C2004/4362, Transcript of Proceedings [2004] AIRCTrans 3381 (30 August 2004)

AUSCRIPT AUSTRALASIA PTY LTD
ABN 72 110 028 825

Level 3, 105 St George's Tce, PERTH WA 6000
Tel:[phone]

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS


O/N 824
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER THATCHER

C2004/4362

THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION - WEST
AUSTRALIA BRANCH

and

HENRY WALKER ELTIN CONTRACTING PTY LTD

Notification pursuant to section 99 of the Act
of an industrial dispute re alleged demotion
and suspension of a union member

PERTH

2.01 PM, WEDNESDAY, 18 AUGUST 2004

PN1

MR D. McLANE: If it pleases the Commission, I seek leave to appear on behalf of the AWU.

PN2

MR J. LONG: If the Commission pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent company, Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Limited, with your leave, Commissioner, I seek to appear.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: I take it there is no objection by either side to leave?

PN4

MR LONG: No.

PN5

MR McLANE: No, sir.

PN6

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted. I thought we would start off on the record on this matter just to see if we can find out what it is about before we decide where we might go on this matter. Yes, Mr McLane?

PN7

MR McLANE: Certainly, sir. The matter concerns two issues, Mr Commissioner. The first one being the demotion from leading hand, a position that has been held by Mr Moseley with the Henry Walker, the respondent, for - - -

PN8

THE COMMISSIONER: Has that taken effect, that demotion?

PN9

MR McLANE: That demotion has taken effect, sir.

PN10

THE COMMISSIONER: From what date?

PN11

MR McLANE: And it took effect on 10 July.

PN12

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN13

MR McLANE: Of 2004. Mr Moseley has occupied the position of leading hand at Yandi, sir, for Henry Walker Eltin for some 3 years now. Although only 2 years in the formal position but for the year before that, he was effectively carrying out leading hand's duties and was paid an extra hour a day's overtime in lieu of the leading hand's allowance. That is the first issue, sir.

PN14

THE COMMISSIONER: And what is he now?

PN15

MR McLANE: He has been demoted to an operator, sir. He is a crusher operator.

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN17

MR McLANE: Now, that is the first matter that is before you and that is not really the issue of the moment, I suppose. It is Mr Moseley, although he was a leading hand, I think it is important to point out, sir that it is a very traditional leading hand's position. And by that it is one that is clearly not a management position.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN19

MR McLANE: It is the old type leading hand position who, if you like, is the top of the tree.

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN21

MR McLANE: In the blue collar side of things as opposed to being clearly in the domain and part of the management.

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN23

MR McLANE: So, Mr Moseley and other leading hands to do not make management decisions as sometimes the demark, I suppose, and seeing as we are talking old fashioned positions.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN25

MR McLANE: Between leading hand and supervisor or foreperson, is sometimes fairly murky and sometimes it is hard to tell the difference. In this position, it is very clear, in my submissions. He is a leading hand in the traditional sense, where as the supervisor, who is clearly a part of the management team, sets the priorities and Mr Moseley and other leading hands would simply carry those tasks out. He is in effect, while a leading hand, an operator. And his substantive job, while he is a leading hand, is operating the crusher. But from time to time, there might be a little project, workers would come to him on nightshift, for example, if something unusual occurred and Mr Moseley would then refer that back to his immediate supervision who would make the decisions.

PN26

And the whole reason for this is to say that, or I am anticipating an argument that the conduct of writing on a company memo might well amount to a complete breach of trust for a management person. And the reasons for these brief submissions is to say that Mr Moseley is not in a management position, or was not.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN28

MR McLANE: At the time of his demotion.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: But I assume that notwithstanding and hopefully something might be resolved out of this notification, Mr Moseley still had certain rights under termination of employment reasons in respect of demotion.

PN30

MR McLANE: That is correct, sir, as we see it. And we are hopeful that we can settle something today although we would be surprised if we were able to settle the demotion issue today and that may well become something that needs to be determined. But we have got an open mind and we - - -

PN31

THE COMMISSIONER: 21 days, of course. 21 days is a factor if you are going down that track.

