BP2004/3200, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1649 (3 May 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 10906
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER CRIBB

BP2004/3200

APPLICATION FOR TERMINATION
OF BARGAINING PERIOD

Application under section 170MW of the Act
by Alexandra District Hospital for orders to
suspend or terminate bargaining period in
BP2003/6648-6650, 6652-6671, 6673-6690, 6692-6706,
6708-6712, 6714-6715, 6717, 6719-6730, 6732-6740,
6742-6755, 6757, 6760-6767, 6770-6771, 6773-6774,
6777-6786, 6788, 6790, 6792-6794 and BP2004/2216-2217,
2219, 2221-2245, 2247-2253, 2255-2257, 2259-2292,
2294, 2296-2301, 2303-2314, 2894, 2896-2908

MELBOURNE

5.20 PM, TUESDAY, 22 APRIL 2004

PN1

DR C. JESSUP QC: I seek leave to appear, with my learned friend MS MacLEAN, on behalf of the employer advocates in schedule A and schedule B to the application. We are also interveners of right for the Minister for Health for the State of Victoria pursuant to section 170MW(1)(a) of the Act. And we also seek leave to represent and we seek leave to intervene for the Victorian Hospital Industrial Association which is the registered organisation relevant to the primary applicants. Do I understand the Commission might be a bit puzzled about the intervention on behalf of the Minister?

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: I think I would be assisted by some further information regarding that, Dr Jessup.

PN3

DR JESSUP: Yes. I don't think it is in the mauve copy of the Act, Commissioner.

PN4

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN5

DR JESSUP: It is a recent amendment, the introduction of subsection (1)(a) of the section 170MW which is in these terms:

PN6

The Commission must, on application, grant a Minister of Victoria on behalf of the Government of Victoria leave to intervene in proceedings under subsection (1) if one or more of the employees to be covered by the proposed agreement is an employee in Victoria.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Dr Jessup.

PN8

MR R. NIALL: I seek leave to appear as counsel for the Australian Nursing Federation in each of the matters. If the Commission pleases.

PN9

MS K. DUNN: I appear on behalf of the Health Services Union of Australia, with my colleague MR G. PARGETER.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Is there any objection to each of counsel's leave?

PN11

MR NIALL: No, your Honour.

PN12

DR JESSUP: No, your Honour.

PN13

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Niall? Dr Jessup of Mr Niall?

PN14

DR JESSUP: No, your Honour.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted. Dr Jessup.

PN16

DR JESSUP: Commissioner, this is a series of applications made under one document for the termination of bargaining periods in relation to nurses in Victoria. Fortunately from the Commission's point of view, as presently constituted you have been dealing with this matter in conciliation under section 170NA of the Act since 31 March 2004 and you are well aware of the background circumstances leading to this application. It is a matter which has attracted widespread attention and concern in the State of Victoria and, because it involves public health in this State, it is a matter which, in our submission, has significant urgency about it.

PN17

The application is made because recently, on 21 April, the ANF commenced a series of industrial bans and limitations, the detail of which is set out in paragraph 10 of the application. Those industrial bans and limitations are made under protection of a bargaining period which the ANF has put in place last October. Of their nature they are calculated to have a swift and severe impact upon the delivery of health services in this State and, necessarily, upon the care and treatment which can be delivered to persons in need in various ways. This, we submit, is the very kind of application which the legislature had in mind when it enacted section 170MW(3)(a) of the Act.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Jessup, I hesitate to interrupt you, but I just wanted just to mention that this matter was listed this afternoon for mention and programming. It wasn't listed subject to submissions from the parties; it wasn't listed for other than that, and I wouldn't want you to be launching into something that is not appropriate to be done by what I would plan to do is 9.30 tomorrow morning.

PN19

DR JESSUP: Were you planning to list it at 9.30 in the morning?

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, that was my plan.

