Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Australian Industrial Relations Commission Transcripts

You are here: 

C2002/5317, Transcript of Proceedings [ 2003] AIRCTrans 3896  (4 September 2003)

AUSCRIPT PTY LTD
ABN 76 082 664 220

Level 4, 179 Queen St MELBOURNE Vic 3000
(GPO Box 1114 MELBOURNE Vic 3001)
DX 305 Melbourne Tel:(03) 9672-5608 Fax:(03) 9670-8883

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

O/N 10523
AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL

RELATIONS COMMISSION

COMMISSIONER EAMES

C2002/5317

THE AUSTRALIAN LICENSED AIRCRAFT
ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION

and

FORSTAFF AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Application under section 170LW of the Act
for settlement of dispute (certification
of agreement) concerning appropriate
remuneration arrangements

MELBOURNE

10.04 AM, WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2003

Continued from 13.12.02

PN115

MS H. McKENZIE: I seek leave to appear on behalf of Forstaff Australia Pty Limited, together with MR P. MELHUISH.

PN116

MR G. NORRIS: I appear on behalf of the ALAEA, the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, together with the Federal Secretary MR D. D. KEMP, and one of our site representatives at Avalon, MR D. MATTHEWS.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN118

MS O'NEILL: Commissioner, I seek leave to appear on behalf of an intervenor, where I would also propose to make an application that leave be granted for United Bargaining Pty Ltd to intervene in this matter before the Commission.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, is there any objection - formal objection to the appearances?

PN120

MS McKENZIE: There certainly is, Commissioner.

PN121

MR NORRIS: And we object too, Commissioner.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. We had better hear from you, Ms O'Neill.

PN123

MS O'NEILL: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, United Bargaining has been appointed as a bargaining agent in relation to employees of Forstaff at the Avalon site. The application for intervention is also made on behalf of those five employees. The employees in question have concerns about the matter and wish to be heard in relation to the application, as they are directly affected by these proceedings, and are persons bound by the relevant certified agreement under which this application is brought.

PN124

The employees, however, are reluctant to have their names presented in public to either the company or the ALAEA at this point. So what we would propose, if the Commission was so minded, to establish the bona fides of the persons for whom I act, we would propose that we would provide the Commission with the details of those employees, and the appointment of United Bargaining Pty Ltd as their agent in matters, including this matter, which may then be tested in a process, for example, that I am aware has been adopted in other matters, where a list of employees may be provided by the company, and you would be able to verify their standing.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, in the first instance, I don't know why this matter has been asked to be re-listed, so I should get some background in relation to all of that, and then I might be in a better position to make a judgment in terms of the intervention that you seek.

PN126

MS O'NEILL: Thank you, Commissioner. May I also make one other point at this stage. The application, should intervention be granted, that we would seek to make in the first instance is an application that the matter be adjourned. The basis for this would be that the employees for whom I act and United Bargaining became aware of today's proceedings yesterday, and I received instructions last night. So I haven't been able to obtain at this stage any of the documents relating to the proceedings. So I am acting on understandings rather than the documents at this point.

PN127

So we would seek an adjournment of a fairly short time to enable us to obtain copies of the relevant documents.

PN128

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, perhaps I had better hear what it is all about, for a start.

PN129

MS McKENZIE: Well, I can go into that briefly, Commissioner, but I fear we are going to have to deal with the intervention issue sooner rather than later, because it does have a bearing on the future conduct of the matter. But perhaps if I can say this by way of background. Forstaff requested this matter be re-listed. The matter which is before the Commission is a matter which goes back to last year, December of last year, and it was an application, or a notification of a dispute pursuant to section 170LW, which concerns disputes arising under agreements.

PN130

When the matter was before the Commission on the last occasion, you may recall that the subject matter of the dispute concerned the hours of work at Avalon, and the parties requested that the Commission deal with that matter by way of a private arbitration pursuant to the dispute settling procedure clause of the certified agreement. Arising out of an inspection which the Commission conducted and then some hearings, the Commission made a recommendation in relation to the subject matter of the dispute.