PN32

MR McLANE: Yes it could well be. But the real issue of the moment, sir, is the second one. The second issue before you and that is the standing down of Mr Moseley. And Mr Moseley is currently stood down. He is stood down on full pay and is not suffering any loss or damages as far as money goes but he is keen to get back on the job. He finds being stood down humiliating and distressing. Now, he was stood down, or suspended on pay on 3 August.

PN33

THE COMMISSIONER: Are you accepting that the standing down is in terms of 26(b)(ii).

PN34

MR McLANE: I am sorry, sir, you have lost me.

PN35

THE COMMISSIONER: Have I got the right agreement? I have got a copy of the Yandi Operations Certified Agreement 2002. Is that the correct one?

PN36

MR McLANE: Yes, sir, that is the correct agreement, I think. Yes, Yandi Operations Certified Agreement 2002.

PN37

THE COMMISSIONER: I just had a little look at clause 26(b).

PN38

MR McLANE: I am sorry, sir, if you can just bear with me for a moment.

PN39

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN40

MR McLANE: Yes, sir, it is the employer relations procedure, is 26 and was it (ii) that you - - -

PN41

THE COMMISSIONER: I said, (b). I think it is 26(b).

PN42

MR McLANE: (b).

PN43

THE COMMISSIONER: Which says: Disciplinary procedure.

PN44

MR McLANE: Yes, sir, that is correct.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: And then I think I had a look at (ii):

PN46

Where supervisors become aware of an incident which is in their opinion, may lead to disciplinary action, the employee concerned shall be notified in the first instance, (iii) if it is deemed appropriate by Henry Walker Eltin that the employee be stood aside. This will be without loss of pay or entitlement until the company makes its decision on the disciplinary action, if any, to apply.

PN47

MR McLANE: That is correct, sir.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN49

MR McLANE: And at (v), so we are not alleging that there has been a breach of those provisions.

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN51

MR McLANE: They have been complied with, sir.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: It is the delay you are concerned about. It is the delay, is it?

PN53

MR McLANE: That is correct, sir, because at some 2 weeks now since Mr Moseley was stood aside and to date, nobody from the company has approached him to take part in the investigation, or the alleged investigation. The only contact that has occurred between Mr Moseley and the respondent employer has been at the instigation of Mr Moseley.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Moseley, yes.

PN55

MR McLANE: Ringing in to see where things are at. Sorry, sir, I have got that wrong. There was one phone call from the company to make sure that he had arrived in Perth and was in Perth.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN57

MR McLANE: Since then, the contact has been at the instigation of Mr Moseley. One, to make himself - to reinforce to the company that he is available to participate and is keen to participate and secondly, to say, well, where is it at?

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: Fair enough.

PN59

MR McLANE: Now what we have done, sir, we come here under clause 26(5). We are concerned that a decision may be about to be made to terminate. We are hopeful, sir, that through conciliation we can avoid that and the objective that we would have, sir, for conciliation is to have Mr Moseley back on the job. He is humiliated and distressed to be receiving the money and not working. I don't want anyone to try and twist that around to say that he no longer be humiliated and distressed if he wasn't being paid. He is a proud worker and wants to work to earn his money. And we say that Mr Moseley, although at first read, you see: oh, suspended for breach of BHPs railroad operating procedures and regulations. It sounds terribly serious.

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the reason?

PN61

MR McLANE: That is the reason given, sir.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: Suspension for?

PN63

MR McLANE: That is correct.

PN64

THE COMMISSIONER: A breach of, what?

PN65

MR McLANE: A breach of - I have it here, sir, and I apologise to my friend but I haven't done a copy because I didn't expect that we were going to be but I have a copy for the Commission and I am sure my friend has it. It is the letter of 3 August actually standing Mr Moseley down, plus a letter of 9 July that deals with the demotion. And then the last attachment is a company memo dated 11 July in reply. If my friend has those? I can make mine available to them, sir, but I just wasn't expecting to be putting it up as an exhibit.