PN21

DR JESSUP: Well, I am sure if I don't need to persuade you of any greater expedition than that, I certainly don't want to attempt to. If that is your intention, then that would be very suitable from our client's point of view.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. I obviously need to hear from all of the parties present before me this afternoon but that was the Commission's intention in the Commission's own mind.

PN23

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Obviously I don't know what Mr Niall has to say about the subject. I assume he does have something but the purpose for me of this afternoon was to obviously discuss with the parties as to whether 9.30 tomorrow morning was appropriate in their minds, and to hear submissions from the parties if they didn't think that that was the case.

PN25

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: And then the second matter that I wanted to deal with this afternoon was programming; trying to get some order and some form into the proceedings for tomorrow.

PN27

DR JESSUP: Yes. Yes, thank you, Commissioner. Well, 9.30 would be suitable from our point of view.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Dr Jessup. Mr Niall.

PN29

MR NIALL: If the Commission pleases, I have had some brief discussions with my learned friend which I won't trespass on, but can I say this. The application is in bare terms and makes some general assertions in relation to the applicability of section 170MW(3) which relates to industrial action endangering, life personal safety or health, and also makes some general allegations in support of a claim for termination under MW(7).

PN30

We have not had any material in support which would give us any appreciation of the case that the State and the employers seek to make in support of their applications for termination. Plainly, in my submission, it wouldn't be appropriate to commence hearing until we have had an opportunity to see what the material is. We haven't had the material given to us yet and we are not in a position to know when that material might be provided, but I understand that it won't be provided until some time tomorrow. So it would be premature to commence hearing it until we get the material so we know what the application is and the evidence in support. Once we get the evidence in support, we will need to do three things: we will need to read it, we will need to obtain some instructions in relation to it, and we will need to consider whether we need to put material in response to it.

PN31

The issues at stake are extremely important to my client. My client is currently engaged in industrial action which is lawful and none of the circumstances which might permit the Commission to terminate the bargaining period exist. The bans that are in place are not bans which endanger the life, personal safety or health or welfare of the population. That is my client's view in relation to it and we have seen no evidence from the employers which would cause us to alter that view. So until we see the evidence and until we then consider what the evidence is and how we might respond to it, it is very difficult for us to embark upon the hearing.

PN32

So, in my submission, the appropriate course would be a direction for the employers to file their material and serve their material on us, and then for us to be in a position to respond to it. Because the Commission, of course, apart from the general considerations which obtain in the Commission, is expressly required, if it be necessary to say it expressly, that the Commission has to give us the opportunity to be heard. And we can't be heard until we hear what the evidence is in support of the applications.

PN33

So, in my submission, the appropriate course would be a direction on the employers to put their material in, to serve it on us; that would be the first direction. And perhaps it would be appropriate for the Commission to hear from Dr Jessup as to when that could occur and, once that is done, we will know when we can get their evidence and I will be in a position to address the Commission on when we could respond and when would be an appropriate time, in our submission, to commence the hearing. But at the moment we are, with respect, in the dark as to what the case is all about. So it would be appropriate, in my submission, first of all to hear from Dr Jessup as to when his clients would be in a position to put some material before the Commission. If the Commission pleases.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Niall. Dr Jessup, that was one of the matters that I did wish to cover in the proceedings this afternoon because it is part and parcel of programming it; programming this matter. Do you have at this point in time an idea as to when you would be in a position to have all that material available, both to the ANF, the HSU and the Commission?

PN35

DR JESSUP: Yes, I do, Commissioner, but not under the circumstances of a 9.30 commencement in the morning. I don't know whether you had in mind programming the various exchanges of material through the hours of this evening but, no doubt from our point of view, that could be done if it was needed.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: I was about to say don't tempt me, Dr Jessup.

