AG2004/2896, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 1874 (21 May 2004)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 7, ANZ House 13 Grenfell St ADELAIDE SA 5000
Tel:[phone] Fax:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 1699
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'CALLAGHAN

AG2004/2896

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION
OF AGREEMENT

Application under section 170LJ of the Act
by S & S Plasterboard Pty Limited and
Another for certification of the S & S Plasterboard
Pty Limited Enterprise Agreement 2004

ADELAIDE

1.50 PM, TUESDAY, 11 MAY 2004

PN1

MR M. HOWARD: I appear for S and S Plasterboard Contractors Pty Limited.

PN2

MR A. HARRIS: I appear for CFMEU, South Australian branch.

PN3

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr Harris. I can advise the parties that I've read the statutory declarations and the agreement itself. The immediate question that arises, is that it appears to me that this application was filed some 10 days outside of the time frame set in section 170LM of the Act. Mr Howard, can you cast any light on both the reason for that late application, and the situation in terms of the make up of the workforce for the period in question?

PN4

MR HOWARD: The situation, your Honour, is that the document was signed by Mr Spangler, Mr Belch, and Mr Hooker, and was dropped into the office of the Master Builders Association. The document was then forwarded on to the CFMEU for Mr O'Malley's signature. I have nothing more to add to that, your Honour. When the document was returned it was filed basically immediately and I even think the statutory declarations were made on 20 April, the document was signed and it was filed on the 23rd. I know that as soon as the document was back Mr Spangler made himself available to come in and sign the statutory declaration, and then the documents were filed.

PN5

As to the lapse of time between the time the CFMEU had it and Mr O'Malley signing it, I'm not sure what those reasons may be, your Honour. I certainly don't know the make up of the workforce. S and S Plasterboard have recently moved on to the Law Courts building, and my understanding is that is their largest project at the moment, but I'm not sure of whether numbers have changed within their workforce, your Honour.

PN6

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Harris, can you help me on this question of the extension of time that is sought? I understand there may have been an administrative hick-up within the CFMEU office.

PN7

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN8

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If you agree with me in that regard, I won't necessarily tell Mr O'Malley of that, but is that the reason for the problem?

PN9

MR HARRIS: Yes, as you will find next Tuesday, now we've got quite a few going in. I thought this had been signed because I actually did the stat dec with Aaron and I said: this is a bit late, and he said: it is all right. The actual document has already gone off. So ours is dated the 29th, but to my understanding the document had gone.

PN10

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Well, for one reason or another it appears to have been delayed, and I can accept that the reason for the delay was some confusion over who was going to file the document. What I do need is some advice as to the make up of the workforce. Can you help me in that regard?

PN11

MR HARRIS: I am ready for that one, Commissioner. You see the two names on the back, both our members.

PN12

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: This is on the back of the unsigned agreement itself?

PN13

MR HARRIS: I'm sorry. On the back of the agreement itself.

PN14

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Of the undated agreement itself?

PN15

MR HARRIS: Yes, and these are our consultative committee people, and I rang about 2 hours prior to being here to make sure. I'd seen so many and I knew, as Mr Howard said, they are on the Law Courts, where I know that they will have an increase in workforce, but they have just finished another job, and the blokes have flowed over. So I said there's about 30 blokes, and they said: that is all we've still got. So to the best of my knowledge the make up - - -

PN16

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is it the same 30?

PN17

MR HARRIS: I didn't ask that question. I would have to assume here that Mr Spangler, like the gentleman he is, he would hang on to his blokes, knowing he got a big job, and he would look after them. I would feel very confident to say they were, but I wouldn't go to my grave, because those two blokes are on the committee, I just got them to count the amount of people.

PN18

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, what can you tell me about the nature of the vote that occurred on 23 March?

PN19

MR HARRIS: On talking to Aaron, they actually had had a stoppage, and the document went away, backwards and forwards and was actually changing hands while that happened. When the final document came back everyone then - I think that is why it looks a bit rough, and the big writing was run off with a copy. They were sent away with that copy. They called a meeting about - he said it wasn't the 10 working days. He said it was about the third week, and they pulled him back in, and the blokes voted on the document they had had for nearly 3 weeks. He said the majority voted. He didn't give me a number.

PN20

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Mr Harris, what I'm going to ask you to do is to again contact your members and to advise me, subsequent to this hearing, of whether or not you can confirm that there were no changes to that workforce. If there were changes, then I will need some advice as to the relative support for the agreement in the vote that occurred on 23 March.