PN66

THE COMMISSIONER: I was only asking because I was trying to understand the nature of the allegation.

PN67

MR McLANE: But I just think it is helpful, sir, if you have it. If there is no objections to that.

PN68

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you got a copy?

PN69

MR LONG: Well I have not seen the documents, Commissioner. If it is intended that they be made available for your information at this stage, I would like an opportunity to see them first.

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Well just continuing then, Mr McLane, I think I have got the drift. There is this issue of the demotion, that is not the burning issue at the moment but is still a matter in dispute but the issue at the moment is this, what, in your view, is the delay taken in investigating what ever incident or allegation has occurred. And the point being that Mr Moseley hasn't contributed to that investigation at this stage, 2 weeks into it.

PN71

MR McLANE: That is correct, sir. Mr Moseley was stood down, sir, on 3 August.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN73

MR McLANE: And quoting from the company's letter of 3 August to him, the allegations - sorry, I'll just start;

PN74

Henry Walker Eltin has recently received some allegations about your conduct which are of concern. The allegations involve your conduct on 5 July 2004.

PN75

Sorry, 15 July, sir, of 2004. I'll just stop.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have got that now. I think I will just mark that M1 for convenience.

EXHIBIT #M1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS

PN77

MR McLANE: Was that M1, sir?

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, please.

PN79

MR McLANE: Thank you. So if I could just take you to the one on the top, 3 August, and at the second paragraph:

PN80

The allegations involve your conduct on 15 July...

PN81

you know, some 2 weeks prior:

PN82

...including a call that you made to BHP Iron Ore Train Control without authority.

PN83

Well we say there was authority.

PN84

Which caused the driver to leave the train and the subsequent delay in the loading of a train.

PN85

We deny that. And I just don't know if it is appropriate to go into any detail here, sir. I will be guided by you but we say that Mr Moseley did nothing that a crusher operator, nothing other than what a crusher operator does, was at all times authorised. And it then goes on to say:

PN86

It is also alleged that you boarded the train in a breach of BHP Iron Ore Pilbara District Railroad rules and regulations.

PN87

Now, prima facie, when you look at that last sentence, to me anyway, sir, as a person who had responsibility for representing train drivers in a previous life, jumps out at me and says this is extremely serious. Our evidence and submissions will be that it isn't serious at all. It was strictly in accordance with the practice and procedures. If there is some breach of the rules and regulations it is not something that Mr Moseley or others have ever been made aware of. And Mr Moseley acted in this occasion exactly the same has he has always acted during the 7 years of employment at Yandi. And we have witnesses who will say that his is exactly what they do in the course of their duties, if push comes to shove.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: This letter seems to be saying that:

PN89

You are shortly going to be attending a meeting with company representatives, you have to stay in camp so that we may contact you to assist with the inquiries.

PN90

Has this all happened?

PN91

MR McLANE: It has, sir, and Mr Moseley has complied with directions at all times.

PN92

THE COMMISSIONER: So he met with the company representatives?

PN93

MR McLANE: No, they never came to him, sir. They only came to him to say: look, this is going to take a bit of time, we would like you to fly out to Perth as opposed to - and that is the only place that it is different.

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: I see, so you are saying that the last 3 paragraphs, well the last 2 paragraphs or certainly the third last paragraph hasn't happened?

PN95

MR McLANE: No.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: He. "may bring someone to the meeting."

PN97

MR McLANE: No, it hasn't happened, sir. And he has - when it was put to him that he come to Perth, which they foreshadow there. They say:

PN98

Henry Walker Eltin may direct you to return to Perth.

PN99

He has complied with those directions but he wants to - he is not happy in Perth, getting an easy living, if you like. He is a proud worker and wants to earn his money through productive work. So that is it, sir. We are keen to get him back on the job. We are keen to discuss these, what appears to be at face value serious allegations and we say we are not concerned with them at all. I certainly was when I first saw the letter but having had the opportunity to discuss it with Mr Moseley and with others, we are very confident, sir, it is not as it is dressed up to have been.