PN131

Without paraphrasing too much the Commission's recommendation, essentially the Commission accepted the Forstaff interpretation as the relevant provisions of the agreement, and recommended that negotiations continue between the parties in the light of that ruling. Those negotiations did continue, and the position was reached that as between Forstaff and the ALAEA an agreement was reached, which obviously under the Act was required to be put to a vote of the employees.

PN132

A valid majority of the employees to whom the agreement applies did not approve the agreement. It was, as I understand, a very close vote, but the agreement was not approved. The position that that leaves Forstaff in, is that if the dispute as to the hours of work and the changes which Forstaff needs to make remain unresolved, though it clearly would have been desirable for those matters to have been resolved in the context of a renegotiated agreement. That has not happened.

PN133

Notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of matters which are dealt with in the context of the EBA negotiations, the matter which comes back to the Commission is the original dispute in relation to the hours. Forstaff's application will be that the Commission should now proceed to determine that by way of further private arbitration, and at the appropriate time, if necessary, we can take the Commission to the provisions of the agreement which we say will permit that.

PN134

However, it does raise an issue in relation to Ms O'Neill's clients. In our submission, there is no right under the Act under which Ms O'Neill and/or her clients could be granted leave to appear and/or intervene in the proceedings. The proceedings arise out of the dispute settling procedures of the agreement. The agreement is between Forstaff and the ALAEA. The only parties, in our submission, who have a right to be heard in relation to a dispute arising under clause 25 of the agreement is Forstaff and the ALAEA.

PN135

We are asking for the dispute settlement procedure clause to be applied. That clause concerns the way in which disputes as between the parties to the agreement should be resolved. This is not a section 170LK agreement where the parties are the employees. The party is the ALAEA. Now, by virtue of the Act, the agreement is binding on the employees, but in our submission in circumstances where the proceedings arise under section 170LW, employees to whom the agreement might apply do not have a right to appear in a private arbitration: because the dispute settling procedure clause does not give them the right.

PN136

As the Commission has held on numerous occasions now, the source of the Commission's jurisdiction in a private arbitration is the terms of the dispute settling procedure, and it is clear that the dispute settling procedure provides for the parties to the agreement to resolve disputes. We say on that basis it is clearly only a matter which Forstaff and the ALAEA can be heard.

PN137

There is a further issue of concern, I think, Commissioner, which we need to draw your attention to in relation to the application. The application to appear is made by United Bargaining Pty Ltd. Ms O'Neill didn't elaborate as to the nature of that body, but as we understand it from the information that has been provided at different times to employees at the site, United Bargaining Pty Ltd is a company, the directors of whom are officials of the AMWU. That information has come from the solicitors for United Bargaining Pty Limited.

PN138

United Bargaining Pty Limited purports to be a bargaining agent for employees - I think Ms O'Neill said five, at least, employees at Avalon. The AMWU is a respondent to and a recipient of, in that sense, orders of the Commission dealing with the industrial rights of representation at Avalon. His Honour, Munro J determined a 118A application several years ago, which was brought by Forstaff, that rights of industrial representation at Avalon be given to the ALAEA, and importantly that the AMWU be excluded from having any rights of industrial representation.

PN139

The decision is Print 900044, decision of 5 January 2001. Arising out of that decision, orders were made - just bear with me one moment, representation, and I will give you the print reference to the orders.

PN140

MS O'NEILL: I have that Print to hand, funnily enough, Commissioner.

PN141

MS McKENZIE: I am sure you would.

PN142

MS O'NEILL: It is Print PR900045.

PN143

MS McKENZIE: I am indebted to Ms O'Neill. That Print reference is the actual orders of Munro J, which determined that for a period for three years, and I think the date is 5 January 2004, the ALAEA shall have the right of industrial representation to the exclusion of the AMWU.

PN144

Now, what appears to have been suggested to employees at Avalon is if they appoint United Bargaining Pty Limited as their bargaining agent, that will somehow circumvent the effects of the demarcation order, because the order was directed to the AMWU rather than to some other entity.

PN145

In our view, there is two problems with that. The first problem is that this notion of the bargaining agent really misunderstands the role or the term that that is used under the Act. It is clear from the scheme of the Act that a bargaining agent is only an agent appointed for the purposes of negotiating Australian Workplace Agreements. It does not have any other statutory role. The title. bargaining agent, does not have any industrial meaning beyond the relevant sections of the Act which refer to the making of Australian Workplace Agreements. It does not give someone who is purportedly appointed as a bargaining agent some general right of industrial representation.