PN21

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN22

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So I won't make a final decision on whether or not the time frame for lodgement of the application should be extended until such time as I've received advice from you to that effect. I will proceed now to deal with the application as if I was to extend the time frame.

PN23

MR HARRIS: I will no doubt even have that before the sun sets today.

PN24

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then you have done well.

PN25

MR HARRIS: I will make that attempt.

PN26

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Harris, do you want me to direct the questions I have about the agreement, and there are a few, to Mr Howard, or do you want to field them?

PN27

MR HARRIS: Ease of foot, yes, you could direct the questions to Mr Howard.

PN28

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Very well, thank you. Mr Howard, can I take you to clause 1.7, and I take it there that parties, in effect, want the Commission to put in a date, being the date of ratification, into that clause.

PN29

MR HOWARD: Yes, that is a very old document, but that would be the date the document was certified, yes.

PN30

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The age of the document may be telling on it, as you will see from some of my later questions. Clause 1.8, if I read that particular clause literally, it looks to me as if the parties intend that the award clauses that were in existence prior to 30 June 1998 should be adopted by this particular agreement. Is that the intention of the parties?

PN31

MR HOWARD: I've got to say, your Honour, when this document came back after having been signed, I did notice there were a number of situations in this document that could be open to query by the Commission in the fact that they haven't tidied up the wording. Because the document had already been signed it wasn't for me to change, or get it changed, but I do know that in this document there are a number of clauses that may be open to scrutiny. That particular clause was a clause used in the previous award that was cited in the documentation prior to the 2000 award. The situation would be that, I guess, I can only take it on the face value of what is there, that the 2000 award:

PN32

Including all clauses prior to 30 June '98 as set out below will be binding on the employer and the union signatory thereto.

PN33

I really can't shed any more light on it. I wasn't involved in any of the discussions, or as a facilitator of the document.

PN34

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, you see, what the parties wrote into their agreement is, obviously, to a very large extent a matter for their own choice.

PN35

MR HOWARD: Yes.

PN36

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: They have just managed to make the document almost unintelligible, though.

PN37

MR HOWARD: Well, that is correct. I mean, there are two or three clauses in this document that are exactly like that, your Honour.

PN38

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well, then if the intention in clause 1.8 is to adopt the award, including all clauses prior to 30 June 1998, then to what extent am I to understand that the provisions of clause 1.9 are consistent with clause 1.9. You see, an enormous amount has happened since 30 June 1998.

PN39

MR HOWARD: Well, that is correct. The problem I have with that clause, and whilst discussing it, of course, all clauses prior to June 30 "as set out below will be binding," and yet the very next statement is:

PN40

Where there is anything inconsistent between the agreement and the aforesaid award, then this agreement will prevail.

PN41

To me, it is one of those circumstances - - -

PN42

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: It is almost a nonsense.

PN43

MR HOWARD: Yes.

PN44

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If not a nonsense, it is almost unintelligible.

PN45

MR HOWARD: That is where I'm coming from. We don't even really have to go to 1.9. If we stay with 1.8 I have great difficulty in lining those two little paragraphs up with each other. As far as 1.9 goes, in respect to the awards, the parental leave, termination, to change in redundancy, the standard of hours worked, and the annual leave, of course, have not changed between the previous National Building Construction Industry Award and the 2000 award. Those were not changed. The thing that changed in 2000 was the stripping-back of the award for the 20 allowable matters.

PN46

In actual fact the standards did not change at all in respect to the long-service leave. Of course that is a construction industry long-service leave Act, and the provisions in that Act, as at this point in time, have not changed. They still reflect the fact that a person will accumulate enough days for pro-rata as at 7 years, and then eventually get their long-service leave at 10 years. The only thing that has changed, of course, is the levy, but that was some months ago. The Act, of course - - -

PN47

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Howard, the dilemma that I've got is that the way I read the two clauses, the Commission is almost being asked to apply, in terms of the no disadvantage test, a test that compares the combination of this agreement with the June 30, 1998 award with the existing award. Is that the case?

PN48

MR HOWARD: Well, on the reading of it, as I say, on the wording of 1.8, that does present a problem in respect to 1.9, because I think you are correct. You are being asked to look at the 2000 award, but then take into consideration all the clauses prior to 30 June '98, and some of those clauses are no longer in the 2000 award, anyway, because it was stripped back on the modernisation of the award on the 20 allowable matters. Then to have a look at the overall reduction in rates and conditions. Well, some of the conditions, whilst they were non-allowable matters in award have come out of the award, and the award meets the requirements of the stripping-back process. As I said, I had problems reading this myself, but it wasn't for me to change the document at the time.

