rather than eight hours. That's correct?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But you
MR TING: More hours.
MS DOWSETT: Pardon?
MR TING: Correct. It costs more because they're working more hours.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. But the outcome funds outcome fees that you receive don't change relative to benchmark hours; they change relative to risk adjusted funding level?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And that's why if you want if somebody at a higher benchmark hours wants to come in, AimBig needs them to have the higher funding level.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Chair, I note the time.
MR TING: Generally, the other reason for this is the participants with a higher funding level were deemed as you mentioned before, as having a higher level of disadvantage. One of the purposes of the BusyBeans program was specifically to be working with that cohort of people who had experienced high levels of disadvantage, had higher support needs. So we're talking about DES participants with autism, intellectual disability. People who often would have had much lower success rates in the DES program overall.
So that's one of the reasons obviously the financial calculation was one of the factors here, but that also went into why these people were selected. I think if we look in the evidence, I recall there's emails where Mzia herself said that certain participants were not suitable for the BusyBeans program because she felt that they didn't need it, that they they didn't need this additional support. So that goes back to the original intent of the program.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, but if you look at the funding levels that are listed here on this document, we see that there are there are a couple of number 5 level 5s, and there's one level 4 ESS and one level 4 DMS. Sorry, there are two level 4s ESS.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: We don't see this skewing to the higher level greater disadvantage, need for greater support, do we?
MR TING: Not looking at necessarily at that. It's always been my impression that the risk adjusted funding levels don't accurately really portray the amounts that are required. It's been my experience that, especially younger people, say school leavers, regardless of disability support required, may come up with a lower funding level, because one of the factors that goes into that assessment is years of unemployment.
So I have seen for example people with very high needs, Down syndrome and so on, at the lowest funding level, which, as a DES provider, it means that these are people who probably need the most support, probably need the most funding to be able to provide the support. And ultimately, then, as the DES provider, you are the least financially incentivised to work with. So that's been my observation over, I guess, one of the flaws of the program. If I were to go onto a rant.
MS DOWSETT: No, that's okay. I'm sorry, I was just receiving a time check because I am as you saw this morning bad for picking up the signal. So
CHAIR: It looked as though you were being terminated with extreme prejudice, actually.
MS DOWSETT: Something like that. Is this a convenient time, Chair?
CHAIR: Yes. Just a couple of questions though, Mr Ting, about this document. Just to see if I can understand it.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: The revenue is over a period of 26 weeks. It represents for each of the participants the fees that will come at the 26 week mark. Is that how it works?
MR TING: Yes. Well, that's I believe that's typically the 13- and 26 week outcome combined.
CHAIR: Yes. There are three of those people that are named. I won't name them, but at least three, it may be four including Mzia are included in the revenue stream because they attract the payment, the fee at the 26 weeks mark. Correct?
MR TING: Yes. Yes.
CHAIR: Those same people who attract the fees are part of the expense because the costs include the monies paid to them for the services they perform.
MR TING: Yes. Yes.
CHAIR: There's not a precise correlation between those two amounts because there's a limit on the revenue based upon the formulae that apply, but in the case of Mzia, for example, she's down as working 35 hours a week at an hourly rate and that produces a larger cost than the revenue stream that is the result of placing her for 26 weeks. Have I got that right?
MR TING: Yes, that's correct.
CHAIR: The Café rental you have said, I think, was a cost incurred by Rehab Management Australia Proprietary Limited, not AimBig.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I'm sorry, Chair, I will just interrupt to say please don't say the name of the café again.
CHAIR: It is on the screen, isn't it?
MS DOWSETT: No, it is blocked out.
CHAIR: Oh, is it? Sorry. There were a number in the area. All right. Thank you. That is for something that was intended to be a commercial operation, wasn't it?
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Why is there $200 a week recorded as $200 instead of $5,200. Revenue from the café?
MR TING: So that's what, 200 times
CHAIR: I am sorry, I have misread it. It was 2,500. I thought it was a dollar sign. All right, I understand that. Now, where does one take into account other forms of either revenue or subsidy received by the company for the conduct of this program? Because there were other financial arrangements, were there not?
MR TING: In terms of wage subsidies?
CHAIR: Not wage subsidies, were there not was there not support from other sources for the establishment of this program?
MR TING: Yes, so that hasn't been factored into the costs into this. That would have been all as standard business as usual costs. That would have been incurred regardless of this operation.
CHAIR: No, I'm talking about the did you not receive support from, for example, a council for the operations of this program?
MR TING: Yes, so that would have happened later in a small amount of money.
CHAIR: But it's not included here.
MR TING: No, no, because that was something that happened later. This
CHAIR: That would be part of the revenue that the company derived for operating the scheme?
MR TING: Yes. So this was this email is August 2019. We did get a small amount of money later on, for example, like that as you mentioned from a council grant. And that's not here.
CHAIR: All right. Well, I won't pursue that at the moment, but I take it that there are other factors that would need to be taken into account in determining whether the program was producing ultimately a profit, however you regard the other forms of subsidy for the company. Not just what's on this sheet.
MR TING: So other costs such as like the ongoing post placement support, job coach costs, and so on. Is that what we are
CHAIR: No, I'm talking about support, financial support for the scheme. Not the costs, financial support.
MR TING: So the only other financial support that we did have was the we got an NDIS grant as well which covered expenses to a certain extent. I don't recall whether this email was prepared before or after we received confirmation
CHAIR: I will check it, but I seem to remember a grant from a council that was not insubstantial.
MR TING: If I recall
MS DOWSETT: Chair, these are matters
CHAIR: Sorry, just hold on.
MS DOWSETT: Chair, these are matters I will be taking Mr Ting to after lunch. They are addressed in his statement.
CHAIR: All right. We will come to them later on. It is now 10 past 1. We will resume at 2 o'clock.
ADJOURNED 1:10 PM
RESUMED 2:03 PM
CHAIR: Yes, Ms Dowsett.
MS DOWSETT: Before the luncheon adjournment, you were asking Mr Ting some questions about external sources of funding for the BusyBeans program. Mr Ting, can I ask you, please, to turn in your AimBig statement to paragraph 67.
MR TING: Yes, I've got that.
MS DOWSETT: So, in this paragraph, you've set out in table form grants received by the BusyBeans program sorry, I withdraw that. Were these grants received by AimBig or by Rehab Management?
MR TING: There's a mix in there. So there's an NDIA grant that was received by Rehab Management. Then there's the DES funding, which goes to AimBig (indistinct).
MS DOWSETT: Right. The council funding?
MR TING: Sorry?
MS DOWSETT: The council funding. The next row.
MR TING: Which one? 17 October?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: Yes, that would have gone to AimBig.
MS DOWSETT: And the coffee sales?
MR TING: So that would have been to AimBig.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And then the final row there, what is that?
MR TING: So that basically represents the capital that was spent internally to cover the shortfall of other funding sources. So based on that calculation, effectively, the Arriba Group as a whole we had to outlay an additional $359,000 to sustain the program.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And that's nationally?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to say what, if anything, the cost of Office 1 was to the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: The cost of Office 1 probably would have been the salaries for trainers, BusyBean participants, the cost of machines, the cost of supplies. So because it was an existing Rehab Management site, we didn't have to enter a new lease for it. It would have been relatively minimal compared to some of the other sites.
MS DOWSETT: And we saw from the photos that no money was spent on fit out.
MR TING: I on extra fit out, no. We were basically using, as you can see in the photographs, office furniture and the coffee machines.
MS DOWSETT: Was it part of your role to be across the money side of the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: To a certain extent, yes.
MS DOWSETT: So you would have known that no money was spent on fit out.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Just if I could go back to those grants that we were talking about, you mentioned the amount of the Arriba Group input.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: The NDIS funding, that was in excess of $300,000?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the outcome fees, I think you've already mentioned this in your evidence, but it was $874,832 nationally?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to break that figure down sorry, I withdraw that because we'll get to that in a moment. The city council grant was slightly over $1,000?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the coffee sales is just in excess of $20,000?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, coffee sales, this is just from cafés?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Because in the office environments, the coffee is free?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: If you could move, please, to paragraph 72. And I'm going to have this put up once again, on that private screen so the Commissioners can see it and you can see it, but it won't be displayed publicly. Just while that's coming up, this is the, as I understand it, actual profit and loss for the program in the relevant Region?
MR TING: In those dates, yes.
MS DOWSETT: In those dates. Between January 2019 to April 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so we see, firstly, the heading Revenue. And the outcome fees, those are outcome fees earned by AimBig in this Region?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So in what is effectively just under a year, from May 2019, when the first BusyBeans arrived, to March 2020, when COVID arrived, the outcome fees received were $189,109?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. The Grant Income is the next source of revenue. Are you able to identify that grant by reference to the ones we were just looking at in paragraph 67?
MR TING: Yes. That's the the NDIA grant. So the NDIA grant covered four Regions. So this is effectively one quarter of that that grant revenue.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And then the next entry is Other Income. What was the Other Income?
MR TING: So that would have included the coffee sales and it would have included that other council grant.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So if we take off the approximately $1,300 for the grant, it's just over $5,000 worth of coffee?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And then the cost of this service, we see Wages and Salaries. So does this relate to AimBig employees?
MR TING: So my I believe that we're using salaries here which covers the Rehab Management employees, which is Mzia and, I believe, the two other participants. I believe there's an allocation for salaries of a portion of my salary, a portion of Mr Rodrigues' salary, which I believe would have covered fallen into that.
MS DOWSETT: Into wages and salaries?