PN100

We say, sir, the two matters are linked, that Mr Fergus Campbell, the Project Manager takes thing very personally and the allegations that were made in relation to the demotion, are trivial. Mr Moseley has never admitted and denies publishing the material and distributing it. He admitted to writing some comments on a memo that was in the crusher control room and somebody else who has - and he has fessed up to that with the company. Somebody else has looked at it thought: this is funny, photocopied it and distributed it around the job. And those comments are almost laughable but we don't have a copy of the memo. I daresay it will be produced in due course but it is nothing defamatory or offensive. It is a comment that is political in nature and if Mr Fergus Campbell has got his nose out of joint because the work force saw it as funny, well that is, with the greatest of respect, his problem.

PN101

THE COMMISSIONER: Was Mr Moseley given an opportunity to respond to the reason prior to his demotion?

PN102

MR McLANE: Yes, he has been, sir, and he did.

PN103

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well.

PN104

MR McLANE: And he was found guilty by Mr Campbell and demoted as a consequence. But that is not the issue at the moment today, sir.THE

PN105

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN106

MR McLANE: It is just simply to say that, look, these things are linked. Mr Campbell has got his nose out of joint and, you know, Mr Moseley is being picked up for any little thing that they think that they can make something out of.

PN107

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Perhaps we won't go any further because I don't want to entrench you both in your positions. I just wanted to get something on the record because I thought there might have been some difficulty after yesterday's - - -

PN108

MR LONG: Commissioner, can I just clarify briefly. You say that the opening was for the record although I understood the Commission to say at the commencement of the proceedings that the Commission wished to have some comment from the applicant off the record, initially?

PN109

THE COMMISSIONER: I wanted to get something on the record from the applicant and also, I was going to ask you for something from the record about what is your position on this.

PN110

MR LONG: Thank you.

PN111

THE COMMISSIONER: Then I thought we might go, subject to what happened out of that, we would proceed into conciliation proceedings.

PN112

MR LONG: Yes.

PN113

THE COMMISSIONER: That is your opening, Mr McLane?

PN114

MR McLANE: If the Commission pleases.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Yes, Mr Long, can you clear some of this up?

PN116

MR LONG: If the Commission pleases, firstly we would just like to take the opportunity to thanking the Commission for its forbearance in relation to, I believe, a conference which didn't take place yesterday, for reasons which I am not sure of. But nevertheless, importantly, we are here today and would like an opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by my friend. Firstly, the notification which has been made to you under section 99, is limited in detail although it has been expanded on a little today, to the extent that there may be any jurisdiction issues going forward, we would obviously want to reserve our rights, sir, in that regard. And we now do so. That is to advance arguments not limited to the question as to whether the Commission would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine an application of this kind in any event. But moving on from that, and again, not to make overly technical points at this early stage, I did hear Mr McLane to say that this matter had come before you by way of clause 26(v) of the certified agreement which says that:

PN117

Where the company takes a decision to dismiss an employee, the union may put the matter in dispute pending a decision of the Commission.

PN118

Well the obviously point, of course, to make is that Mr Moseley is not dismissed. And in any event, the application, I think, comes, in fact, before you by way of section 99, not by way of any particular clause within the certified agreement.

PN119

I don't propose to say anything in relation to the company's prior decision to demote Mr Moseley from his position of leading hand based on what Mr McLane has had to say earlier. If I can turn therefore to what is described as the second issue, this issue appears to me, Commissioner, to probably be no more than a concern on the union's part and no doubt perhaps, Mr Moseley, that there may be some future action taken by the company. And in that speculative event, they bring the matter before you today. Really the application is premature to the extent that they foreshadow some concern about a possible decision by the company to dismiss Mr Moseley in relation to the investigation that is currently underway.

PN120

Quite simply, the company has undertaken an investigation which Mr Moseley is obviously well aware of. The investigation is in relation to - - -

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: Is it undertaken or is it undertaking?

