Herijanto v RRT & Ors S97/1998 [2000] HCATrans 408 (19 July 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S97 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

HERIJANTO (As the Representative of the Plaintiffs listed in the Schedule)

Plaintiff

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Third Defendant

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S36 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

MUIN (As the Representative of the Plaintiffs listed in the Schedule

Plaintiff

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Third Defendant

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S89 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

NANCY LIE (As the Representative of the Plaintiffs listed in the Schedule

Plaintiff

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Defendant

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Defendant

GAUDRON ACJ

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 19 JULY 2000, AT 9.30 AM

(Continued from 10/7/00)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

___________________

MR M.A. ROBINSON: If the Court pleases, I appear for the plaintiffs. (instructed by Adrian Joel & Co)

MR J. BASTEN, QC: And I, with MR R.T. BEECH-JONES, for the active respondents, your Honour, other than the Tribunal. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR: Well, who wants to risk my wroth?

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, I have two matters which I wish to agitate. The first being a joinder of further persons to Lie and Muin; the second is an application for certain orders or, in the alternative, a vacation of the hearing that is set down for today and, in that regard, I have just been served with an affidavit a few moments ago which I have not read yet but I understand the defendants wish to read that affidavit and on my instructions, at present, that will probably be opposed if it contains what I suspect it contains.

It would be more convenient for the plaintiffs to move on the joinder motion first, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Well, is that opposed?

MR BASTEN: No. We do not consent to the joinder of the additional parties but I do not have anything to say, your Honour.

MR ROBINSON: The affidavit of Mr Joel of 18 July.

HER HONOUR: I have read that. Is there a draft order?

MR ROBINSON: Yes, attached to it. They can be filed today, your Honour. They are here in Court, the amended documents.

HER HONOUR: Well, there will be an order in accordance with annexure A and its annexures to the affidavit of Adrian Phillip Joel of 18 July 2000 which has been initialled and dated by me with today's date.

MR ROBINSON: If the Court pleases. In relation to the vacation or what I will term, for convenience, "the vacation motion", I move on an affidavit of Mr Adrian Phillip Joel, sworn today, 19 July.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Is there any objection to that affidavit, Mr Basten?

MR BASTEN: No, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: You can take that affidavit as read.

MR ROBINSON: Thank you, your Honour. In terms of my submissions on that, I have sent to the Court this morning a further list of authorities but authorities going to the vacation motion, that is Sali, Queensland v J.L. Holdings and Commonwealth Bank v Quade. In relation to the bulk of our submissions on that, in my submission, they are addressed to a very large extent in the affidavit of Mr Joel.

HER HONOUR: What is the attitude of the active defendants, Mr Basten?

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, this matter arose out of an attempt to settle a statement of agreed facts. In the course of extended discussions between the parties, it appeared that there might have been an issue arising in relation to electronic matters arising, perhaps, from an ambiguity in an affidavit filed by the respondents. Your Honour has the affidavit of Mr Joel. Your Honour will see that annexure A contains a draft paragraph in which the manner by which documents held electronically on what is known as "CISNET" were transferred to the RRT. The only change which arises from that paragraph is that it adds a detail. It was always the evidence on which we sought to rely that members of the Tribunal had access to CISNET through their computers. What this says, in a little bit more detail, is that, in fact, the Tribunal has a server to which CISNET is down loaded and updated from time to time. If the question is of any significance, it appears to be this: namely that there is an electronic transfer of the information on CISNET to the Tribunal rather than simply providing members of the Tribunal with access to that material electronically.

HER HONOUR: It does put a difference complexion on things, does it not?

MR BASTEN: It puts a different complexion on one aspect of it. We had thought - we did not give this evidence before because we were not sure how the argument was going to be run. We thought that it was a cruder argument, namely, that we did not, in relation to each individual application for review by the Tribunal, physically transfer material to the Tribunal which was relevant, country information.

The case is still that we do not do that on a case-by-case basis. What we do is to maintain electronically material to which access can be had by members of the Department and members of the Tribunal. The question is whether it makes any difference that we do that by transferring it to a computer which is physically located in the Tribunal as opposed to having the Tribunal members log on to a computer which is located elsewhere. Now, that is a factual matter. We would have thought that it had little bearing ultimately on the result but if it is a matter which my friend sees as going to a significant aspect of his argument, then we think it would be better that it be dealt with on the facts as they exist rather than on an hypothetical basis without that matter being agitated because, no doubt, it will come back to be agitated at some future time if it proves to be significant. My friend sees it as significant; we, for our part, think that it probably is of very minor significance.