MR TING: I believe so. Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Because we've got the next entry is Labour Hire BusyBeans Participants. So that's money that you're paying to TLH; is that right?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So that's approximately $218,000.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And then there is an entry for Other. You are able to tell the Royal Commission what that Other is?
MR TING: I'm not sure right at this moment what is in there. I'm thinking that it will be things like facilities that aren't covered elsewhere supplies, coffee supplies. Probably things like I'm not sure if, like, mileage. Things like that.
CHAIR: Mr Ting, who prepared these figures?
MR TING: The Arriba Group finance team.
CHAIR: You have no knowledge as to whether they are correct or not, do you?
MR TING: I had input into what went into some of the line items, not all of them.
CHAIR: But to answer my question, you don't know whether these figures are correct?
MR TING: I'd be relying upon the Arriba Group finance team.
CHAIR: Exactly. So the answer to my question is, no, you don't.
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Correct. Do I take it that Wages and Salaries includes what would amount to overheads? Included overheads?
MR TING: As in superannuation, insurances?
CHAIR: No, in the sense of attributing part of the costs to people in the head office. Or head offices? Sorry?
MR TING: A lot of that goes under there's, at the bottom, Corporate Allocation, which I believe that covers things like marketing, IT, so on.
CHAIR: But I thought you said Wages and Salaries covered, for example, part of your cost?
MR TING: Yes. So my understanding is that Wages and Salaries in this covers people directly in the program or directly working on the program, not the see, that Head Office Central Support Function.
CHAIR: Anyway, the short answer is you didn't prepare these, so you can't really tell us how precise or correct they are.
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: All right.
MS DOWSETT: And you would just be doing your best to speculate about what might be included in if I keep asking you about, "Well, what's in 'Other'? What's in Other Employment Costs you actually don't know what those amounts are?
MR TING: The specific detail, no.
MS DOWSETT: Right okay. Thank you.
CHAIR: And just to be clear about it, these figures relate to a Region; they don't specifically to Office 1.
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: And I think you've already told Ms Dowsett that the expenses attributable to Office 1 were rather small in the scale of things?
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Yes. All right. I think we're getting there to understand.
MS DOWSETT: One final question on this information about finances. There's no reference in here to wage subsidies because that is something that is paid through AimBig, but you get reimbursed, so it's neither cost nor revenue. You're just the pipe through which that money flows.
MR TING: Correct, wage subsidies to TLH. Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And you've given evidence that that was slightly in excess of $110,000?
MR TING: Nationally.
MS DOWSETT: Nationally, yes. And you've also indicated in your statement that that was based upon the amount of $1,650 inclusive of GST per participant, with some pro rata payments?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And so we take it from that, that you sorry, AimBig paid the maximum amount of wage subsidy for each of the participants employed by TLH?
MR TING: That's my understanding.
MS DOWSETT: You weren't involved in those decisions.
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: I want to take you now to a spreadsheet that two spreadsheets. One has been prepared by AimBig, and you will find it in Volume D at tab 85. And you should also have within reach Volume B, also tab 85.
MR TING: This is the list of participants in the Region.
MS DOWSETT: So you're in Volume D with the AimBig spreadsheet; is that correct?
MR TING: Yes, I've got the Volume D one. I'm just looking for the Volume B one.
MS DOWSETT: While those in the room with you finding Volume B, let's deal with Volume D.
MR TING: Okay.
MS DOWSETT: Were you involved in the preparation of this spreadsheet?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And were steps taken to ensure that the accuracy of this spreadsheet?
MR TING: So this was based on the information that AimBig currently has. My involvement in preparation was primarily to identify the list of the names of individuals who should be on it. And then the details of it in the subsequent columns were extracted by our National Operations Manager.
MS DOWSETT: Did you check it before it was provided to the Royal Commission?
MR TING: I did.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so you're satisfied that of the accuracy of this statement of this spreadsheet?
MR TING: Yes. I couldn't spot any errors or issues from my end.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And, to your knowledge, it includes all of the participants in the Region in the period that we are interested in.
MR TING: Correct. The paid participants and the unpaid work experience participants.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. Now, if we could turn, then, to the AimBig spreadsheet. So this is Volume B at tab 85.
MR TING: Okay. Just a moment. We are just looking for that.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, the TLH spreadsheet. Do you have that there?
MR TING: We're still looking for it. Is it tab 71?
MS DOWSETT: No, it is tab 85.
MR TING: Okay. Because we're aware some of our tab numbers are slightly different.
CHAIR: I think we have got two tab 85s. One in Volume D and one in Volume B.
MS DOWSETT: Correct, Chair.
CHAIR: Right.
MR TING: Is this document is this the spreadsheet submitted by TLH?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: The participants?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Have you been able to review the TLH spreadsheet in preparation for giving your evidence today?
MR TING: I have I have had a look at this, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so you would be aware that it includes all of the participants in the BusyBeans program nationally who were employed by TLH?
MR TING: It would include all of the BusyBeans nationally hired through TLH, and looks like there's been a filter of position listed as some trainee barista. Because I believe that there might have been some who were listed with a position description of "Kitchen Hand" that I couldn't find on this.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And there are also some in here who are listed as "Trainer".
MR TING: Right.
MS DOWSETT: The point being that the TLH version is a national version and the AimBig version is just the Region.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Now, in her opening, Ms Eastman noted that the information provided to the Royal Commission, which is this the information provided to the Royal Commission indicates that BusyBeans participants who were employed by TLH had their employment terminated on or about the day that they ceased involvement in the BusyBeans program. You get that by putting these two tables together, the AimBig column headed Column C, the date the individual ceased the BusyBeans program, and the TLH column Finished Week Ending Date.
Now, I understand that you would like an opportunity to respond to that proposition. So do you agree that it is true when you look at that those pieces of information, TLH employed BusyBeans participants had their employment terminated on or about the day they ceased in the program?
MR TING: So I don't think that's entirely accurate. So participants employed via TLH were casuals. They wouldn't have had their employment terminated. The casual arrangement was about how many hours a participant would receive. What we wanted to try to do, because coming in to March 2020, especially with COVID, we wanted to see what we could do to try to support these participants into other work, other opportunities, potentially through TLH.
I'm aware that there were participants who did continue to work after that date in other roles through TLH or with other employers. I'm also aware that there's a number of participants who the start and end date is more than that 26 week period. Because we did continue to give them rostered shifts after the 26 weeks. So I think the I think the argument that it was 26 weeks and you're on the street is not quite accurate. That's that's my position on that.
MS DOWSETT: Well, perhaps you misunderstood the question or maybe I wasn't so clear. I'm not saying their employment was terminated after 26 weeks; I'm saying that when they finished in the BusyBeans program, whether that was at 26 weeks or before or after 26 weeks, within a day or two of ceasing in the BusyBeans program, their employment was terminated.
MR TING: So I think a termination of employment, to me, suggests an actual termination or separation document. Which I don't believe was the case unless the participant requested it, often for, say, Centrelink purposes. That would not have been something that would have happened from TLH. If somebody had ended the BusyBeans program, let's say, for example, because of COVID, they were still on TLH's books and able to complete hours in another role and another task if an opportunity arose.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, are you now giving evidence for TLH as well?
MR TING: So this is my my take on how this operated.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Because the column headed in the TLH table, Finished Week Ending.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: So what I'm directing your attention to, if we just take the very first participant listed in the TLH table.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: That participant Finished Week Ending 22 March 2020.
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And if you find that participant on the AimBig spreadsheet, that is the date that participant finished in the BusyBeans program.
MR TING: Let me just I believe that's how that finish date for in the AimBig spreadsheet was calculated. That was probably the last recorded shift that that participant had before the COVID shut down in March 2020.
MS DOWSETT: Well, we will be asking Ms Divertie how that was how the finished end date was finished from the TLH perspective, but what I understood is that you wanted a opportunity to respond to that proposition that Ms Eastman put in her opening, and so I'm giving you that opportunity now.
MR TING: Yeah. So my my position is that none of these people were terminated or terminated from TLH, that there was still a relationship that still existed and that I am aware of some participants who did actually continue to do some work in 2020 through TLH.
MS DOWSETT: Did AimBig notify TLH when people finished in the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: Not always. Sometimes. Usually it was a matter of timesheets submitted.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Just while you have the TLH document open, if you can look down to page 3, you will see the name of the person who we're referring to in this hearing as BT 3. In your statement, you note that that person is referred to in this spreadsheet as having been initially engaged as a Trainee Barista, which is the BusyBeans participant identifier, and was in December promoted to the position of Trainer.
MR TING: So I believe that's a mistake. I think BT 3 was always a Barista Trainer. So they never this person was never a trainee or never a BusyBeans participant. Certainly wasn't a DES participant. So I think that's just a maybe an administrative error on the paperwork.
MS DOWSETT: Well, you say in your statement that BT 3 always worked as a trainer.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: My question for you is, you don't know whether she was paid as a trainee or as a trainer in that first period of time, do you?
MR TING: Yeah, it appears that probably her payslips reflected trainee, which was a mistake which apparently appears to have been rectified in December.
MS DOWSETT: So my question was, do you know what rate she was paid at?
MR TING: I'm not aware of what rate she was paid at.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. I want to turn now to Mzia. And, again, the Statement of Agreed Facts does address some issues in relation to Mzia, and I do note that we're taking some time getting through this, so if you feel that it is fair to you and not putting you under too much pressure, I won't read any more from the Agreed Facts. We'll take those as Agreed Facts. They're before the Commission. I will just focus on the other questions.