PN122

MR LONG: It is in the process.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN124

MR LONG: So it is undertaking an investigation at the moment. By letter dated 3 August 2004, Mr Moseley was notified as to the fact of the investigation. He was notified clearly as to the nature of the allegations which were being investigated. He was notified as to the purpose of the letter. And importantly, he was also informed that he would have an opportunity to play a part in that investigation to assist the company in that task. And he was also advised that during that time he would have an opportunity to bring someone to any meeting which might need to be convened from time to time when Mr Moseley was called upon to answer any particular questions.

PN125

Now, it is true that to date, Mr Moseley has not met with the company for that purpose, to the extent that it has been suggested that there has been some delay on the company's part. That suggestion is rejected. The correct situation is that the company is currently undertaking these investigations with all due expedition. There is quite simply nothing in it from either the companies point of view, or indeed, Mr Moseley's, for there to be any sort of delay in these matters. And indeed, there is no delay occurring here.

PN126

In the meantime, all of Mr Moseley's rights are protected, that is, under the terms of the certified agreement, he is suspended on full pay, as the Commission has correctly pointed out. And so it is that the investigation must now proceed to a conclusion, which it will do, and with all due expedition and speed. It is anticipated that Mr Moseley will be called upon in due course to be interviewed by company representatives and following that, a decision will be made by the company as to what action, if any, should be taken, based on the information that it has received in connection with these two allegations.

PN127

I don't think the matter needs to be put in any more detail than that. And we would say on that basis, to recap, that the application really is quite premature. We don't see, with any respect, that there is any particular role that the Commission can play presently, as the Commission has pointed out, if indeed there is some subsequent decision which effects Mr Moseley's position, it may be that he then has some recourse and some rights whether statutorily or otherwise to challenge that decision. If indeed any decision is made which effects his rights. But that is not clear at this stage and in our respectful submission, the matter ought to be allowed to proceed for the investigation to be concluded and then for an opportunity for the company to consider its position as to what action, if any, might be taken.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think all of that sound pretty reasonable. It sounds as though to me what one has is that someone is under suspension and is looking for some sort of indication of a time line for when this might happen. The letter said, "shortly," and I guess, is 2 weeks, shortly, or can you give any indication or some comfort to Mr Moseley as to when, "shortly," might mean?

PN129

MR LONG: Yes.

PN130

THE COMMISSIONER: Or if there has been a departure from, "shortly?"

PN131

MR LONG: Certainly, I can undertake, on the conclusion of these proceedings today, Commissioner, to enquire with the company what they would see is the approximate timing of the meeting, or the first meeting if more than one needs to be held with Mr Moseley. And I can undertake to report that subject to the company's agreement, back to McLane as soon as possible.

PN132

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I think that would be helpful for everybody's benefit, I think. The letter does say, "shortly." An employee who is under suspension, which is understandable and is looking for some clarification and I think if you can't give any indication of a - you have no instructions to give an indication of a time line now, I would accept your undertaking to provide that to Mr McLane this afternoon.

PN133

MR LONG: To the extent that that is possible, Commissioner. I am making an assumption there, and that is that the company is in a position to be able to make an accurate assessment or estimation as to the timing of any meeting but subject to that caveat, I don't see that there is - - -

PN134

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps it doesn't have to be an undertaking of some time line that is just a hundred per cent correct, it might be an indication of the way the current view is that it would be this and if there can be some dialogue or if that is then subject to change, further contact with either Mr McLane or Mr Moseley, that would seem to be just fairly reasonable, basic human response to these sorts of situations.

PN135

MR LONG: Yes. And indeed, the company has taken that view. I think it is fair to say, on the basis of my instructions, that the company, as Mr McLane has rightly recognised, has been in contact with Mr Moseley, at least during some points during the investigation, whether verbally or in writing. So I don't think it can be said that Mr Moseley doesn't understand the scope of the investigation, nor his opportunity to have an input into it. And it is the company's intention to continue to have contact with Mr Moseley, of course, during the investigation and following.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Long. Well, Mr McLane?