HER HONOUR: Yes. I can - - -

MR ROBINSON: It is our case, your Honour, that it is extremely significant. There is nothing I can usefully add to it, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: I can see how it could be relevant, yes. I do not think I can deprive the respondent/defendants of the right to put that evidence any more than I could deprive you of the right to an adjournment if they put it. So I think - - -

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, we would also like, in due course - and this is why I have not drafted the orders - in the draft orders that are in Mr Joel's affidavit - we would also seek orders, in due course - and perhaps it could be agreed - that this matter could be the subject of discovery in the provision of particulars by the defendants.

Now, this is a matter, the very subject of which was agitated months ago in the discovery application in respect of which they claim privilege. They are now no longer claiming privilege, it seems, in relation to it and they are volunteering this information on the eve of the trial. Now, I do not seek those orders at this stage. I would much rather look at what affidavit evidence they wish to rely on and it can be dealt with between the parties.

HER HONOUR: Well, I hope you are right because time is rapidly running out. I will not be available next week at all and I will be in Canberra and Adelaide the weeks after. Now, what I propose is that what was intended to happen today, tomorrow and Friday, will happen on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the week, I think it is commencing 13 - I am sorry, I cannot even do it then.

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, could I be heard before your Honour sets dates as to what is involved in this stage?

HER HONOUR: It does not matter what is involved, they are the only dates I have.

MR BASTEN: I suppose what I am inquiring of in that respect is this, your Honour: the additional information is a specific fact, namely, is there a computer known as a server at an address. We have an affidavit which says that but beyond that what needs to happen, as I am instructed, is that your Honour will be asked to derive some inferences from those facts which are agreed. I have been advised that none of my witnesses are sought for cross-examination today, so that the material to which reference will be made will be purely documentary.

Now, depending on what my friend does with this additional fact, I would have thought that could have proceeded this afternoon or tomorrow, with respect. The time he takes to deal with this as a factual matter must be extremely limited. It simply is not an issue which gives rise to any matter of additional factual inquiry, we would have thought.

HER HONOUR: I think it might well determine the course of cross-examination.

MR BASTEN: But he does not wish to cross - - -

MR ROBINSON: I do, on this.

MR BASTEN: Well, he does "on this". Well, that is one witness. The witness is here and can be - - -

HER HONOUR: Did you not wish to cross-examine the other witnesses?

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, the delegates - because of the agreement that has occurred, the most significant being most recently, I do not wish to cross-examine the three delegates. In relation to Mr Wilson and Mr Palmer, certainly Mr Palmer, based on this affidavit, at paragraph 3 of which I have now read - that is the affidavit of Mr Palmer, sworn 19 July, that has been handed to me this morning, I certainly wish to cross-examine him about that and it is that to which requests for particulars can be made and discovery could be provided.

MR BASTEN: We would resist discovery, your Honour. We have accepted that we should provide documents. We say there is no right to discovery in these proceedings.

HER HONOUR: Well, it depends what needs to be discovered.

MR BASTEN: Can I ask your Honour to look at the affidavit?

HER HONOUR: Well, I have not seen it. In fact, I have not seen it; I am very cross; my time is being wasted when I have very little of it, and there are other calls upon the Court's time.

MR BASTEN: I appreciate that, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Do you object to my looking at this affidavit? I am not accepting it as a filed document at this stage?

MR ROBINSON: Only on this interlocutory basis, no objection, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Which paragraph?

MR BASTEN: Paragraph 3 particularly, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR ROBINSON: It is all present tense, your Honour.

MR BASTEN: Or paragraph 5. If there is further information we can give my friend, then we will do so and we will do it immediately. If my friend needs a further delay then we are content. I am just saying that it seems to us to be an issue which is within a confined ambit which would not require a significant delay in this stage of the proceedings.

HER HONOUR: What do you think you need by way of discovery, that - - -

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, we seek discovery on the matters, the subject of Mr Palmer's affidavit of 19 July. It is all well and good, your Honour, in my submission, to selectively release information at the convenience of the Commonwealth.

HER HONOUR: Well, let us forget that. I really do not have time to have that sort of debate.

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, I do seek discovery on those matters.

HER HONOUR: But what precisely do you want by way of discovery?

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, I would like discovery of the subject matter of Mr Palmer's affidavit of today.

HER HONOUR: I do not know that there is any subject matter that is there to be discovered. Are you looking - - -

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, it is deposed in paragraphs 3 and 4 to something quite specific. There must be a manual, a procedure manual for doing this, a memo to the Tribunal - - -

HER HONOUR: Well then, I think you had better draft what you want. There may be nothing for all I know.