MR TING: Okay.
MS DOWSETT: Okay. Were you aware, personally, of what disability Mzia has?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And what was your understanding?
MR TING: That Mzia had ADHD.
MS DOWSETT: And at what did you know that from the outset?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And what was your understanding of what supports she might need because she was a person living with ADHD?
MR TING: So, from my from my perspective, hiring a person with ADHD, there would have been support available through AimBig's post placement support, as she did receive.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. I'm not asking where it was going to come from, I'm asking what type what support what did she need from her DES provider as a person living with ADHD?
MR TING: So that would have been a matter for post placement support to provide.
MS DOWSETT: Right. You don't have any insight what that might have been?
MR TING: Not personally, no. I didn't personally believe or I didn't personally witness any issues or any shortcomings in her employment or in her work, which was this position. I always thought that she was an excellent employee, personally.
MS DOWSETT: Right. At the time Mzia was working in the BusyBeans program, did AimBig have a policy to assist it to manage its dual role as her DES provider and her host employer?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: Looking back, do you think it might have been appropriate to have one?
MR TING: I don't think it's necessarily needed, the reason being it's quite separate roles. If AimBig were to hire somebody from its own DES business, a DES participant, that person would have had access to support through the Arriba Group's People and Culture team, as did happen, and also from the post placement support team. These are very separate roles and there is no correlation or overlap. The post placement support team would have worked or would have supported that individual no different from any other DES participant hired in any other external business.
I'm aware that Mzia is not the only DES participant that has been hired by the Group, some of whom have personally been hired within my teams and who I believe have done an amazing job. I personally don't see the need for any special or different treatment in that regard.
MS DOWSETT: We're not talking about different treatment for the DES participant. I'm talking about whether it would have been appropriate for AimBig to have a policy to deal with any conflict that might have arisen, but, as I understand it, you didn't perceive there to be any conflict for AimBig?
MR TING: No, I didn't believe there was.
MS DOWSETT: Right. I want to turn, please, to the Letter of Offer, which you will find in Volume A at tab 3.
MR TING: Yes. I have that.
MS DOWSETT: So this is on AimBig letterhead and signed by Ms Romero on behalf of AimBig?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the contract comes from Rehab Management.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, just to be clear, the employing entity is Rehab Management Australia Pty Ltd.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to explain to the Royal Commission why the difference between the entity that made the offer, which was accepted by Mzia, and the entity with whom she was required to contract?
MR TING: I would only assume it was an administrative error.
MS DOWSETT: An administrative error in terms of sending out the contract?
MR TING: In terms of sending out the Letter of Offer.
MS DOWSETT: And you say that's an assumption. You haven't made any inquiries about that in preparation for giving evidence today?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: Pressing on with looking at the contract, are you familiar with this document?
MR TING: I have not reviewed it in detail.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Well, we'll perhaps work through it together, then. You're aware it is a casual contract?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So Mzia was employed to be a Barista Trainer in a program to provide training to BusyBeans participants.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Was there no expectation on the part of AimBig or Rehab Management that this might be a position an ongoing position?
MR TING: Not at that time. And that was something that I do recall discussing with Mzia during her interview.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But, at some stage, because sorry, I'll begin again. The BusyBeans program was new in the Region when Mzia was engaged?
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: But AimBig had confidence in this program?
MR TING: We did. But at this stage it was still treated as, effectively, a pilot.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But you were piloting it for at least 26 weeks.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And as a casual contract, we see in clause 22.2 that it could be terminated on one hour's written or verbal notice?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It wasn't considered appropriate to have as part of the pilot a trainer who was employed for 26 weeks and had notice in accordance with the Fair Work Act?
MR TING: Sorry, I'm not aware of why that decision was made compared to a casual contract.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Who would be the person who would be aware of that?
MR TING: That would probably be either Ms Caltagirone, who was head of People and Culture at the time, or possibly Mr Oguz, the Chief Operating Officer.
MS DOWSETT: And so what is their role in relation to the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: So any new hires within the group so within Rehab Management, AimBig or the Arriba Group itself needed to be approved by the Chief Operating Officer, Mr Oguz. And then any kind of position changes, salary changes and so on needed to be decided at that level.
MS DOWSETT: Right. If you go to the schedule at the end of the contract, you'll see that item 5 identifies the industrial instrument pursuant to which Mzia would be paid.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And two instruments are identified there. The Clerks Private Sector Award 2010 or the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2010.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And documents that have been provided to the Royal Commission by AimBig indicate that she was paid under the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010. Were you aware of that?
MR TING: I was made aware of after after the fact.
MS DOWSETT: When after the fact?
MR TING: I don't recall specifically, but I do recall at one point she did receive a pay rise commensurate to that Award, and I believe she was also compensated for the difference.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, she received a pay rise relevant to the Clerks Award? Is that what you're saying?
MR TING: Or to one of the Awards. I'm not sure which one.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And when you said she was compensated for the difference, what did you mean by that?
MR TING: So my understanding is that the underpayment was calculated and then paid to her, because there was never any intention to underpay anybody within the Group.
MS DOWSETT: When did that happen?
MR TING: I'm not aware at this moment.
MS DOWSETT: So we have information from AimBig that Mzia was initially paid $25 an hour.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then in July, her pay was increased July 2019, her pay was increased to $29 an hour.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then from 6 January 2020, it was increased to $30 an hour.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And she resigned from her employment on 2 March 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: When do you say this underpayment was recognised and rectified?
MR TING: So I can only speak from my supposition, but I believe that probably would have been in that July when that initial pay rise from 25 to 29 dollars was enacted.
MS DOWSETT: Well, the material that's been provided to the Royal Commission says that the increase in her pay at that time was because of a change in her duties, because she was now expected to be overseeing two barista trainers. So she's, you know, supervising them. That's why her pay was increased. It's not about any underpayment.
MR TING: So I believe that that would also be one of the reasons why.
MS DOWSETT: And what is your reason for that belief?
MR TING: Well
MS DOWSETT: Did somebody tell you that?
MR TING: I I recall at the time I don't recall specifically when, when I heard about this, that there had been an underpayment, that it and it was also being rectified as swiftly as possible. So my understanding is that this was a mistake made by the People and Culture team. Based on evidence, it appears that was in July 2019.
MS DOWSETT: So the Clerks Private Sector Award provides in its coverage provision, which is clause 4.1:
"This Award covers employers in the private sector throughout Australia with respect to their employees engaged wholly or principally in clerical work, including administrative duties of a clerical nature and to those employees."
This Award doesn't cover Mzia, does it?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: The Health Professionals and Support Services Award, which is the other Award nominated in the contract, its coverage provision relevantly says:
"This industry and occupational Award covers employers throughout Australia in the health industry and their employees in the classifications listed in clause 14 Minimum weekly wages for support in services employees and 15 Minimum weekly wages for Health Professional employees to the exclusion of any other modern Award."
The health industry is defined in this Award as meaning:
"Employers whose business and/or activity is in the delivery of healthcare, medical services, and dental services."
This Award doesn't cover Mzia does it?
MR TING: No.
MS DOWSETT: So two are nominated in her contract and neither apply.
MR TING: Correct.
CHAIR: Can we just be clear, you're referring to those Awards as at the relevant date, I take it.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, I'm referring to the 2010 versions of those Awards.
CHAIR: Right. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Mr Ting, just for your information, general Awards have been updated and they are now – there are the 2020 versions. I am reading from 2010 versions as applicable in 2019. It seems to me that there are potentially two Awards that would have covered Mzia's employment. They are the Hospitality Industry General Award 2010 and the Fast Food Industry Award 2010. Are you familiar with either of these Awards?
MR TING: Not the detail, no.
MS DOWSETT: Have you turned your mind to which industrial instrument applies to people who work in the BusyBeans program?
MR TING: I would have thought that the Hospitality Award would have been most appropriate.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so the amount which should have been paid under the Hospitality Industry Award would, of course, depend upon what grade Mzia was, and it seems to me she would have been Grade 3. And the Award provides that:
"A Food and Beverage Attendant Grade 3 is a person who in addition to performing the tasks performed by a Beverage Attendant Grade 2 is engaged in any one of the following: Supervising Food and Beverage Attendants of a lower grade and training Food and Beverage Attendants of a lower grade."
So I've just picked two of the dot points. There are multiple. But would you agree with me that Mzia was responsible for supervising Food and Beverage Attendants of a lower grade?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And for training Food and Beverage Attendants of a lower grade.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: That is what she was initially employed to do.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So under this Award, as at the I have lost my note as at 1 July 2018, because that's when sorry, I'll begin again. Pay guides run from 1 July to 30 June the next year. So when she started she would have been under the rate set at 1 July 2018, because she starts in May 2019. Does that make sense?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so a casual employee under the Hospitality Industry General Award who is Level 3 should a Level 3 Good and Beverage Attendant should be paid $26.14 an hour. And then that goes up from 1 July 2019. So if you are correct that this is the applicable Award, then there was an underpayment, but it hasn't been rectified, has it?
MR TING: So her payment up to $29 an hour in July. Correct?
MS DOWSETT: Yes.
MR TING: Which is over the $26 something Award?
MS DOWSETT: Well, yes, but it the underpayment happened from May 2019.
MR TING: Yes. So my understanding is that the for that period of underpayment of $1 something an hour, my understanding is that that was rectified.
MS DOWSETT: Right. You just didn't tell Mzia about that.
MR TING: Okay. I'm not aware about whether she was aware about this.