PN137

MR McLANE: Thank you, sir. Well, Mr Moseley is at a loss, sir, he doesn't know where things are at. The letter was simply given to him and he was under the impression that, you know, shortly he would be required to be given the opportunity to be heard. That hasn't happened. The only contact that the company has made with him, and I think it was on the 10th, sir, it was a Friday - that was Saturday, the 7th, he was contacted by Darren Thompson who is a Yandi crushing plant superintendent, to check that he had arrived in Perth. Which is a little bit strange, I suppose, seeing as they put him on the plane in Newman going to Perth. But that is the extent of it and Mr Moseley, I think it was last Friday, rang the company and asked, you know, where things were at and was told some things but we won't go into it today but he wasn't given any information as to where things were at or when he might be likely to be required or how things were unfolding.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Well I can certainly comment that I think that position is very understandable in the circumstances but at the same time, the Commission would be loathe to get involved in the actual investigation, of course. It may be that when Mr Long rings you this afternoon, it may be that the meeting is going to - he will be able to say, well, it should be this week or it might even be tomorrow. It could be next week. So I guess until we know, but I think it is reasonable that it shouldn't be indefinite, it wouldn't be an indefinite period but that is why I was speaking to Mr Long as to whether, from the perspective that if it can't be a definite date, can there be some indication given to you this afternoon, that was my request of him. And he is going to seek instructions on that.

PN139

MR McLANE: Thank you, sir, and that is all helpful. We are keen to see it brought to an end and we are keen to get Mr Moseley back on the job and we believe that there is a role for the Commission in that and that is currently being exercised to assist through conciliation with the resolution of the matter. I certainly aren't going to dispute the point that Mr Long made that, you know, it is not a matter for the Commission in the strict sense of, has there been a, you know, a fear or otherwise dismissal, until that has been made, should it in fact be made, and we are certainly hopeful that that won't be made. And we believe that through some discussion with the company, we may be able to assist to head that off and that the Commission may be able to assist to head that off. But it is one that, you know, yes, it is premature because it may not go there.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN141

MR McLANE: And hopefully it won't and if they look a little broader than just what Mr Moseley's actions were and what the actions of others are, which one would hope that they are doing as part of the investigation they be able to, you know, avoid some embarrassment. So I don't think it is appropriate to say much more, sir. I certainly don't want to add fuel to the fire.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: I think you have had an opportunity to say certain things and place it on the record. Mr McLane, what say you to the suggestion that I adjourn these proceedings on the basis that Mr Long will be contacting you this afternoon, and subject to that, you can feel free to re-list should you have, still of that view that the Commission should play a more active role in this matter?

PN143

MR McLANE: It might just be the choice of words, sir, would it be necessary to re-list or would we simply ask for the matter to be brought back on?

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Matter to be brought back on, sorry.

PN145

MR McLANE: Look, in that case, sir, that has been helpful and I don't think we can take it much further this afternoon. Thank you for your assistance.

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Long?

PN147

MR LONG: Just one point, Commissioner. I wonder in view of Mr McLane's comments earlier on to the effect that the demotion is not an issue, whether as a matter of house keeping, that ought to be addressed now so that that part of the application need not cause any further time for either this Commission, or indeed, the company. A suggestion being that that part of the application be discontinued at this point and then on the basis as it has been suggested, that it be brought back on again at another time.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand where you are coming from but on the basis of the submission that the two matters are related, I would be loathe to limit that at this stage.

PN149

MR LONG: Thank you. And the second matter, Commissioner, is, there have been a number of comments made, comments on the record, in relation to at least one person for the company, a Mr Campbell. Can I just take the opportunity to mention, firstly, that of course Mr Campbell is not here today to respond to those comments, despite the comments being not only unfair, in our submission, but also incorrect. And I need say no more than that at this point. Thank you.

PN150

THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. This matter is adjourned. Thank you very much.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY [2.39pm]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #M1 BUNDLE OF DOCUMENTS PN77