MR ROBINSON: There is a matter which I was instructed about this morning going to this topic which is not contained in Mr Joel's affidavit and it is this, your Honour: we would like the opportunity to put on - we do not accept this evidence. We would like the opportunity to put on an affidavit which, on my instructions, counters it. Now, we can do that expeditiously within the next week or two, your Honour, but we would wish to put on an affidavit which counters this very suggestion. My learned friend refers to it as merely a factual matter of no great significance. We do not see it that way, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: We have been through that debate. That is going nowhere. The question is this: can you formulate what you want by way of discovery? For all I know, there is nothing that is discoverable. You tell me there are manuals and so forth and so on. Can you formulate the order you require with respect to discovery?

MR ROBINSON: Yes, I will do that now, your Honour, if I may take a moment.

HER HONOUR: You can bring it back if you like at 2 o'clock. When can you file your affidavit evidence, Mr Basten?

MR BASTEN: We can file that forthwith, your Honour, in the Registry.

HER HONOUR: When can you file your further affidavit evidence?

MR ROBINSON: By Tuesday afternoon, 25 July.

HER HONOUR: Very well. Well, I will make orders that Mr Basten file and serve by noon today all further affidavit evidence on which he would rely; that affidavit evidence in reply, if any, be filed and served by 4 pm, Tuesday, 25 July.

MR ROBINSON: Yes, your Honour, thank you.

HER HONOUR: The question of discovery will be further listed at 2 pm today, if you could provide a draft of the order you seek in that regard. Is there anything else you will be likely to be seeking?

MR ROBINSON: Only costs, your Honour, thrown away from the vacation of the hearing.

HER HONOUR: Well, I think, probably, it is sufficient if they be the plaintiffs' costs in the cause, is it not?

MR ROBINSON: We would not be content with that, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Well, it seems to me you are both at fault. I do not think anyone comes here in a blameless state, even if you did only find this out yesterday.

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, orders have been made for all the affidavit evidence to be on. The issues have been particularised in detail. Particulars have been back and forth between the parties. Yet as recently as a few months ago, the Commonwealth was talking to your Honour about the cupboard and the keys, and now they are saying they delivered the cupboard to the Tribunal.

HER HONOUR: Well, I do not remember that.

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, it is an awfully significant shift on the Commonwealth.

HER HONOUR: Well, it may be but I am prepared to make an order that today's costs be the plaintiffs' costs in the matters.

MR ROBINSON: If your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR: So, you are protected to a considerable extent by that.

It looks as though the only time I can give you is Thursday and Friday, 17 and 18 August. Is there any possibility that the cross-examination can be completed in those two days?

MR ROBINSON: Yes, your Honour.

MR BASTEN: I would have thought so, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Well then, in that case, I will adjourn this matter until 2 o'clock but the matter will be listed for hearing at 9.30 am on Thursday, 17 August.

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, just before we adjourn, might I inquire about one thing? We have produced what we have called a "Draft Agreed Statement of Facts". It contains within it those facts which the parties consider are material and are not agreed. We were going to file it or provide it to your Honour in that form. Obviously, before it goes to the Full Court, those parts will go. Would it be convenient to either file it or provide it to your Honour today?

HER HONOUR: Yes, you can hand it up at 2 o'clock, if that would be suitable.

MR BASTEN: If your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR: Very well, we will adjourn until 2 o'clock.

AT 9.53 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

UPON RESUMING AT 2.03 PM:

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Robinson.

MR ROBINSON: If the Court pleases. I have delivered a form of draft short minutes of orders by facsimile.

HER HONOUR: Yes, I have received that.

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour has that?

HER HONOUR: I have that.

MR ROBINSON: They are the orders which we seek. I understand, from my learned friend in discussions this morning, that there are some documents that fit that description that are able to be discovered in these proceedings. I think the appropriate power that your Honour might consider exercising is in Order 32 rule 18 of the High Court Rules. That is the "Power to Order Discovery of Particular Document or Classes of Documents", but there are a number of other powers in Order 32 that might be appropriate such as the power to order the production of a document but, in my submission, rule 18 is sufficient.

In terms of submission in support of it, I rely on the affidavit read earlier today of Mr Joel in relation to the joinder application and also in response to the affidavit of Mr Palmer that was sworn today and handed up at this interlocutory stage today and I can tell your Honour that the draft short minutes of orders were drafted by careful reference to the wording about file severs and electronic transmission that is set out in that affidavit.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Mr Basten.

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, so far as the first order is concerned, there is an issue as to whether this Court has power to order discovery in these constitutional writ proceedings against the Commonwealth. That is a matter which - - -

HER HONOUR: Why?