MS DOWSETT: And you didn't tell the Royal Commission about that until just now?
MR TING: Well, my understanding was that that this was handled by the Arriba Group People and Culture team and that they'd when they'd identified that there was an issue, that they resolved it.
MS DOWSETT: But if the letter to Mzia doesn't refer to an underpayment being rectified, there would be no other way for her to have found out about that?
MR TING: Sorry, I'm not aware of how whether or how the Arriba People and Culture team did that, whether they notified her or not.
MS DOWSETT: Right. Now, when we were looking at the Rehab Management Induction this morning, you I took to you the part that said that the job coach could help with the new employee documentation. Do you recall that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And I asked you then whether that kind of support was available to Mzia. And I recall I believe I correctly recall that your answer was you didn't think that she needed it.
MR TING: Correct. I didn't think that, having been having been somebody who'd worked for many years, had had a number of positions over the years, I would have thought that she would be familiar with employment contracts and what to look at.
MS DOWSETT: Did you think that the people in Rehab Management People and Culture team would be familiar with employment contracts?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Do you think they could have named the right industrial Award in the contract?
MR TING: I would have thought so.
MS DOWSETT: Right. The contract also says that it doesn't guarantee Mzia any minimum or maximum hours. You're aware of that?
CHAIR: Which clause are you referring to?
MS DOWSETT: I'm just quickly trying to find it here. So it's in clause 8, Hours of Work, and clause 8.3.
MR TING: Yep, I've got that.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And Mzia had a job plan which had mutual obligation requirements. She was required to work 30 hours per fortnight.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Based on her 15 hour a week benchmark?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And she's signing up to an employment contract that doesn't guarantee her enough hours or doesn't guarantee her any hours. How is she supposed to meet her minimum her mutual obligation requirement?
MR TING: So correct. Under a casual contract, there is no guarantee of hours. And to my my belief, that's it's a systemic issue in in this sector. Anybody on a casual contract would often have a clause such as that. I believe that it's personally, I think this is a failing of the DES program actually. That's probably a tangent.
MS DOWSETT: Well, that may be true, but is it also a failing of AimBig and Rehab Management? This is the Rehab Management contract to employ an AimBig DES participant to work in an AimBig BusyBeans program. Aren't you isn't AimBig and Rehab Management best placed to show best practice, to give someone a contract that guarantees them the hours they need?
MR TING: So I would say that Rehab Management, as a separate entity, wouldn't have there's no responsibility on the part of Rehab Management to provide benchmark hours to any employee. It's still an individual matter, I would have thought.
MS DOWSETT: So you're saying that it's not it's not an opportunity for Rehab Management to demonstrate best practice?
MR TING: I would say that in the instance of Mzia, there was no time when she didn't work those hours. On the contrary, she often worked probably more than double those benchmark hours. But absolutely there wasn't a any obligation on behalf of Rehab Management to offer benchmark hours, no different from any other employer.
MS DOWSETT: Well, I accept there wasn't an obligation, but Rehab Management we've heard you this morning talking about its interrelationship with AimBig, the melding of responsibility for various things, including employment arrangements; the money that's coming in and going out of the BusyBeans program. So I put it to you again that while there's no obligation, it's an opportunity to demonstrate best practice. If you say, "This is a failing of the DES system", couldn't you lead the way with some positive change?
MR TING: So as somebody who wasn't responsible for the People and Culture function, I I couldn't answer that.
MS DOWSETT: You've spoken in your statement about the induction that you say was given to Mzia, and you say that was given by the National Operations Manager.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you said that that involved him talking her through the Rehab Management Employee Handbook.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you've provided a copy of that. I won't take you to it, but it is in Volume B at tab 80. And do you agree with me that that handbook contains no explanation about reporting arrangements, who Mzia's line of authority was?
MR TING: No, that document is is not a customised individual document. It's a standard handbook.
MS DOWSETT: And it contains no explanation of the kind of matters that might be regarded by Rehab Management as employee issues and the kinds that might be regarded as DES participant issues?
MR TING: No. It's a standard handbook which is issued to any Rehab Management employee. Or was issued to every Rehab Management employee at the time.
MS DOWSETT: So to the extent that Mzia needed to know those kinds of things, she didn't get it from the induction?
MR TING: This is the details of the induction are what have been relayed to me by the National Operations Manager who conducted that.
MS DOWSETT: Well, Mzia says there wasn't one at all, that she was just shown around the office and walked down to the kitchen at the back. You've said that the National Operations Manager took her through induction, including explaining the handbook. But you're not able to provide any further detail about what that might what that induction might have involved?
MR TING: No, that's what that's what he told me his recollection of that day was.
CHAIR: Mr Ting, as the, as I understand your evidence, the instigator of this program, wouldn't you think it important (a) to have a contract with somebody who is a participant in the DES program and then is being employed and a company within the group is receiving payments in respect of the employment of this person? Wouldn't you think it appropriate to have a contract that was actually responsive to the particular circumstances of this person?
Among other things, this contract refers to the Minimum Conditions of Employment Act 1993, Western Australia. So it's hardly a contract that someone has thought about. It's a standard contract, isn't it, that's just been presented to her for signature, and she signs it and presumably doesn't isn't given an opportunity to have an explanation or understand what's involved in it. Wouldn't it have been a good idea to have something specifically referable to her circumstances?
MR TING: I think in hindsight, that would have been good. I think I think the intention at this time wasn't to be hiring, I guess or for this to be to be hiring large numbers of AimBig DES participants into Rehab Management and then requiring specialised paperwork, I guess. And that's why that I'm only supposing, from the Rehab Management People and Culture perspective, why that didn't happen.
CHAIR: There were a number of people who were in Mzia's position, weren't there?
MR TING: As barista trainers. Yes. But she was the only barista trainer hired by Rehab Management, I believe. I believe the rest were through TLH.
CHAIR: I rather thought there were others in the in the list of expenses that we saw in some other of the many documents we've gone through. There were a number of names that rather suggested that people were in exactly the position that she was because they were both employed and were the subject of claims by AimBig under the DES provider scheme. I'm sure Ms Dowsett will point me in the correct direction.
MS DOWSETT: In fact, Chair
MR TING: Are you talking about BT 1?
MS DOWSETT: Yes. So BT 1 is both an AimBig DES participant and an employee, but she is employed by TLH. Mzia was the only one employed by Rehab Management. There were two participants who were employed by Rehab Management. But and they everybody else is a TLH employee.
MR TING: Yes.
CHAIR: Yes. Well, there were separate categories, as I recall, for payments to TLH by way of reimbursement and for the cost of several of the people.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. A number of trainers were employed by TLH, but of the trainer category only Mzia employed by Rehab Management.
CHAIR: Yes. Well, in any event, it's hardly appropriate, is it, to have a contract of this with someone in her position that says either party may terminate on one hour's verbal notice, clause 22.2. Would you agree with that?
COMMISSIONER MASON: Ms Dowsett?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER MASON: Yes, I just had a question if we're talking about the beginning of Mzia's employment. I just wanted to clarify the job ad that she found which talks about the opportunity and it's it's in Bundle B, tab 16, and the ad says:
"Do you want to help change the lives of young people with disability and the opportunity for a barista trainer."
I just wanted to know if there was further information provided through Indeed this Indeed job ad that the barista trainer would be a person with disability? Or whether it was actually an open employment position?
MR TING: It was an open employment position.
COMMISSIONER MASON: So I just also wanted to know, based on Mzia's experience, why she wasn't offered an open employment opportunity and she was taken down the route of being part of a Disability Employment Service under these arrangements and why wasn't an open contract
MR TING: I don't understand the distinction. It was an open employment contract.
COMMISSIONER MASON: But she was employed as someone under the Disability Employment Service. I want to clarify yes.
MS DOWSETT: So, Commissioner, Mzia was already a member of the Disability Employment Service before she so she had a different provider, then she joined AimBig, then she found the job opportunity and applied. So it is, as Mr Ting said it is open employment, but because Rehab Management have engaged a person who is a DES participant, they they could then AimBig could then claim some outcome payments for that employment. So Mzia herself was in the scheme before she applied for this job.
MR TING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MASON: Okay. So I just also wanted to ask in relation to that, and in your own words, you talked about this being a pilot program. Was there anything in the way that the opportunity was described to Mzia that it was a pilot program?
MR TING: Yes. I I recall I'm confident that I did explain that to her in in that phone interview, and I know the National Operations Manager assures me that he had that conversation with her numerous times.
COMMISSIONER MASON: Has it provided any written documentation to the Commission?
MR TING: Not that I've seen, no.
COMMISSIONER MASON: Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Paragraph 77 of your Rehab Management statement, Mr Ting, sets out Mzia's duties as you say they were.
MR TING: We will just bring that up.
MS DOWSETT: Do have you that there?
MR TING: We're looking for the statement.
MR MOORHOUSE: Counsel, it would be helpful if which tab at Bundle B.
MS DOWSETT: The Rehab Management statement is at Bundle B, tab 32.
MR TING: B. Paragraph 77?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, lists the duties as you say they were.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I want to suggest to you that Mzia's duties were never this confined. What do you say to that?
MR TING: I would say that it was a start up program and things it was very fast moving, fast changing. I think I think many of us involved in the program got involved and did many, many things to ensure the success of the program, including myself. I don't doubt that there were things that Mzia did that were not on that list.
MS DOWSETT: And you have provided the Royal Commission at MT 3 to this statement, which you'll find behind tab 35, this is an email chain, and you've provided it to the Royal Commission because it refers to the induction you say was going to be provided by the National Operations Manager. But I want to direct your attention to the last email in the chain, which is dated 9 May 2019 at 9.49 am. You see that?