PN146

The second difficulty is that it seems to us that it is a pretty transparent attempt to circumvent the clear intention and effect of the orders made by the Commission under section 118A. For that reason alone the Commission exercising its discretion should refuse leave.

PN147

So we ask the Commission to rule on the application for intervention in the first instance, before we get into the substance of the conduct. We say that leave should be refused because, (a), the persons who Ms O'Neill represents, or purports to represent, have no role to play in a dispute settling procedure, a dispute that has been brought under the dispute settlement procedure clause of a section 170LJ agreement which is between Forstaff and the union. And, secondly, the attempt to intervene, if granted, would clearly be a frustration of the clear intention of the orders of the Commission which have ruled that the AMWU has not to have rights of industrial representation of employees at Avalon.

PN148

If it please the Commission.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Norris.

PN150

MR NORRIS: Commissioner, we agree with the submissions of Forstaff in this matter. Commissioner, if I could take you to the disputes procedure - I believe it is exhibit M1, which is the Jobs Australia Aircraft Maintenance Refurbishment Avalon Site Agreement III 2001-2003.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: I have got that.

PN152

MR NORRIS: And if you could go to, I think it is page 39, in my copy it is, and it is under clause 25, disputes avoidance and settlement procedure.

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I have that.

PN154

MR NORRIS: Commissioner, if I could take you to paragraph - well, I will just walk you through that procedure, Commissioner. Effectively this disputes avoidance and settlement procedure being a 170LW procedure, is effectively between the ALAEA and Forstaff, and specifically mentions the ALAEA and Forstaff and no other party during that disputes procedure.

PN155

In particular, Commissioner, clause G which relates to the disputes, and the power - or obviously the jurisdiction that is created by the 170LW clause, and then hence the powers under the Act for the Commission to act in private arbitration, as per the High Court matter in CFMEU v Gordonstone - G says:

PN156

Any disputes in relation to the terms of this agreement shall be resolved between the ALAEA and Forstaff.

PN157

Very simple. And the wording is quite specific. It is a Division 2 agreement. It says, "Any disputes", so that pertained to all employees, and the ALAEA and Forstaff, so there is no room there whatsoever within this disputes procedure for intervention by any other party.

PN158

Can I also say, Commissioner, that it appears that United Bargaining purporting to be a bargaining agent, it may well be what they are seeking is to be a bargaining agent under section 170LK of the Act, which is effectively the AWA provisions. And I find it extraordinary that another union in Australia at this point in time, particularly the AMWU, is advocating AWAs for their members by appointing a bargaining agent to negotiate on their behalf.

PN159

Might I say, Commissioner, that it appears to us that United Bargaining Pty Limited are officials of the AMWU - the directors are officials of the AMWU. In effect, United Bargaining Pty Limited has been appointed as an agent of the AMWU to act for AMWU members. Now, obviously if that was the case, then the 118 order would exclude the AMWU, and I would imagine that any agent of the AMWU, it would exclude them as well acting on behalf of AMWU members.

PN160

Obviously, it would go to evidence, Commissioner, as to whether the five employees involved, or nominated, and we would require evidence from them anyway as to whether they were actually a member of the AMWU or not. If they were, then obviously directly the AMWU is excluded. But we say United Bargaining is excluded anyway by the nature of the disputes procedure, and by the nature of the section 118 order.

PN161

Also, Commissioner, there is no evidence before you that in effect United Bargaining is an employer of these people, to give them any status under the Act. And there is no evidence before you, Commissioner, that in effect United Bargaining is a registered organisation which would give them any status under the Act.

PN162

So it appears that either they are an agent of an organisation, or they are some unknown body that purports to have some sort of link to these people. But it appears to us that there is actually no link to these people. There is no commercial relationship, and there is no employer/employee relationship. So I cannot see how they can get any legs for intervening in this particular matter.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms O'Neill.