PN49

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Mr Harris, did you want to comment on this particular wondrous provision?

PN50

MR HARRIS: Yes, I will comment on it, not on the writing of it. I know exactly what clauses they are referring to. The protection of shop stewards, and it does not change anything of the parental leave, termination, long-service leave, etcetera. As Mr Howard pointed out there, they are similar. It is not the same, and the long-service is not part of the award as far as in that department.

PN51

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: If that is what they were trying to do they went about it in a very long-winded way.

PN52

MR HARRIS: I perhaps would have written it a little bit different myself, but I do know that that is the protection that they are seeking, because I know that is the problem they have had, the employees and the employer at this particular company, and they wanted protection. They have forwarded the previous award that allowed about terminating the shop stewardships, shifting the shop steward, and training of the shop steward.

PN53

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see, thank you. Now, Mr Howard, given the advise that Mr Harris has given me, are you able to give me an undertaking on behalf of the employer, such that in applying the employment benefits that are set out in the pre-June 30, 1998 award, the employer will ensure that employees are not deprived of any corresponding benefits that are defined in the current award?

PN54

MR HOWARD: I would agree with that. The persons covered by this agreement would not loose any of the provisions that are provided for in the National Building Construction Award 2000. That would be the premier award that would be looked at to determine the conditions of employment. I think what Mr Harris has thrown the light on, that what they really wanted to do was preserve those conditions that had been taken out because of the stripping-back of the award for the 20 allowable matters. One of those was the job stewards clause. Now, that clause that was in the previous award allowed for a recognised job steward to be given 2 days notice prior to transfer from one job to another, or termination of employment. Failing that to happen the parties, if they didn't reach agreement, could then call upon a board of reference to determine the matter.

PN55

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: In effect the undertaking you are giving me, is that the employer would apply the employment benefits set out in the existing award, except insofar as those benefits are inconsistent with the benefits established by this agreement.

PN56

MR HOWARD: That is correct.

PN57

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The issue of the job stewards clause in the 1998 award is obviously a matter addressed by clause 1.8 of this agreement as it stands by itself. I'm simply interested in an undertaking that addresses issues associated with the no disadvantage test.

PN58

MR HOWARD: There would BE no disadvantage to employees by the certification of this agreement.

PN59

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 2.4 details that the dispute or grievance procedure with particular reference to 2.4.5. Mr Howard, can you advise me that a person who is not a member of the CFMEU or conceivably not a member of any union has the capacity to be represented by a person or organisation of their choice?

PN60

MR HOWARD: Yes, that would be correct, your Honour. If the person was not a member of any union, they would be able call on another person to represent them in discussions with the employer.

PN61

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. If I can then take you to the next page on from that particular question? The pages are not numbered but it is the page that begins with clause 2.4.8.

PN62

MR HOWARD: I have got that page, yes.

PN63

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Now, in the documentation provided to the Commission, this page has a facsimile header which is dated 15 March 2004, such that it appears that that page has been inserted into the document at some stage. No other page in the document has such a header.

PN64

MR HOWARD: The circumstances of this document, your Honour, is exactly what was presented to myself with the signatories intact and the bottom of the page initialled at the same time as below - you can see every page has been initialled by the same person. I can only say that when the document came to me that was as it was intact, and that is how the document was then presented to the union and then presented to the Commission. There has been no alterations made since the document reached my hands and come to the Commission.

PN65

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you.

PN66

MR HOWARD: I am not sure what that is at - I don't even know whose fax number that is, your Honour, where it was coming from or where it was going to, but it appears to be either a single page because it has got page 1 at the top of a fax. It might have been a single page or it might have a header attached to it, but if I go back it is dated 4 March 2004.

PN67

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Which is some 8 days before the vote.

PN68

MR HOWARD: Before the vote took place, but I am not quite sure what that was because it is exactly the same typing and I am not sure what was changed there if I looked at it because it seems to me to have been - a continuation of the previous page, although I can see 2.4.8 has been repeated twice.

PN69

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr Harris, are you able to throw any light on this?

PN70

MR HARRIS: Yes. What was supposed to happen while they had the document, and they were putting it together, was to correct this page for the last comment. Mr Howard had said that 2.4.8 was on the previous page as you can see. They asked for another page to be faxed over to them straight away eliminating that 2.4.8 because it was there. Another page was faxed over, it connected, but it has still got 2.4.8. So the task they attempted to do didn't happen - is to change - the reason it is a separate page was to change the 2.4.8 because it was on the previous page.