MR TING: No. I don't see that.
MS DOWSETT: You're in tab 35? The document ID number AIM.0015.0001.0055.
MR TING: We've found one version of it which doesn't have the full email chain, and I'm trying to find
MS DOWSETT: Perhaps I will just read it to you. It's an email an internal AimBig email and it says:
"As discussed, are you able to print off this form and give to Mzia, the BusyBeans "
The trainer BusyBeans
"...and ask if she could get "
Participant's name:
"...to sign this form on Monday when she sees. It's just an amendment of hours to her contract as an error was made."
So this is sent on 9 May by internal AimBig people asking for Mzia to get a contract variation signed by a BusyBeans participant. Do you follow?
MR TING: I think so.
MS DOWSETT: Was it your expectation that a barista trainer would be the person responsible for getting participants to sign variations to their contract?
MR TING: I'm just trying to find that email now.
MS DOWSETT: I'm going to have it popped up on that private screen for you.
MR TING: Okay. We've found that. So this was from I think it's between two job coaches in the Region. So I think that my understanding of the reason for that was just out of convenience, that Mzia was there on the day with those BusyBeans.
MS DOWSETT: So it was your expectation that she would do jobs like this out of convenience?
MR TING: So I see no reason why why she couldn't help out with various things such as this if if it would help the program.
MS DOWSETT: Well, wouldn't that be the same as answering questions from participants about their pay and conditions?
MR TING: So this isn't answering a question about
MS DOWSETT: No, I appreciate it's different, but as I understand your evidence, you dispute that that was something that Mzia was required to do. That's correct, you said?
MR TING: So I don't dispute that it's something she would have done but it's not something that was required of her. The participants had other channels to be asking questions about about their pay if directly through TLH or or, if they were a Rehab Management employee, back to the Rehab Management People and Culture team.
MS DOWSETT: And AimBig had other channels other than Mzia to get this contract variation signed?
MR TING: Of course.
MS DOWSETT: So it's okay for you at AimBig out of convenience to get her to do a job that's not her responsibility, but it's not okay for participants to ask her the questions?
MR TING: I don't follow. I think Mzia was the person who the participants would have dealt with most frequently, being the trainer on site. I think it's only natural that the people there may have asked her questions. It wasn't her responsibility to necessarily be able to answer those. And she could have referred them to to others in the team or in the business or to TLH if as necessary.
MS DOWSETT: Moving on. I would like to direct your attention to moving to the topic of the role of job coach. And you address this in your AimBig statement at paragraphs 99 to 121. I won't take you there. But you have you say that you assume that the job coach would have assisted Mzia in obtaining the interview for the BusyBeans role. Did you make any inquiries about what the job coach actually did in preparation for making that statement?
MR TING: No. That job coach is no longer with the business.
MS DOWSETT: AimBig has provided to the Royal Commission a document called AimBig Service Delivery Policy and Procedure DES. And you'll find a copy of this in Volume D behind tab 8.
MR TING: Yes, I have that.
MS DOWSETT: So the footer of this document shows that it is version 5, with a date of 13 August 2020.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So, by that date, it was not the policy and procedure in force at the time of Mzia's employment.
MR TING: Correct. It would have been an earlier version.
MS DOWSETT: It is nevertheless the document that AimBig has provided. Are you able to say if the amendments from the earlier version to this version are significant?
MR TING: I wouldn't be aware of the amendments, no.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so do you anticipate that Ms Romero would be able to say whether there were any changes to any changes of relevance to our case study to this document from the version that applied when Mzia was at work to the one you've given the Royal Commission?
MR TING: I don't I don't expect that she will be aware of the details of version changes of this document.
MS DOWSETT: Right. If I could direct your attention, please, to the third last page of the document, which is page 30. Do you have that, Mr Ting?
MR TING: Yes, I have that.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so you will see that there is a heading Post Placement Support Employment Placements.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then there are two columns. One is headed Contractor Activity and other is headed Outcome.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, it says:
"Job coach to remain as lead contact for providing post placement support (PPS) for education placements.”
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I want to suggest to you that the reference to "education placements" is a typo because the heading at the top of the document says Employment Placements. Do you think that's a fair reading?
MR TING: Not necessarily. It may be accurate. There are two different types of placements. There are employment placements, where a participant is placed into into work, and there are education placements, where a participant commences a course of study which is also a favourable outcome under the DES grants.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, but if it's an education placement why does the heading say Employment Placements.
MR TING: So it could either be a typo or it could have been something that should have been in a different section.
MS DOWSETT: Because the next row down talks about visiting an employer.
MR TING: Yes. So it could it could be a typo. I would have to
MS DOWSETT: Right. So, to your knowledge, was the job coach the person within AimBig who was responsible for contact for the post placement support?
MR TING: No. Post placement support with AimBig is handled by a separate team. In this case, much of the post placement support for Mzia was provided by the person labelled PSO 1.
MS DOWSETT: In this document this version of the document at page 5 refers to job plans?
MR TING: Page 5?
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And the final sentence of the first paragraph on that page says:
"AimBig must ensure that at all times "
In bold and italics
"each participant has a current job plan except for those participants who are exempt from their mutual obligation requirements."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that reflects the requirements of the DES Grant Agreement and the Guidelines we spoke about this morning.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It's the job coach's responsibility to ensure that there is a current job plan?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Mzia's job plan mutual obligation requirements expired on 9 September 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And she wasn't contacted about a new plan until January 2020?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you able to explain to the Royal Commission why that was?
MR TING: So that to my knowledge, having looked at that evidence it appears to be to have been a failure to provide that in September. It should have been done at that time.
MS DOWSETT: AimBig didn't fail to claim the 26 week outcome payment on 19 September.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: You accept that
MR TING: Yep.
MS DOWSETT: Turning, then, to paragraph 108 of your statement and the role of post placement support. AimBig have provided us with a document which you will find in Volume D behind tab 7 which is headed Providing Post Placement Support. Do you have that?
MR TING: Sorry, this is Bundle D or B?
MS DOWSETT: D.
MR TING: D.
MS DOWSETT: Delta.
MR TING: Okay. So we are referring to
MS DOWSETT: Tab 7.
MR TING: Tab 7. Providing Post Placement Support. Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, again, you will see at the footer the date of this document is given as 12 February 2019.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So this one does appear to be relevant to the period in which Mzia is employed?
MR TING: Correct
MS DOWSETT: And you will see at the top of the page:
"Purpose. The purpose of post placement support is to provide support to a participant to ensure they remain in ongoing, stable employment and to provide support to the employer to resolve any issue that may arise."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then under the heading Post Placement Support a little further down, the fifth bullet point continues.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It is:
"Provide assistance to resolve problems that may arise with the job seeker."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So there is nothing in this policy that limits the kinds of issues in the workplace that our job seeker can seek post placement support about.
MR TING: So I think, from from my perspective, I think there are absolutely limits to what post placement support can provide. It's my view that the purpose of post placement support in the DES program is primarily to ensure that a participant is is supported and is able to remain in employment. I think when it comes to, say, workplace issues operational issues within that workplace, that's where it's not necessarily that's a bit of an overstep unless it is a factor or a barrier to ongoing employment.
MS DOWSETT: So in Mzia's
MR TING: One of the challenges with post placement support, for example and I know I'm skipping ahead in some of the questioning, where we talk about position descriptions and changes to positions and promotions and so on. In general, I don't believe that that's something that post placement support generally covers. The role is not necessarily to advocate for the for the employee in that regard for, say, improved hours, improved salary and so forth.
And I do I do feel that that is actually another gap of the DES program that, as a DES provider, there is no no reason or no incentive to do anything other than put somebody into a job and ensure they meet their minimum hours and stay there regardless.
MS DOWSETT: Well, the obligation from the Grant Agreement is to provide support to obtain and maintain employment.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And part of maintaining employment
MR TING: So obtain and maintain, but not improve or promote. Which I think is an omission to the program.
MS DOWSETT: It now might be a convenient time, Chair, to take a brief adjournment.
CHAIR: Sure. Yes, it's now just after 3.15 pm. We will resume at Sydney time. We will resume at 3.30 pm. Thank you.
ADJOURNED 3:15 PM
RESUMED 3:30 PM
CHAIR: Yes, Ms Dowsett.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Mr Ting, for your information and for that of the people following along on the live stream, I have just a few more questions to ask you and then we will be finished with your evidence. The final witness for today, Chair, will be Ms Divertie from TLH, and then the balance of the witnesses we have pushed off until tomorrow.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: So, Mr Ting, in relation to the BusyBeans program, is it the case that all of the participants in that program had a disability?
MR TING: Yes, that's correct. They are all DES participants.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. I want to turn now to AimBig's Complaints Handling Policy and Procedure. Are you aware that this that the having of a Complaints Handling Policy Procedure is a requirement under the DES Grant Agreement?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you have provided as annexure MT 11 to your supplementary statement and we find that in Volume B behind tab 26 a copy of a document called How to Provide Feedback Guide for Clients and Stakeholders.
MR TING: Just one moment. Which tab was that, sorry?
MS DOWSETT: Tab 26.
MR TING: Sorry. I have that now.
MS DOWSETT: You have the document open?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Is it your evidence that this is the document that AimBig has prepared in order to comply with the requirements of the DES Grant Agreement?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And we see in this document on the second page Who to Contact When Providing Feedback.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it says:
"Any stakeholder wishing to provide feedback should contact the job coach providing the services in the first instance to provide feedback or resolve any concerns."