MR BASTEN: Why? Because we would say that if the powers of the Court, as they were in 1900, then it was not the practice at common law or in equity for discovery to be ordered against the Crown or an officer of the Crown.

HER HONOUR: Section 64 of the Judiciary Act, I think, has received considerably more consideration in recent years than it did in 1900.

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, the issue would be whether or not - and this is the "a la" point to some extent - whether or not the relief was constitutionalised, as it were, as it was in 1900 and to what extent that would - - -

HER HONOUR: What relief?

MR BASTEN: The relief provided by section 75(v) in this case, and whether or not that would extend to the grounds and the procedures available. Now, I say that, your Honour, because we simply wish to reserve our - - -

HER HONOUR: Well, no, there is no point reserving. We have spent as much time on these matters - - -

MR BASTEN: I appreciate that.

HER HONOUR: If you have a point, take it, take it formally. I will rule on it and you can do whatever you like with the ruling. But if you have a point to take, do not reserve it, take it.

MR BASTEN: Well, your Honour, can I say this, because it may not be necessary to come to this. What I wanted to say was that we would resist an order for discovery, and I will indicate some practical reasons why.

HER HONOUR: Tell me about the constitutional reasons that you rely on.

MR BASTEN: All right.

HER HONOUR: And then tell me about the construction of the rule that you rely on and then tell me your practical considerations.

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, the constitutional point: might I hand up a copy of an extract from Bray on Discovery of 1885. The passage is set out at page 70, starting under the "Attorney-General or the Crown". Your Honour, there is a short 10 lines, perhaps, which is relevant in relation to the practice - - -

HER HONOUR: Yes, and what do you say then about section 64? We know the practice. Everybody knows what the practice was. But this was a practice that developed in circumstances quite alien to the Constitution, to a Constitution which subjects the Crown to suit.

MR BASTEN: Yes.

HER HONOUR: As has been held in Mewett.

MR BASTEN: Yes.

HER HONOUR: And in respect of which section 64 of the Judiciary Act applies.

MR BASTEN: Yes. The only aspect of that to which we would take issue, your Honour, is in relation to relief under 75(v). We do not suggest there is any limitation on the right of a party to seek discovery against the Crown or any element of the Crown in any other sort of proceeding. It is simply a question as to whether that right existed in 1900 and, if it did, whether it can be changed by the Parliament or by the Court thereafter, and we say that it could not, being constitutionally entrenched.

HER HONOUR: Very well. I will rule against you on that point, here and now, for the reason that the Constitution subjects the Commonwealth to suit in the various matters referred to in Chapter III and section 64 is not to be read down as not applying, regardless of the nature of the proceeding. Do you wish to pursue it further?

MR BASTEN: No, no, I do not, your Honour. May I come to the terms of the order sought?

HER HONOUR: Yes. These are the practical matters.

MR BASTEN: These are the practical factors. Firstly, may I say this, your Honour: we have indicted to my friend that we are already looking for every document which would fall within the descriptions that he has given and we would say in the circumstances it would not be necessary for your Honour to make the order sought.

If your Honour goes to paragraph (d), your Honour will see that we are now being asked to provide documents relating to ownership of the server. Now, this was another - every time we come back with some issue, we are asked for more information and we are doing our best to supply it and we are doing our best to supply my friend with access to the source of all our information. But in relation to ownership, is it of the computer? Is it of the software? Is it of everything? Must we produce all licensing agreements in relation to software? Who is the owner of assets in the possession of the Tribunal, which is not itself an independent body? These are all questions which need to be answered if the relevant documents are to be found.

Now, we will produce what documents we can but to be put on order is to endanger us being liable for not producing some document which later seems to be relevant which was not thought to be relevant at the time.

HER HONOUR: You would have no difficulty with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)?

MR BASTEN: Paragraph (c) is simply repetitive of (a) and (b), but we are seeking the information in relation to (a) and (b) now, and I do not see that (c) adds anything to (a) and (b). We would think it was encompassed.

MR ROBINSON: That is correct, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR ROBINSON: I would wish to be heard on (d), your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Have you finished, Mr Basten?

MR BASTEN: I have finished, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes, Mr Robinson?

MR ROBINSON: In relation to (d), I do not have Mr Joel's affidavit here but I can say that paragraph 29C that was annexure A to Mr Joel's affidavit which contains the "objected to" or the "not agreed" wording. Does your Honour have that, annexure A?

HER HONOUR: Paragraph 29C?