PN164

MS O'NEILL: Commissioner, so that there is no misunderstanding from what I have heard from the bar table, the application for intervention is made on two grounds. One, in the capacity of United Bargaining Pty Limited as agent for particular employees, and I won't dwell at length on the notions of whether - I won't address the questions that Mr Norris has raised about pursuing AWAs. That is a furphy, in our submission.

PN165

The notion of agency both within the Workplace Relations Act extends beyond AWAs, for example, to 170LK agreements, but also ignores the notion of agency at common law where persons are entitled to appoint an agent to represent them in any manner of proceedings.

PN166

Also for the avoidance of doubt, and so there is no confusion of the nomenclature of bargaining agent, the authority upon which United Bargaining Pty Limited acts is an appointment by employees of Forstaff to act as their agent, to act on their behalf, and represent them in relation to any and all matters - I will paraphrase - concerning or affecting my employment with Forstaff Australia Ltd, including but not limited to the conditions of my employment, awards or certified agreements affecting my employment.

PN167

Secondly, in response to Mr Norris' submission as to requiring evidence of whether particular employees are members of the AMWU or not, again we say, firstly, that is irrelevant, and, secondly, Mr Norris' conclusion that even if employees were members of the AMWU, that somehow that goes against the section 118 order that is in force by his Honour, Munro J, is a nonsense.

PN168

The effect of the section 118 order is to exclude at present times the capacity of the AMWU to represent the industrial interests of employees at Avalon. It in no way precludes employees choosing to become or remain members of the AMWU. But again I just say that in response, and to have that on the record, but it is irrelevant, in our submission, to the current application before you.

PN169

The application for intervention is made pursuant to section 43(1) of the Act which gives the Commission the discretion, if it is on the opinion that an organisation, a person or a body should be heard in a matter before the Commission, the Commission may grant leave to that organisation, person or body to intervene in the matter.

PN170

The employees for whom I appear are bound by the terms of the certified agreement before you. You may have noticed, Commissioner, that the certified agreement in question, the Jobs Australia Aircraft Maintenance and Refurbishment Avalon Site Agreement III 2001-2003, at clause 2, Parties Bound, clearly provides that the agreement is binding on the ALAEA, Forstaff, and all Forstaff employees engaged in or in connection with aircraft maintenance refurbishment at Avalon Airport in Victoria.

PN171

It would, in our submission, be appropriate for the Commission to hear from employees who will be directly affected by the proceedings before you in circumstances where they are not comfortable that their interests will be clearly represented by the parties today, and that is the basis upon which they are seeking the representation by myself and United Bargaining Pty Limited.

PN172

So as a matter of natural justice, Commissioner, we say it is appropriate for those persons to be heard by the Commission. Clearly, if the application for intervention is granted, the weight upon which any material is put is a matter for the Commission, based on all the material before it. But it is clearly appropriate that these people be heard, and have the opportunity to have their views put before the Commission to be taken into account in its deliberations.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: How do you say you overcome the reference that Mr Norris has made to the dispute settling procedure, in particular, sub-clause 25(g)? Because it would appear there, there is no reference to employees as such: it simply says that any disputes in relation to the terms of the agreement shall be resolved between the ALAEA and Forstaff, full stop. And that is the application that I have got before me.

PN174

MS O'NEILL: It is,m Commissioner, but that doesn't override your discretion and the power in section 43(1) of the Act that I referred you to. It is a question of discretion. We don't resile from that. Given that it is a section 170LJ agreement, it is not surprising in that sense that the parties to the agreement would in the normal course of events be the persons that would seek to have these matters brought before the Commission.

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: The application is made under section 170LW.

PN176

MS O'NEILL: It is, Commissioner. There is no quarrel with that. But that doesn't - it is an open question, and it is available to the Commission, in our submission, for the Commission to deal with that private arbitration in the manner - by the terms conferred by the agreement, clearly, but in a manner that is deemed appropriate by the Commission, including if the Commission so considers it relevant and appropriate to hear from persons who will be directly affected by the outcome of that proceeding.

PN177

It may be, and I say this on the run, so to speak, given the short amount of time I have had to consider this question, but in light of the freedom of association provisions of the Act, for example, there may be an argument that the Commission should not afford exclusive representation to a particular organisation, albeit one that is party to the agreement.