PN37

DR JESSUP: But there would be issues of health, safety and welfare of a different kind arising then. Commissioner, in fairness to my learned friend, I should say that we came here this afternoon expecting to provide the ANF and the HSUA and the Commission with material by the end of tomorrow, and expecting to request the Commission to list the matter on Monday. But our clients are anxious to get the matter on before the Commission and dealt with and, if we can do better than that, then we would want to do better than that.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN39

DR JESSUP: However, if it starts at 9.30 tomorrow morning and starts on the merits then, and if it could only be by way of (a) providing you with schedules and lists and things showing you the impact of the bans and (b) by putting some people in the witness box without witness statement or any advance warning, telling you how those bans affect life, safety, welfare, etcetera.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, okay. So what timeframe would suit you better? You are the applicants. I just - I picked a particular point in time and was prepared to discuss that with the parties and discuss how long things were going to take, how many witnesses people thought they were going to have, and all of that stuff, just so that when we do start it could be done in an orderly, manageable fashion for everybody.

PN41

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: So are you saying that you would have the material available to the unions by the end of tomorrow, in essence?

PN43

DR JESSUP: Yes, by close of business tomorrow, yes.

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: By close of business tomorrow. Okay.

PN45

DR JESSUP: Yes. Yes, we - - -

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: And that is achievable?

PN47

DR JESSUP: That was our target in terms of preparing the witness material that would be our case.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, yes.

PN49

DR JESSUP: And if there was any way that that could be foreshortened, then, of course, we would leap at it, Commissioner. But I don't think that if it comes to actually providing material and running the case that way, I don't think we could do better than close of business tomorrow. What I should say is that if it were possible to conduct a section of the case during the normal Commission hours tomorrow, I have in mind the section arising under subsection (7) - that is to say that there is no reasonable prospect of the parties reaching an agreement - the evidence on that would be much, much more limited and the issues much more confined. And then again I think that our instructions would be to urge the Commission to adopt that approach, too.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you be planning ahead of - seek meeting it in that manner, Dr Jessup, to provide both the unions and the Commission with an outline of submissions with respect to your application pursuant to section 170MW(7)?

PN51

DR JESSUP: No, we don't think that there is time for that, and nor would it be necessary because realistically everyone in this room, at least everyone at this bar table and those they represent, knows what has happened in the course of negotiations in recent weeks and months; and there really isn't any rocket science on that. It is only a question of whether you take the view that there is no reasonable prospect of agreement being reached within the bargaining period.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: Would you be seeking for the Commission to express a view with regard to 170MW(7) separate of the matters pursuant to section 170MW(3)?

PN53

DR JESSUP: Commissioner, I don't say we would necessarily be seeking that but if it were dealt with first, then the likelihood is that we would ask for the Commission to decide that matter because the issues arising under section 170MW(3) are the issues that give us urgency and concern in a public interest sense, but they have the potential to be more involved in a factual sense which I think everyone can understand. The other issues are equally efficacious in terms of terminating the bargaining period and much more confined, and also they are matters upon which you, as it were, have had a walk-up start, we hope.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Dr Jessup. Mr Niall.

PN55

MR NIALL: If the Commission pleases, to my learned friend's suggestion that they should provide the material by the close of business tomorrow, well, we would accept that as an appropriate direction as against them. That is the first point. In terms of splitting the trial or, alternatively, starting part of the case tomorrow, we strenuously oppose that course. It is not either conceptually or on an evidentiary basis easy to split the MW(3) and the MW(7) cases. The MW(3) permits the Commission to terminate in certain circumstances relating to life and health. MW(7) permits the Commission to terminate in circumstances where, amongst others, there is no reasonable prospect of the negotiating parties reaching an agreement under division 2 or 3 during the bargaining period.

PN56

If this was an application solely concerned with MW(7) in circumstances where the industrial action has only just commenced, it would be very premature, in my submission, to consider that application; that the parties can't reasonable -the prospect of negotiating the agreement without looking at the ability of the union to pursue its lawful industrial action. Its case is that it is presently engaged in lawful industrial action. And if that lawful industrial action is permitted to continue as the Act contemplates, then we hold hope that there is a reasonable prospect that an agreement will be reached. That is why my client is engaging in industrial action. That is the purpose of the exercise.