MR ROBINSON: At the top of the page.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR ROBINSON: "Each document identified in schedule 1" and, stopping there, that schedule is a list of the Part B documents, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR ROBINSON:

as being available on CISNET was made available -

and it is one of the two abused words it appears, in these proceedings, "made available", and "access" being the other, and their true meaning. But:

made available by the Department -

I do not mean that in any pejorative sense of my learned friend or his junior -

to members of the RT by way of a downland of the updated part of CIS -

and that is supposed to be "CISNET", and that is agreed -

to the First Defendant's server which could then be accessed by all members -

that is presumably of the Tribunal, via their computers. Now, your Honour, it is the meaning of the expression "the First Defendant's server" that paragraph (d) is directed towards.

Now if I could take your Honour to the affidavit of Mr Palmer that was handed up to your Honour this morning. Paragraph numbered 3, on the second page, he says that, in the second sentence:

the CIS adds documents to other databases in CISNET. At the end of each business day, a complete copy of any amended database is electronically transmitted by Department system staff to the file servers which serve the Department's regional offices and the Refugee Review Tribunal -

so we have gone from what is posited in the draft agreed facts to "the First Defendant's server" - a "server" being a computer, your Honour, that is all that a server is, a computer to which other computers are networked. We have gone from the draft agreed facts of the first defendant's server to the proposed evidence of Mr Palmer being a file server which services or serves the Tribunal. Now, your Honour, all I am attempting to establish, as I have explained to my learned friend earlier, is whether or not this server was the server either owned by or possessed by the Tribunal.

HER HONOUR: What is the relevance of that? I mean, all one needs to know, surely, is there is a server in the premises of the Tribunal.

MR ROBINSON: It is critical to this new issue. I will explain why, your Honour. If it is the server owned by, possessed by the Tribunal, it is open to my friend to argue that the material containing the Part B documents was routinely given, transmitted, transferred to the Tribunal or the Tribunal's property or the property with which the Registrar of the Tribunal has direct ownership and/or control. That is one situation.

The second situation is if it was transmitted to a server of the Department allocated for use by the Tribunal to which the Tribunal's network, as it were, could dip into and access the information, then that does not constitute an electronic giving of any character, in my submission. The distinction is marked, in my submission, because it goes to the question of giving. I appreciate, your Honour, from a practical point of view, the Tribunal has an icon on its screen, a button on the screen which it clicks or double clicks and the CISNET database appears and from there it can be looked at and possibly printed or saved on to a floppy. That is not the issue. The issue is from where the data stream comes from and, in my submission, if the computer - if CISNET is dumped on to the Tribunal's computer, then that might constitute a giving and I would expect my learned friend would make submissions that, in law, it constituted a giving, notwithstanding that he has not pleaded it in his defence, and I am advised this morning that the defence is not going to be amended.

So, if he is permitted to make that submission, I expect that my learned friend would make that submission. If he is not going to make any such submission, then I will not press paragraph (d) at all, your Honour. So, the distinction for who owned it, in my submission, is critical.

I can say that if it leased from somebody and it is owned by Westpac or National Australia Bank and so on, then I can say that they are not the sort of documents that I am interested in and I can discuss that with my learned friend in bedding down the implementation of the orders or what they are going to do. That is a matter that the parties can deal with. But I do wish to be advised, to the extent that documentary evidence can do so, just whose servers these are.

It may be, your Honour, that it is a departmental server simply called "the Tribunal's server" because it is connected to the Department's mainframe computer or the Department's network of computers and they regularly dump data on to it. Now, that is a giving, in my submission, or it is arguably a giving of material containing the Part B documents and it could be relied in some exculpatory way by the defendants in this case. They are my submissions, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes. Anything in reply? No. Well, I have noted what you have said, Mr Basten.

I propose to make orders in terms of paragraph 1 but I propose to reserve liberty to the defendants to apply in the event of encountering practical difficulties with respect to paragraph 1(d) and indicate in advance that I will excuse them from compliance pending application made in that regard. Otherwise, there will be general liberty to either party to apply on three days written notice. I will certify for the attendance of counsel. And, costs, costs in the causes?

MR ROBINSON: In the cause, your Honour, we are content with that?

HER HONOUR: Yes. In each matter it will be costs in the cause.

MR ROBINSON: Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Is that all there is?

MR BASTEN: Your Honour, can I hand up those drafts that I promised this morning?

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MR ROBINSON: Your Honour, that may not be the final version before the next hearing.

HER HONOUR: But it might be of some help.

MR ROBINSON: The parties are still discussing that document.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you. At this stage, we will simply adjourn until 9.30 am on 17 August.

AT 2.20 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL THURSDAY, 17 AUGUST 2000