Now, just to be clear, feedback can include a complaint. Is that correct?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: It goes on the policy goes on to say:
"If this is not possible or reasonable contact AimBig Employment "
And the number is given
"and request to speak with the Regional Manager relevant participant's service location."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So applying this policy to Mzia's position as a DES participant, if she had a complaint or a concern or wished to provide feedback about the services provided to her by AimBig as her DES provider, she should first contact her job coach?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And if that's not reasonable, her Regional Manager?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And in the circumstances where a big part of Mzia's concern about the services that were provided to her was, in fact, her conflict with the job coach, it's appropriate for her to go to the Regional Manager?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then if we look at the final page of the document, there's a flow chart.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And we see item 1.3 is negative feedback.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And would you agree with me that the feedback Mzia had to provide with conflict with her job coach counts as negative feedback?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And would you agree with me that Mzia's feedback about not getting the support she felt she needed also constitutes negative feedback?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so, in accordance with this process, her feedback was to be escalated to the appropriate manager, and she would receive acknowledgment within 24 hours.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then Step 2:
"The Direct Manager or Regional Manager will contact you and your support persons, if you wish, to discuss concerns and work out a plan of action to achieve outcome."
That's correct?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Are you aware of anyone contacting I'll begin again. Are you aware of Mzia's Direct Manager contacting her to discuss her concerns about her issues with JC-1 and to agree a plan of action to achieve an outcome?
MR TING: I don't recall that that specific communication.
MS DOWSETT: And are you aware of Mzia's Direct Manager, that's Mr Rodrigues, you say?
MR TING: From July 2019 onward, yes.
MS DOWSETT: So from July 2019 onwards are you aware of Mr Rodrigues contacting Mzia to discuss her concern and work out a plan of action to achieve an outcome in respect of her complaint that she wasn't receiving the post placement support she says she needed?
MR TING: So if I were to backtrack a little bit, so this feedback and complaints process is intended for primarily for DES participants who would be working were either unemployed and still in the employment assistance phase or who could be working with other employers. I would say that once Mzia was an employee within the Group, she could also be able to deal with the People and Culture team as well and dealing with the internal policies and procedures.
MS DOWSETT: We'll come to those in a moment. I'm dealing first, if I may, with this procedure, that is, what you what AimBig has to comply with the DES Grant Agreement. Are you saying this process doesn't apply to Mzia because of her employment with Rehab Management?
MR TING: No, I'm not saying that.
MS DOWSETT: So we would have expected to see either the Direct Manager, Mr Rodrigues, or the Regional Manager contact her and agree and work out a plan of action to achieve an outcome.
MR TING: So the Direct Manager mentioned in this wouldn't have referred to a Direct Manager within the Arriba Group. So my understanding of how I read this document is if it was a job coach escalated, it may go to before going to a Regional Manager, it may go to an Area Manager or Team Leader or some such. Most DES participants wouldn't have a direct personal manager such as Mr Rodrigues, if that makes sense.
MS DOWSETT: So it's the Direct Manager of the job coach who's going to contact her, not her Direct Manager.
MR TING: Correct. That's how I'm interpreting that, because otherwise it wouldn't be relevant to the vast majority of AimBig clients.
MS DOWSETT: So by reference to position title, if it's a name that we are not saying, who is the Direct Manager of the job coaches?
MR TING: The Regional Manager. Some areas may have a Area Manager or Team Leader in between. I'm not sure if that was the case at the time.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So the Regional Manager is the person who would have been expected, in accordance with this process, to contact Mzia and seek to agree a plan to get an outcome?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And in the relevant period, we see from the Statement of Agreed Facts there was an Acting Regional Manager and then the Regional Manager?
MR TING: Yes. And also the National Operations Manager who was acting in that role at the start of Mzia's employment.
MS DOWSETT: When did the National Operations Manager cease to be Acting Regional Manager?
MR TING: So that would have been upon employment of the person named as Regional Manager. I can't recall the exact time that was in 2019.
MS DOWSETT: You're aware from correspondence you received that it is the Acting Regional Manager, the person we're referring to with that title, who wrote to you and Mr Rodrigues about the rift, to use her word, between the job coach and Mzia.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So that's the person you would have been expecting to follow this process with Mzia?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And that person asked you and Mr Rodrigues for a solution.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Did you provide one?
MR TING: So my recollection of of the rift at that time was that there were job coaches in the Region who wanted to put forward participants for the BusyBeans program, and Mzia disagreed about their suitability. And that was causing tension between them. From my my recollection from the time and also having reviewed the evidence, what myself and Mr Rodrigues did was to reiterate our support of Mzia and her position, that she had the say about who could or could not be or who who was suitable for the program. So at no time or during that period, no BusyBeans were being brought on to the program, I guess, over Mzia's head.
MS DOWSETT: But you didn't address the relationship issue between the job coach and Mzia?
MR TING: So I think at that point, there was yes, there was a personal conflict between them.
MS DOWSETT: And you didn't address it?
MR TING: No, we addressed the the operational and structural side of things and addressed the I guess the management and control and reaffirming Mzia's position and authority to make those decisions.
MS DOWSETT: That's about her position, though, as an employee being hosted by AimBig. What about her position as a DES participant? This is her job coach she's in conflict with.
MR TING: So, at that point, I wouldn't refer to I'm referring to the individual JC 1. I wouldn't refer to that individual as Mzia's job coach, because that relationship would have ceased effectively upon Mzia starting employment in May 2019. After that, the relevant person she would be going to for support would be in the post placement support team. So primarily it was PPSO 1.
MS DOWSETT: Moving on, I would like to you go, please, to Volume D, tab 9.
MR TING: The Complaints Handing Policy and Procedure.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, the Arriba Complaints Handling Policy and Procedure.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: Now, go to the footer. We see the document is dated 21 December 2021?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So not relevant not applicable in Mzia's period of employment but a document that has been provided to this Royal Commission?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: I assume there would have been a version, something less than version 7, that was in force at the time that Mzia was an AimBig DES participant?
MR TING: Yes, that would be correct.
MS DOWSETT: And can you explain briefly for the Royal Commission how this document, the Complaints Handling Procedure, fits with the feedback process we were just looking at.
MR TING: So this document is intended for internal staff, whether they have a disability or not, within the within the Arriba Group and its subsidiaries. So that's different from dealing with a Complaints Procedure from DES clients who could be either in the employment systems phase, looking for work, they could be working externally, somewhere else. Or they could be, in Mzia's case, working within the organisation.
MS DOWSETT: So the definition of "complaint" on page 1 says:
"A complaint is defined as a registered expression of dissatisfaction with service whereby the client explicitly states they wish to make a complaint or are not satisfied with a service resulting in either the cessation of services, a request for a change of consultants or job coaches."
It goes on. But I take it from this definition of complaints that this document does apply to DES participant clients. It's not about staff.
MR TING: So I take that to mean I apologise. This is not the document I was thinking of. Yes, you're correct.
MS DOWSETT: And so, on page 3, we see the procedure set out?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And the complaint must be escalated to the Direct Manager within 24 hours of receipt?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And, again, that would be the Direct Manager of the person whose the subject of the complaint?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So, in our case, JC 1?
MR TING: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: And then if you go over, please, to page 5. There is a heading Investigation of Complaint.
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And it sets out what the manager receiving the complaint will do?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And:
"On completion of the investigation, the manager will respond to the complainant informing them of the results of the investigation and agree on an action plan to rectify the complaint and prevent similar occurrence in the future."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So if you accept that Mzia made a complaint as a DES participant, this policy should have applied to her as well?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: To your knowledge, was there an investigation in accordance with this policy?
MR TING: Not that I'm aware of, no.
MS DOWSETT: Finally, I'd like to take you to the Employment Handbook which is MT 48. I will give you the Volume B number. It is tab 80.
MR TING: In Volume D?
MS DOWSETT: B.
MR TING: B?
MS DOWSETT: Bravo. Do you have that there?
MR TING: We're still looking for it. So that's Bundle B for Bravo, and which document again?
MS DOWSETT: It's tab 80.
MR TING: Is there an MT number?
MS DOWSETT: 48.
MR TING: Okay. Yes. No, we've got that.
MS DOWSETT: So I'd like to direct your attention to clause 18, which is on page 29 of the document.
MR TING: Yes, the Grievance Clause.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And so this provides this is the process that you were saying applies because Mzia is a Rehab Management employee?
MR TING: Correct
MS DOWSETT: And the policy provides:
"It is important, if you feel dissatisfied with any matter relating to your employment, you should have an effective means by which to raise such a grievance and, where appropriate, have it resolved."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: That
CHAIR: Where are you reading from?
MS DOWSETT: Clause 18.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: The second paragraph under that heading says:
"Nothing in this procedure is intended to prevent you from informally raising with your manager any matter you wish to mention."
You see that?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the third paragraph:
"If you feel aggrieved at any matter relating to your employment (except harassment, for which there is a separate procedure) you should first raise the matter with your manager, explaining fully the nature and extent your grievance. You will then be invited to a meeting at a reasonable time and location at which your grievance will be investigated fully. You must take all reasonable steps to attend this meeting. You will be notified of the decision in writing, normally within 10 working days of the meeting."
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So this is the Grievance Policy that you say applied to Mzia, and she has raised her grievances about her employment, if we accept your characterisation of her concerns. Was a meeting scheduled?