PN57

Now, the employers can't sort of use MW(3) to somehow suggest that the industrial action is illegitimate or inappropriate for the purposes of its MW(7) argument. The argument is quite separate but evidentially intertwined because we say the question of whether it is reasonable - an agreement is reasonably in prospect depends very much on the continued industrial action and the responses of the employers to it; continued legitimate industrial action. So we would strongly oppose trying to split the issues.

PN58

Dr Jessup has indicated the appropriate course would be to provide the material by the close of tomorrow, and he seems to be trying to claw on to or grasp the possibility of starting earlier. But, in my submission, that would be a false start because if we are to have a fair opportunity to be heard, we should see their material in its totality in support of the application. We can do that by the end of tomorrow. And then the matter would need to be listed to be heard.

PN59

Now, in my submission, once the employer has put their material on, we should be given an opportunity to put our material on in response. Well, that may in circumstances be a tight timeframe but it has to be reasonable in the circumstances. We don't know how many witnesses ultimately will be called by the employer; I understand it is in the order of about four or five. But we are going to need some time to consider it and respond to it. But, in my submission, the appropriate course would be directing the respondent to put their material by the close of business tomorrow and list the matter for hearing some time next week.

PN60

Now, the employers want to start on Monday morning. If that is the Commission's decision, so be it, but we don't know quite how long it is going to take us to respond till we see the material. So we are at a disadvantage. They know what their material is; we don't. But we will endeavour to meet any timetable the Commission imposes on us but it has got to be reasonable. And we can get their material; we will look at it over the weekend, and we will meet the timeframe of the Commission. But, in our submission, we should be given some time to put in some material in response remembering, of course, that it is Anzac Day on Sunday as well.

PN61

So the appropriate course would be to direct the employers to put their material by close of business Friday, and list it the matter next week. And we will work back from there as to when our material could be in. If the Commission pleases.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Niall, Dr Jessup has suggested that the appropriate time from his client's perspective is Monday.

PN63

MR NIALL: Yes.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I am aware that it is Anzac Day on Sunday, and I know it is a difficult call, given that you haven't seen the content and the amount of Dr Jessup's material. Is having over the weekend a reasonable period of time?

PN65

MR NIALL: Well, on five witness statements and the need to get instructions concerning - I mean, there is - it is hard to know how many bargaining periods and facilities the evidence will relate to, but it is possible we will need to get instructions on a very large number of facilities and the effect that the bans are taking. So we would submit not, but ultimately it is a matter for the Commission to list the matter and we will do our best to comply with it. But, in our submission, we would seek at least Monday or Tuesday to put our material in response, and to commence the hearing either on Tuesday or Wednesday.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: I am uncomfortable, Mr Niall, about it putting out too much into next week.

PN67

MR NIALL: If the Commission pleases. Then the Commission perhaps, could I be bold enough to suggest, list it on Monday if the Commission is not willing to feel able to give us more time. And, if need be, we can re-apply once we have seen their material for such further time or indulgence as we may seek appropriate and the Commission can rule on it at that time. And if the Commission is against us, well, we will start on Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Niall, I am trying to balance natural justice with the seriousness of the matter that is before me; I am trying to balance both those factors. Because it actually doesn't assist the Commission if parties aren't ready to present the very best case that they can on behalf of their clients. It really - everybody loses if that is the situation. So I need to make it clear. I am not trying to shoehorn you into a time that is unreasonable or that would not provide you with the opportunity to do what I need you to do, apart from your clients wishing you to do as well.

PN69

MR NIALL: Well, certainly experience would dictate that it would be a folly to get the case in dribs and drabs, and the direction to the respondent should be to get all their case in and, if they want to start on Monday morning, then it should be in by lunchtime tomorrow. And we will do our best to put all our material in to enable a start first thing on Monday morning. If the Commission pleases.