PN178

THE COMMISSIONER: You are stretching a long bow now.

PN179

MS O'NEILL: I accept that it is on the run, Commissioner, but I just raise that. You will be aware that in most disputes procedures in the past there has been a practice where disputes can be raised and generated only by one or other registered organisation, and that is a practice that in general has not continued, as I understand it, largely because of issues about precluding employees from not being able to have representation of their choice.

PN180

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Anything further?

PN181

MR NORRIS: There is just one other additional point of law that Ms O'Neill raised: that is in regard to the question the Commission asked in regard to 25G. Commissioner, there was recently a decision of Deputy President Lawler in regard to the private arbitration distinction between jurisdiction and power. I have not got the citation with me. It was a very recent decision.

PN182

Effectively, what Deputy President Lawler is saying is that the jurisdiction for the Commission in regard to these matters is created actually by the disputes procedure under 170LW. The powers then cascade from that. So quite clearly jurisdiction has to be established first, and we say quite clearly the jurisdiction is restricted by G. We say that it is a definitive restriction on the powers of the Commission to deal with anyone else except the ALAEA and Forstaff in the matter of this agreement, and the resolution of disputes under this agreement.

PN183

THE COMMISSIONER: Nothing further?

PN184

MS McKENZIE: Only if I may, Commissioner, in relation to one point, and I think it follows on from what Mr Norris said. Of course in exercising the private arbitration power to resolve the dispute the Commission has a discretion as to how that dispute should be resolved. It would be within the Commission's discretion, for example, to decide in the course of resolving the dispute that it would be appropriate perhaps to obtain the views of employees or other persons. That would be within its discretion.

PN185

That is, though, in our submission, a very different situation from granting leave for employees to be parties to the proceedings, and to be represented and to put views to you in the course of the conduct, and have the same rights as parties as Forstaff and the ALAEA has. We see that that is the significant distinction.

PN186

Secondly, I did refer to the information that Forstaff had in relation to United Bargaining Pty Limited, and I referred to advice which had come from the AMWUs solicitors. I thought it might be appropriate perhaps to hand up a letter which we understand was provided and distributed fairly widely to employees at Avalon in the last week, or so.

PN187

It is a letter which is addressed to Mr Kemp, but on my instructions this letter was distributed to many, if not all of the employees at Forstaff. Just in relation to that letter, can we draw the Commission's attention to the heading. It says:

PN188

The AMWU at Forstaff -

PN189

and it goes on, in effect, inviting employees to appoint United Bargaining Pty Limited as a bargaining agent. And it says:

PN190

The directors of United Bargaining Pty Limited are officials of the AMWU.

PN191

But it is a different legal entity, and therefore, you know, it somehow escapes the net of the 118A order. It then says that there are different types of agreements. So it clearly invites employees to appoint United Bargaining Pty Limited as an agent to carry out some role of industrial representation. It is very clearly the AMWU, and the AMWU is very clearly attempting to exercise rights of industrial representation for employees at Forstaff, as evidenced by them seeking leave to intervene in these proceedings.

PN192

If it is not exercising rights of industrial representation, I don't know what else it could be. And it is fair and square caught by the 118 order. It is the thing that the Commission has determined it shall not do. For that reason alone, leaving aside the very persuasive arguments we say arise in relation to the wording of the dispute settlement procedure, the Commission should not exercise its discretion to allow it to intervene in these proceedings. If it please the Commission.

PN193

THE COMMISSIONER: I will mark that document as an exhibit.

EXHIBIT #F5 LETTER ADDRESSED TO MR KEMP

PN194

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. If there is nothing further. I do not propose to grant leave to intervene in these proceedings. I am persuaded by the terms of the dispute settling procedure that is contained in the Jobs Australia Aircraft Maintenance and Refurbishment Avalon Site Agreement III 2001-2003, that subclause 25(g), which reads:

PN195

Any disputes in relation to the terms of this agreement shall be resolved between the ALAEA and Forstaff. Any unresolved disputes may be referred by either party to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to be resolved in accordance with the terms of this clause.

PN196

That subclause is persuasive, in my view, that this being an application made pursuant to section 170LW is a matter that can only be represented by the ALAEA and Forstaff.