MR TING: Yes, I recall meetings between Mzia, her Direct Manager, Mr Rodrigues and myself. I specifically recall one in September 2019.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And when where is the written notification of the decision arising from that September 2019 meeting?
MR TING: So that was I wouldn't have called that following the formal grievance process in that third paragraph. I think it was more at that that informal level in the second paragraph.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And what about her repeated requests for a position description? Would you characterise that as an employment grievance?
MR TING: It was absolutely something that that she that she wanted and that she was advocating for. It was something her Direct Manager, Mr Rodrigues, and myself were advocating for at this time. I'm aware that it was not something that was formalised and provided to her, and I'm aware that it was in ultimately, one of the one of the factors that resulted had in her resigning from her position.
MS DOWSETT: Yes, but that wasn't my question. I said would you characterise that as an employment grievance? I'm just seeking to understand I think your evidence was you don't see any of these as matters which should have been addressed through post placement support.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: You say they are employment matters.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So she has repeatedly raised with you and others the need for a position description.
MR TING: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Was a meeting scheduled to discuss her grievance about not having a position description?
MR TING: Not not in that specific formal process.
MS DOWSETT: Why not?
MR TING: It was something that I thought that we could easily resolve by providing a position description. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.
MS DOWSETT: And the first draft of a position description that you're involved in is the 12 November 2019? Is that correct?
MR TING: I'm getting a, "Your internet connection is unstable."
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, Mr Ting, can you hear me?
MR TING: Okay, yep. I'm back again. I noticed my connection dropped momentarily.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So I put to you that the first version of a revised position description for Mzia that you were involved in was 12 November 2019?
MR TING: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And at what point did it become apparent to you that you weren't able to resolve you weren't able to get this position description finalised?
MR TING: So the draft of that position description was sent to People and Culture. It was not in my authority to approve these documents. So, from my perspective, it was pushing to get formal approval of that.
MS DOWSETT: And did anyone have a meeting of the kind contemplated by clause 18 and advise Mzia in writing of this outcome?
MR TING: Not in this formal policy, no. I note that that draft document was 12 November, and I believe Mzia went on medical leave from 14 November.
CHAIR: Ms Dowsett, I see that the time we have reached. Have we dealt with this topic?
MS DOWSETT: One further clause, if we can go to paragraph 23. Or clause 23. This is the Bullying and Harassment Provisions. And, cutting to the chase, no formal steps were taken in accordance with this clause in respect of any complaint raised by Mzia in her capacity as an employee of Rehab Management
MR MOORHOUSE: I object to that. It assumes that there was bullying and harassment of her.
CHAIR: It does, and I think we have to have a process before we reach that point, unless you can point to something that has been established or can easily be established as a complaint of the nature of bullying and harassment?
MS DOWSETT: I don't press it if Mr Ting doesn't press that this was a clause she should have availed herself of.
MR TING: Sorry, can you repeat that?
MS DOWSETT: When you say she should have
CHAIR: I don't think we're involved in a bargaining process.
MS DOWSETT: No. Well, Mzia's evidence was that she felt like JC-1 was bullying and intimidating her. That is paragraph 70 of her statement.
CHAIR: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And so if that is her perception and she makes a complaint in accordance with clause 23.5, there are informal processes and formal processes which could have but were not could have been but were not followed. Do you accept that that is fair, Mr Ting?
MR TING: So I don't believe she did make a complaint under this clause at the time.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. Chair, those are my questions for this witness. Thank you very much, Mr Ting. I appreciate it's gone much longer than anticipated.
CHAIR: Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you, Mr Ting, for coming to the Commission to give evidence, and unless Mr Moorhouse wants to say something, that concludes your evidence and you're free to go.
MR MOORHOUSE: Chair, I do have some questions I seek to ask of Mr Ting. I note the time. There is what might be in the order of four or five topics and perhaps 10 minutes of questions in the nature of re examination to clarify or expand, and then there are two topics at the end that I wish to
CHAIR: Well, I think if that's going to happen, it might have to happen tomorrow. And what I'd like you to do is put in writing the subject matter, please, of what you're proposing. It's not a usual course to have re examination. If there is some particular reason for doing it at a Royal Commission, I mean. If there is some particular reason to do it, then it may be permissible.
But I would suggest you make your application and, in a couple of pages no more just indicate the topics you wish to pursue and why you wish to pursue them by way of re examination. And then we can deal with that tomorrow and, if necessary, Mr Ting can appear again for that purpose. All right.
MR MOORHOUSE: I'm just taking some instructions, Chair. You're available tomorrow?
CHAIR: You don't need to take instructions. That's what will happen. All right. We'll now move on. Thank you, Mr Ting, for coming today. You may be required tomorrow, but your counsel will let you know whether that is going to happen. Yes. Can we now move on, please?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, Ms Divertie will be the next witness, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you. Ms Divertie. Yes, I can see you on the screen. Thank you very much for coming to the Royal Commission to give evidence. I will in a moment ask Ms Dowsett to ask you some questions, but just to make sure you're aware of where we all are, Commissioner Galbally is participating in the hearing from Melbourne. You can see Commissioner Galbally on the screen. Similarly, Commissioner Mason is participating in the hearing from our Brisbane hearing room, and also you can see Commissioner Mason on the screen. I am in the participating from the Sydney hearing room, and Ms Dowsett is in the Sydney hearing room. So that is where we are, and I will now ask Ms Dowsett to ask you some questions.
MS DIVERTIE: Sure.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Ms Divertie. You have provided a statement to the Royal Commission dated 11 January 2022?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And attached to that statement is a spreadsheet listing the employees sorry, employees of your organisation who participated in or were trainers in the BusyBeans program?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Now, if I can just perhaps go back a step and get you to just explain to us who TLH Recruitment is.
MS DIVERTIE: Okay. Sure. So we're a labour hire company. We also do permanent recruitment, so permanent and temporary recruitment for a number of clients nationally.
MS DOWSETT: Now, the documents before the Royal Commission refer to two entities. We have TMC Solutions Pty Ltd trading as TLH Group, and TLH Services Pty Ltd.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes, that's right.
MS DOWSETT: Can you tell us the relationship, if any, between those two entities?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes. So they're related. So TLH Services is the company, I guess, that supplies the clients who have staff in other states. So TLH Group has the labour hire licence required in Melbourne and Brisbane.
MS DOWSETT: And so both TLH Services and TMC Solutions had contracts with Rehab Management (Aust) Pty Ltd?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes. So TMC Solutions would have had the contract with Rehab and AimBig. And TLH Services is the company that pays the employees.
MS DOWSETT: So who were the employees employed by?
MS DIVERTIE: TLH Services.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And the spreadsheet that you have attached
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: We see that it has columns headed Employee Name, Employment, Position, Start Week Ending Date, and Finish Week Ending Date.
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Were you the person who prepared this spreadsheet?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes, I was.
CHAIR: I believe some parties have lost internet connection. So we might have to pause, unfortunately, until that is restored. I'm sorry, Ms Divertie. We'll have to just pause until our technological issue is resolved. So we'll adjourn temporarily.
MS DIVERTIE: Okay.
ADJOURNED 4:01 PM
RESUMED 4:03 PM
CHAIR: Yes, thank you Ms Dowsett. I understand that good order has been restored.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you, Chair. Ms Divertie, I would just like to go back to the question of who employed the BusyBeans participants and the people shown on your spreadsheet.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes, I sorry.
MS DOWSETT: That's all right. The Royal Commission has received evidence from AimBig saying that Rehab Management entered into a contract with TMC Solutions in June 2019, and AimBig entered into a contract with TMC Solutions on 7 August 2019.
MS DIVERTIE: Right. So
MS DOWSETT: Your evidence was that TLH Services was the employer, but the ASIC record shows TLH Services wasn't registered until 22 October 2019.
MS DIVERTIE: Right. So, originally, there was only Sydney participants. So once that we realised it went national, there was a new agreement signed, I believe, with TLH Services.
MS DOWSETT: So the employees who had been engaged by TMC Solutions before the new agreement was signed, did TMC Solutions move them to TLH Services? Or did they stay employed about TMC solutions?
MS DIVERTIE: I believe they moved to sorry, TLH Services. But I would have to confirm that.
MS DOWSETT: Right. And so returning, then, to your spreadsheet, so you were saying you are the person who prepared it?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And is the Royal Commission to understand that everyone on this spreadsheet was at employed by sorry, TLH Services from October 2019 onwards?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right. When you prepared this spreadsheet, what steps did you take to ensure that it was complete and accurate?
MS DIVERTIE: I went through the list of people who had been assigned to the Rehab Management client profile and then ran reports through our CRM.
MS DOWSETT: So if there is a person who is listed on a spreadsheet provided by AimBig, who they identify as being employed by I will just use the abbreviation TLH and that person is not on your spreadsheet, are you able to offer any explanation for why that might be?
MS DIVERTIE: No, not without knowing the person I would need to look at it. Because as far as I'm aware, this report is accurate.
MS DOWSETT: Thank you. And if I could direct your attention to the Finish Week Ending Date column.
MS DIVERTIE: Mmm.
MS DOWSETT: Are we to understand that this is the date that these people had their employment with TLH Services terminated?
MS DIVERTIE: No. This that date is the last week ending date that they were paid for work that they did with the BusyBeans program.
MS DOWSETT: So it didn't end their employment?
MS DIVERTIE: No.
MS DOWSETT: How many of these people continued to be employed by TLH after their week ending date?