[5.45pm]

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Niall, I appreciate that.

PN71

DR JESSUP: Now, Commissioner, did you ask me something?

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: I looked at you and said, "Dr Jessup." Would you - is there any ability - do you have any ability to assist Mr Niall in quantifying the amount of material or which way it is directed.

PN73

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: So that it may be able to assist him to work out how long he can take so we can spend - all of you can spend time actually preparing for it rather than discussing in here when we are going to hear it.

PN75

DR JESSUP: Yes. Yes, I have already told him, as he has told you, that we would - I think we will have four or five witnesses giving evidence about particular health services.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN77

DR JESSUP: It may be that we won't have that many. I am sorry, they won't all be giving evidence about particular health services; one of them at least, and probably only one of them, will be dealing with the subsection (7) material.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN79

DR JESSUP: And the others will be from within the health service industry. And our approach will be to give you an overall impression of the bite of the bans, substantially by reference to schedules, and we were intending, and we still have available to us if you would wish to see it, Commissioner, the schedule of the bite of the bans as at 11 o'clock this morning. But already that is out of date because as patients leave beds then those beds are closed until this one in four ratio is achieved; that is as we understand it is happening.

PN80

So with every passing day the number of beds closed becomes greater. At 11 o'clock this morning it was 390 that were closed, that were stayed, out of - as compared with 6957 open beds. I should say the 390 was beds closed due to the bans, not beds unavailable for other reasons. And - I am sorry - that is not the state-wide figure, the state-wide figure is 593, 390 is the metropolitan figure. So that is the approach we will be taking, plus we will be seeking to give you some evidence in more detail from particular establishments.

PN81

I can say that one of those establishments will definitely be Austin Health, and - yes - and at this stage we can say probably Northern Health will be another one that we will wish to focus on. So that is the approach we will take and we will get Mr Niall material, even if it be in draft form, as early as we think that we can responsibly do that, and but he must understand that we were - and hope that the Commission would also - that all of this material is only current as at the time when it is delivered and that this will be a changing situation as the days go by.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I appreciate that, Dr Jessup. Thank you. Dr Jessup, I would prefer to keep the whole of your application together.

PN83

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: So I have a preference for hearing for - starting your applications pursuant to 170MW(3) and (7) - start at the beginning and go through to the end. I have a preference not to segment it.

PN85

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: That is the first thing. The second thing, maybe I need to just ask Mr Niall as to whether the information you have just provided us is of assistance to him in fine tuning how much time he needs.

PN87

MR NIALL: It does, but the submission remains the same. I mean, if we get their material tomorrow, we will spend our resources over the weekend doing our best to respond to it. And whether we are in a position to do so on Monday, we will do our best, if the Commission is minded to list it on Monday morning. Our preference obviously would be for a bit more time, but the Commission has indicated a reluctance to do that, and if we are compromised by the volume of the material or the inability to get instructions, particularly over this weekend, well we will renew our application when the Commission lists the matter for hearing on Monday.

PN88

DR JESSUP: Could I say, Commissioner, that we are quite happy to commence our case before the union have responded, to use my learned friend's expression. If they have evidentiary material, statements and things of that kind, if they get them to us before we commence our case that is ideal, but if they don't we would still be prepared to start.

PN89

MR NIALL: I hear what my learned friend says in relation to that and this will be a, to some extent, a moveable feast given the nature of the changing circumstances. But we couldn't fairly even commence to meet a case before Monday.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Given Dr Jessup's suggestion, Mr Niall, that a situation whereby the applicants commence their case at 9.30 on Monday morning but did not have available to them at that point all of your material, where would that sit with respect to your submission that if the Commission is mindful to list it for 9.30 on Monday please do but obviously you reserve your right at 9.30 on Monday to say, "Look, you know, the breadth of material is, you know, X wide instead of Z wide and so therefore we do need more time." Where does that place that, or is it both?