PN197

Your application is denied, Ms O'Neill.

PN198

[10.37am]

PN199

Yes, Ms McKenzie.

PN200

MS McKENZIE: Thank you, Commissioner. It might be appropriate, given that this matter has got some history, and given that the Commission is familiar with some of the background, it might be appropriate to go into private conference at this stage to discuss matters further, and then if necessary the parties can go on the record at the conclusion of the conference.

PN201

THE COMMISSIONER: What is your view about that, Mr Norris?

PN202

MR NORRIS: Yes, we agree, Commissioner.

PN203

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. We will adjourn these proceedings into conference.

SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.37am]

RESUMED [11.14 am]

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: I have chaired a conference involving both the ALAEA and Forstaff representatives in relation to the issues surrounding the negotiations for a new enterprise agreement. I have been informed that whilst agreement had been reached between the negotiating parties on the terms of the new agreement, that agreement was rejected by a small majority of people at the Avalon site.

PN205

Having heard from both parties in conference, it is my recommendation that some further discussions take place between the negotiating parties, certainly on the question of hours and the way it is intended for work to be conducted at the Avalon site, but also to give further considerations to other elements of the agreement which the union certainly has indicated to the Commission in their view might be improved.

PN206

Those discussions should take place as soon as practicable, but certainly before 8 September, with a view to putting a new proposal, or an amended proposed agreement, to a ballot of those employees who would be covered by the terms of the proposed agreement.

PN207

Representation was made by representatives of non-union personnel, and the Commission has indicated to those persons that any explanations or proposed amendments to the agreement will be provided to them as well as union members.

PN208

In the event that the agreement is rejected a second time, the Commission has also recommended to the parties that the issue surrounding the hours question which would affect more flexible shift patterns which Forstaff and Qantas desire, that the Commission would be prepared to arbitrate that issue on Wednesday 1 October at 10 am.

PN209

Should that arbitration be necessary, I would require Forstaff to provide an outline of submissions, any witness statements upon which they would rely, and case references which they see relevant, to be made available to the ALAEA and to the Commission by close of business, 12 September. In reply I would also require the ALAEA to provide an outline of submissions, witness statements, case references, to Forstaff and the Commission by close of business, 22 September.

PN210

In the event there was a need for Forstaff to put a final reply, again I would require that reply to be made available to the ALAEA and the Commission by close of business, 26 September.

PN211

I strongly recommend that the parties do what they can to negotiate an acceptable agreement, and that the conduct of the ballot ultimately would be such to have people fully informed of the contents of the proposed new agreement.

PN212

I will adjourn these proceedings at this time - I am sorry?

PN213

MS McKENZIE: I am sorry, Commissioner, just before you adjourn can I put one further thing on the record?

PN214

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN215

MS McKENZIE: Just so that there is no misunderstanding in relation to the subject matter of the arbitration. In the event that the agreement is not approved on the second occasion, the shift arrangements which Forstaff will be proposing be the subject of the arbitration are the arrangements which currently are reflected in the Qantas LAME Award. So that there is no misunderstanding that we will just go and arbitrate the clause that we are trying to get into the agreement, what we have proposed in the agreement at the moment is significantly more beneficial, we think, to the employees and less beneficial to Forstaff than the arrangements which apply at Qantas.

PN216

If we cannot reach agreement in the context of our EBA, we will be pursuing the arrangements which are reflected in the Qantas LAME Award, just so that is very clear and on the record.

PN217

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Ms McKenzie. It is important that that issue be clarified, Mr Norris.

PN218

MR NORRIS: Commissioner, just a matter of expediting this matter, would it be appropriate for me to have the transcript as soon as possible?

PN219

THE COMMISSIONER: I will make some arrangements in relation to that.

PN220

MR NORRIS: Yes. It is important that we probably need to communicate to the workforce the Commission's words.

PN221

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, I will endeavour to make some arrangements with the reporting staff in relation to that. On that basis, I will simply adjourn these proceedings, and take it that I will hear from the parties in due course.

ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY, 1 OCTOBER 2003 [11.22am]

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #F5 LETTER ADDRESSED TO MR KEMP PN194