MS DIVERTIE: I don't have that information on me. I would need to look that up. A number of people I don't know how many, though requested separation certificates. So we provided those. And some other people, you know, requested that they stay on our database, as such, so that we could still look for work for them or offer them work if it came up and it was suitable for them, which we did, but it was quite a while afterwards.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, what was the end of that sentence?
MS DIVERTIE: Which there was a few people that did work for us outside of the BusyBeans program at a later date, but it would would have been 2020 towards the end of 2020, beginning of 2021.
MS DOWSETT: Right.
CHAIR: Is the spreadsheet we're talking about something that you prepared specifically for this hearing?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
CHAIR: There are 173 names on the spreadsheet before we get to the finish end date.
MS DIVERTIE: Right.
CHAIR: What is the common characteristic of each of the 173 people? How did they come to you?
MS DIVERTIE: So they were referred to us by Rehab Management, that they were going to be part of the BusyBeans program. Would they be able to register with us and essentially we would, you know, check their working rights, ensure that they have you know, had all their bank details, etcetera, so that they could then put the timesheets through to us. We could payroll them, pay superannuation, etcetera.
CHAIR: And what do these 173 people do to get that?
MS DIVERTIE: So the majority of them were being training baristas in the BusyBeans program. Some others were trainers and some others were, like, team leaders.
CHAIR: So if they were training baristas in the BusyBeans program, what was the role of your company, whichever company it was? Just to keep records?
MS DIVERTIE: To keep well, to pay them because they were being paid an hourly rate for the hours that they worked each week.
CHAIR: And how did you get your company get the money to pay them?
MS DIVERTIE: That's what so we're a labour hire company so we payroll probably between two and three hundred people per week to so we fund that.
CHAIR: But if they're on the BusyBeans program
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
CHAIR: you presumably get reimbursed by Rehab.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes. So we payroll them. Correct. So we would payroll them each week and then we would invoice Rehab Management.
CHAIR: So, in essence, your role with those who are being trained as baristas is to keep some records and pay them and get reimbursed and that's it.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes. Well, yes, but also we would be required so if there was any incidents or injuries in regards to workplace safety, we would need to report that to our insurer and, you know, follow it up with doctors, etcetera, if that was to happen. We'd also payroll process their superannuation. Payroll. We would also follow up if they had payroll queries, etcetera, that they would come to us, and then we would follow up with Rehab Management to confirm timesheets, confirm hours, etcetera.
CHAIR: I see. Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: In addition to invoicing Rehab Management for the hours you were paying these people, you also received wage subsidies from Rehab Management or from AimBig?
MS DIVERTIE: From AimBig.
MS DOWSETT: Sorry, Ms Divertie, did you hear me?
MS DIVERTIE: Sorry, from AimBig, yes.
MS DOWSETT: From AimBig. Right. And the amount that you received the amount that you invoiced for the wages, that covered the hourly rate that you were paying to each of these people?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: So anybody who was the subject of anybody whose employment was the subject of a wage subsidy, that was over and above the hourly rate?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
CHAIR: I think you need to clarify that. Do you mean that Ms Divertie's company received, in addition to the reimbursement, the subsidy? Is that the point you're making?
MS DOWSETT: Yes, Chair, that's the point I'm making.
CHAIR: All right. Thank you. Did you understand that, Ms Divertie?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes, and that's correct, yes.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MS DOWSETT: Back to the spreadsheet, if I can.
CHAIR: Sorry, what's the rationale for that? Why does your company get a subsidy?
MS DIVERTIE: Because we're the employer, as such, and Rehab Management is the host employer.
CHAIR: It's because of your status as the employer and these payroll, etcetera, services you're providing?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
CHAIR: Is that how you make your company makes the profit out of the services it provides in respect of the people being trained as baristas?
MS DIVERTIE: No, I wouldn't say that's how it definitely gets adds to our profit. But I wouldn't say that's how we make our profit, no.
CHAIR: How do you with these people?
MS DIVERTIE: Well, so we would charge Rehab Management a like, an administration fee or a margin on top of the hourly rate.
CHAIR: Charge who?
MS DIVERTIE: Rehab Management.
CHAIR: So in addition to being reimbursed for the wages, you've charged
MS DIVERTIE: (Indistinct).
CHAIR: Sorry, in addition to the reimbursement for the payments made to those trainees, you're getting a management fee, or however it's described, plus a wage subsidy?
MS DIVERTIE: So
CHAIR: I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it; I'm just trying to understand how this works.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes, no, no. No, no. That's fine. So, yes, so on top of the reimbursement for the hourly rate, we're paid a management fee and then so the wage subsidy is not always guaranteed. So there was a number of people that we had employed that did not receive a wage subsidy. So out of that list on the spreadsheet, not every single person we received a wage subsidy for.
CHAIR: Yes. All right. I'm sorry to take time, but this is an opportunity to understand how this works.
MS DIVERTIE: Sure.
MS DOWSETT: So I think in your evidence you say that TLH received in excess of $111,000 wage subsidy nationally for the BusyBeans program.
MS DIVERTIE: Inclusive of GST, yes.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. And you the point were you making to the Chair just then is that not every barista trainee qualified for the wage subsidy.
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Right. But the wage subsidy that you did receive, TLH kept that in full?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: You weren't required to pay that back to Rehab Management?
MS DIVERTIE: No, not that I'm aware of, no.
MS DOWSETT: Right. So, just to be clear, the circle of money goes that you pay the trainees we'll just stick with the trainees for now. You pay the trainees?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And you invoice Rehab Management for that?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And they pay TLH?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: They pay an hourly rate and a management fee?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: So that's one circle of money. And then AimBig provides TLH with a subsidy?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And you don't use that subsidy to offset any of the wages. It's just extra money?
MS DIVERTIE: Well
CHAIR: You don't need to offset the wages because there's an indemnity.
MS DOWSETT: I just as the Chair said, just seeking to understand. I'm not
MS DIVERTIE: I think people (indistinct) once the money is invoiced, etcetera, I'm not exactly sure how our accounts offset or utilise the funds, but we it's not offsetting the wages because we have invoiced Rehab Management for the wages.
MS DOWSETT: Now, I took you to page 3. Please stop me if I actually asked this question, but I don't think I did. I want to direct you to the bottom of the page. So we're not saying names of anybody identified in this spreadsheet. So that's why I'm not just saying the name and getting you to go there. But at the bottom of the page, if you count seven rows up, there is a greyed outline?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: And then the person immediately above that.
MS DIVERTIE: Yes.
MS DOWSETT: We refer to in this hearing as BT 3.
MS DIVERTIE: Right.
MS DOWSETT: Are we correct in understanding that BT 3 was initially paid as a trainee barista for the period 1 September 2019 to 8 December 2019?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: And then from 15 December BT 3 had, in effect, a promotion. She went up to the trainer rate?
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Now, you said before that there were some people who continued on your books after their finish date marked here, but you didn't have that detail immediately to hand.
MS DIVERTIE: Correct.
MS DOWSETT: Is that something you could provide to the Royal Commission on notice?
MS DIVERTIE: Yes. I think yes.
MS DOWSETT: So if
MS DIVERTIE: I know the names of the people that are in this list that have worked for us after the BusyBeans program ended, but in regards to dates and things like that, I don't know that off the top of my head.
MS DOWSETT: Yes. Well, if you could provide that information, so who stayed on the books after their BusyBeans engagement ended and when they next worked for TLH.
MS DIVERTIE: So are you only wanting to know about people that then did work for us again after that? Because, as I mentioned, a number of people would have stayed on the books; however, you know, we may not have had roles suitable for them or they may not have been available when we asked them about a role. So are you only wanting to know about the people that did actually work again for another one of our clients?
MS DOWSETT: Both. So if they stayed on the books and then indicate if they worked again or not.
MS DIVERTIE: Okay.
MS DOWSETT: Just excuse me a moment. Chair, those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Divertie.
CHAIR: Very good. Ms Divertie, I think you've explained this, but I just want to be clear. I take it that the companies that you have mentioned and of which you are, at least in one case, an employee has no connection, that is, no common director, no common shareholders with the Rehab Management or with AimBig employment?
MS DIVERTIE: No.
CHAIR: All right. Thank you. I will just ask if Commissioner Galbally has any questions for you.
COMMISSIONER GALBALLY: No questions, thank you.
CHAIR: Or Commissioner Mason?
COMMISSIONER MASON: No, thank you.
CHAIR: In that case, thank you very much, Ms Divertie, for coming to the Royal Commission to give evidence.
MR MOORHOUSE: Chair, I have one application to ask one series of questions.
CHAIR: No, what would you want to ask, Mr Moorhouse?
MR MOORHOUSE: Some examples that I thought would assist the Commission that Ms Divertie could give as to BusyBeans participants and subsequent employment.
CHAIR: I don't think we need that, do we? Why would we be assisted by that?
MR MOORHOUSE: To give some flavour and actuality on the evidence that will come in subsequent documents, as I understand it.
CHAIR: No, I think we've got enough flavour for one day. And if there are documents that you need to refer to, you can do that tomorrow at some stage. So I won't I won't allow any further questions. Thank you very much, Ms Divertie, for coming. You're now excused. Thank you.
MS DIVERTIE: Thank you.
CHAIR: Does that conclude us for today?
MS DOWSETT: It does indeed, Chair, and we recommend that we commence at 9.30 in the morning.
CHAIR: That comes as a shock that we should start early on the last day, but, nonetheless, we will do it. 9.30 tomorrow. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn.
HEARING ADJOURNED AT 4:21 PM UNTIL FRIDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2022 AT 9.30 AM