PN91

MR NIALL: Well, it may be both, but as I say, I mean, we have indicated our preference in - without having to know what the material is we are to meet, and we will do our best. And if it means the material - our material comes some way during my learned friend's case, then so be it, as long as my learned friend puts his case in substance to us tomorrow.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: Dr Jessup, is that - - -

PN93

DR JESSUP: Well then we will take the best he can give us in those circumstances, Commissioner.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Great. Okay, so thank you, Dr Jessup. The situation therefore is that the Commission directs that the applicant provide their material, which will include witness statements.

PN95

DR JESSUP: Yes, it will, yes.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: And an outline of submissions, Dr Jessup, or would you like me just to define it as material?

PN97

DR JESSUP: Well certainly on the subject of an outline, it would be our submission that the grounds in support are sufficiently elaborate to, in a sense, provide an opening outline.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, fine. Okay.

PN99

DR JESSUP: And that if the witness statements fall within those grounds that that will be adequate, that would be our position.

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Fine. Mr Niall, is that sufficient?

PN101

MR NIALL: Yes.

PN102

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. So therefore by close of business tomorrow afternoon, which is Friday, 23 April, the applicant will have provided the union and the Commission with the witness statements on which it plans to rely. In turn the matter will be listed for hearing on Monday, 26 April, in line with the applicants' request, commencing at 9.30. It is understood that there may be two situations arising at 9.30 in addition to commencing the formal hearing. The first one is that the applicant may not have all of the material in reply from the union and as I understand it from Dr Jessup that is acceptable.

PN103

DR JESSUP: Yes.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: And the second situation is that Mr Niall reserves his clients' rights at 9.30 on Monday morning to re-argue the we need some more time submission, if I could phrase it as such, and that would be on the basis that the union will have received the applicants' material whereas at this point in time they have not.

PN105

MS DUNN: Commissioner, we have got a point of clarification. We understand that the application is to suspend or terminate the ANF's bargaining period. As you are aware, the Health Services Union of Australia hasn't as yet planned industrial action while negotiations are - well, were continuing until today. We are naturally concerned about the impact of these proceedings on our members so we would ask that the employers are quite specific about the bargaining periods that they are in fact terminating.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Ms Dunn. Dr Jessup.

PN107

DR JESSUP: Well, we wish to terminate both series of bargaining periods referred to in the application.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. And they are?

PN109

DR JESSUP: They are the - - -

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Could you - without reading me out the numbers - - -

PN111

DR JESSUP: Yes. Yes, they are the ANF bargaining period and the employer bargaining period, and the employer bargaining period brought in the HSUA as a negotiating party, so the HSUA are a respondent to the application which we make and everything that I have said about providing material and everything of course relates to the HSUA as well.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Dunn, does that clarify the situation?

PN113

MS DUNN: Yes, it does thank you.

PN114

THE COMMISSIONER: And, Ms Dunn, in terms of the timetable that has been worked out this afternoon, is that - that obviously includes your union - is that okay from your union's perspective?

PN115

MS DUNN: We probably would prefer to, if possible - though we will leave it to your discretion - a little later on Monday just to give us time to consider the material, however we would concur that we obviously want the matter heard as it has already been described.

PN116

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. Ms Dunn, maybe the best way of dealing with the point that you have raised is to reserve your right, as I have the ANF's, to put submissions before the Commission on Monday morning if you find that you need more time.

PN117

MS DUNN: Yes, that will be fine.

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: I think that covers off from the Commission's perspective the purpose of this afternoon's hearing. Is there anything in addition that any of the parties wish to raise at this point in time before I adjourn until Monday morning at 9.30?

PN119

MR NIALL: Not for our part, Commissioner.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Niall.

PN121

DR JESSUP: No, Commissioner.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Dr Jessup. On that basis the Commission stands adjourned until Monday morning, the 26th, at 9.30.

ADJOURNED UNTIL MONDAY, 26 APRIL 2004 [6.00pm]