PN71

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Can you reassure me then, that the employees had access to that particular page in one form or another?

PN72

MR HARRIS: Yes, because they would have had - - -

PN73

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: For the full minimum 14 days prior to their vote?

PN74

MR HARRIS: I imagine that would be a page with the disputes with the ACTU that they would have been concerned with. So I do know they had the complete document including this page.

PN75

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Howard, 2.4.9 refers to the appropriate industrial tribunal. Am I to understand that given the nature of the parent award and this agreement, the parties intend that to be the Australian Industrial Relations Commission?

PN76

MR HOWARD: That is correct, your Honour. The circumstances are that this has been the case in the past with S and S Plasterboard. They have been before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission before. This is actually a continuing document. There was a document certified. This is the second agreement between the company and the employees and they have - my memory tells me that the previous document - I am not sure whether it was late 2000 or early 2001, there was a matter before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in concern of that particular document as a dispute. So the parties are aware of the appropriate Tribunal and what would happen if they came to the Tribunal.

PN77

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Harris, I must ask you this next question. It relates to that clause 2.5, the demarcation disputes provision. 2.5.1 indicates that:

PN78

Any demarcation disputes arising will be dealt with via the ACTU demarcation disputes procedure.

PN79

Am I to understand that that is a procedure that is readily available to employees on request?

PN80

MR HARRIS: Yes.

PN81

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then 2.5.2 refers to the unions. There is only union party to this agreement and it is unlikely that you as the CFMEU will have dispute with yourself that I can characterise as a demarcation dispute. Am I to take it that 2.5.2 is really just indicating that the CFMEU will undertake the various steps that are specified in 2.5.2 and will hope or expect that any unions with whom you might be in dispute would similarly do so?

PN82

MR HARRIS: All unions are supposed to be - that are associated with the ACTU are supposed to be committed to the procedure of demarcations and we are just further committing ourselves, and we are relying on the fact that any union that would be involved would be relying on that same task.

PN83

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Howard, clause 3.6 refers to the company occupational health safety and welfare policy. Am I take it that that is a documented policy that is readily available to employees and that it may be changed over the life of this agreement?

PN84

MR HOWARD: It could, your Honour. Yes. In fact, it is quite likely it will be because the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is bringing out a complete new code of practice for the construction industry. It is being debated at this point of time, so there could be some changes made in respect to policies within this industry.

PN85

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Can I take you then to clause 4.1 and in that regard this clause details the wage rates?

PN86

Am I to understand that it in effect proposes two increases, with the first applying from 1 March 2003 and the second applying from 1 March 2004, that would become payable consequently from certification of this agreement, with a further increase arising as a result of the 36-hour week from 1 July this year. Is that the case?

PN87

MR HOWARD: That is my understanding - I mean, I can only read the document as it states and I notice it does say 1 March 2003. This document was prepared by the company so I would say that the intention of the company was to give the first increase there from 1 March 2003 followed by the second increase on 1 March 2004, and then the application of 36-hour week from 1 July 2004. I would take that as read, your Honour.

PN88

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. Can I then take you to 4.2.2? You might notice there are two hand-written notations. Clause 12 appears to be crossed out and 25 or 28 is inserted, and above the words clause 13 are the numbers 24.4.

PN89

MR HOWARD: That is obviously my pencil mark, your Honour, when I was reading the document and found that there were - as will be the case later on this document, the clauses that are quoted are the clauses from the previous award, the 1990 award, not the 2000 award. The current clauses in the 2000 award are 25 and 24.4 but they have been probably been not left in there.

PN90

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So the intention then is to apply the productivity allowance set out in 4.2.1 instead of the special rates set out in clause 28 of the award and instead of the multi-storey allowance set out in clause 24.4 of the award?

PN91

MR HOWARD: That is correct, your Honour. They have used the old award, they have not upgraded their clause numbers.

PN92

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 4.5. I understand from that the employer will be meeting all costs associated with that injury and insurance scheme?

PN93

MR HOWARD: Yes. I was just going to have a look at his redundancy clause. It would appear to me that - if I go back to 3.5 that the redundancy there is currently $50 a week moving to $55 from 1 July 2004. That is exactly what will be paid into the fund and then moving on to 4.5, that the injury and sickness insurance would be paid as a separate amount from the moneys being lodged into the BIRST fund. That is exactly how I read this document, your Honour.

PN94

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you. Now clause 4.8 relates to pyramid sub-contracting, with particular reference to clause 4.8.3. What can you say to me about the extent to which it is intended that this agreement will be binding only on this particular employer being S and S Plasterboard Contractors Pty Limited, its employees and the union?

PN95

MR HOWARD: The clause itself, your Honour, was taken from the Building Construction Industry agreement that has been in place since about 1983, and it does contain a section on pyramid sub-contracting. Pyramid sub-contracting is outlawed within the industry and what this company set out to do is put a clause in there. Now that clause can really only bind them in the terms of this documents. It would be that S and S Plasterboard if they had a supply and fix contract and they chose only to supply and get a gang to fix, then that gang would be doing labour only and would not be allowed to further sub-let that contract. In the context of being put in this document, it could only apply to S and S Plasterboard, any relations it has with any other sub-contractor and the CFMEU.

PN96

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see.

PN97

MR HOWARD: But it is a take from the industry agreement.

PN98

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Are you able to give me an undertaking that the employer undertakes that the agreement will only be applied to S and S Plasterboard Contractors Pty Ltd as an employer?

PN99

MR HOWARD: That is correct, your Honour, because they are a sub-contracting body themselves they would probably do all the work themselves. The circumstances that would arise, that if they were even a principal contractor and they got a job in its own right where there was no builder and it was a replacement of a ceiling, etcetera, that type of work, then they could sub-let the labour only content of that and just be the supplier, but this arrangement could only apply to S and S Plasterboard.

PN100

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Harris, are you able to give me a similar undertaking that the union agrees that the provisions of clause 4.8 have application only S and S Plasterboard Contractors Pty Limited?

PN101

MR HARRIS: Yes, I will give the commitment that it is only binding the employees, in my case the members and the employer.

PN102

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Howard, clause 5.3 deals with meal breaks. Am I to understand that that should be read in concert with 3.6.11?

PN103

MR HOWARD: That is correct, your Honour.

PN104

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 8.2 relates to the development of a training program. Am I to understand that it is intended that will occur for the life of this agreement?

PN105

MR HOWARD: That is correct, your Honour.

PN106

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Clause 8.3 relates to industry participation. Am I to understand that that reflects a commitment to work collaboratively but in effect simply a statement of intent?

PN107

MR HOWARD: It is a statement of intent that if they were called upon to run courses as a body within the ceiling and fixing industry, that they would participate. It is a statement of intent.

PN108

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. Mr Harris, is there anything you want to say about any of Mr Howard's responses?

PN109

MR HARRIS: Just going to the last one first, the 8.3, industry participation. There is because the ceiling fix or wallboard people feel that there is not the adequate or proper training with their area, they are trying to get together to set up a course or do an appropriate thing. So while it is only - maybe a policy or whatever, the ultimate aim by the time we are in for a next agreement, is hopefully there will be a proper training course that that will happen for. Apart from that, unless you have got any questions of me, I don't believe I have.

PN110

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you. I can advise the parties that I will consider the information that is to be provided to me by Mr Harris relative to the request for an extension of the time frame set out in section 170LM of the Act. If that information is not such that I can extend the time frame for lodgement of the application, then I will relist the matter and give the parties the opportunity to address the Commission further on that matter. If however it is sufficient such that I can use the discretion in section 111(1)(r) of the Act, I will do so. If I take that course of action, I can advise the parties that I am satisfied that the agreement was reached through a process consistent with that detailed in section 170LJ of the Act, and that the agreement itself meets the requirements of the Act necessary for certification.

PN111

In that regard, I note that it is of a duration envisaged by the Act, that it contains the necessary dispute resolution provision, the alteration of which the parties have clarified. It does not, on the basis of the undertakings given to me, breach the requirements of the Act and, again, on the basis of the undertakings given to me, it meets the requirements of the no disadvantage test. If I am in a position to extend the time frame for lodgement of the application, I will certify the agreement with effect from the date upon which that necessary information is provided to me and a certificate will be forwarded out to the parties accordingly.

PN112

As I have indicated, if I cannot extend the time frame or, indeed, if I am provided with that information, I shall list the matter for a further hearing at some stage next week. Are you happy with that approach Mr Howard?

PN113

MR HOWARD: I am happy with that approach, your Honour.

PN114

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Harris?

PN115

MR HARRIS: I hope to have it done before that sun rises, so I am happy.

PN116

THE SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.28pm]