Epiq logo Fair Work Commission logo






Fair Work Act 2009                                                    








s.604 - Appeal of decisions


Appeal by Piefke





11.30 AM, TUESDAY, 5 JULY 2022


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Good morning, it's Deputy President Masson.  The Full Bench today is composed of myself as presiding member, Commissioner Hampton and Commissioner Wilson.  I'll start by taking appearances please.  Mr Piefke, can you hear me?


MR J PIEFKE:  Affirmative, sir.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Thank you, the respondent?


MS L DIXON:  Good morning, Deputy President, my name is Dixon D-i-x-o-n, initial L.  I'm a solicitor with MinterEllison, representing the respondents.  With me I have Ms Hamburger who is a solicitor from my office, Ms Foster who is a vacation client and Mr Quinn who is a representative from the respondent, Rio Tinto.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, well I note that we've received an application for the respondent to be legally represented in today's proceedings pursuant to section 596(2).  We don't propose to deal with that application unless and until we've heard from the appellant and have determined that it will be necessary to hear from the respondent.  Should we decide that it's necessary to hear from the respondent, we'll then deal with submission to appear at that point.  You can however remain in the proceeding and should you be called on to make submissions, we will deal with permission to appear then.  Okay, Ms Dixon?


MS DIXON:  Thank you, Deputy President.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, now before I invite Mr Piefke to make oral submissions, I propose to make some opening remarks about the matter.  The first point I would make is that the appeal listed for permission to appeal only at this stage.  Should permission for appeal be granted, the matter will then be set down for hearing of the appeal.  In order for permission to appeal be granted, it is necessary that the appellant demonstrates appellable error in the decision that is under appeal, and/or that it is in the public interest that permission to appeal be granted.


Now, this is an appeal of a decision of Commissioner McKinnon which was issued on 12 May 2022, the reference being [2022] FWC 1138.  Now, in that decision, Commissioner McKinnon dismissed the appellant's application for orders that he was seeking in relation to alleged bullying and/or sexual harassment.  That application was dismissed by the Commissioner pursuant to section 587 of the Act.  The basis of that decision being that there were no reasonable prospects of success, as Mr Piefke was not a worker with Rio Tinto and there was a not a risk that he would continue to be bullied as a worker, in the business of Rio Tinto.  That was the decision of the Commissioner and the basis of her dismissal of the application, was that there were no reasonable grounds of success.


Now, directions were issued in relation to this matter on 16 June which invited or required the appellant file submissions on or by the close of business on 30 June.  Now, it appears to the Bench that whilst no formal submissions have been filed, Mr Piefke has filed a volume of material in various emails since the directions were issued.  We discerned from those emails a number of matters which I will come to.


In preparing for this appeal, the Full Bench has had the benefit of reviewing the material that was before Commissioner McKinnon, her decision.  We've also had the benefit of reviewing the material that has been filed in various emails by Mr Piefke prior to today's hearing.  I just want to make a few comments about that material.  It's not apparent to us, from reviewing that material on its face, what the grounds of appeal are.  We do however, discern, that the appellant is aggrieved at alleged historic incidents and his treatment by his former employer Rio Tinto and more recently, we discern that he is aggrieved by a decision of Rio Tinto that he not be allowed access to any Rio Tinto site.  We understand that to be the core grievances that Mr Piefke has.


As I say, we've reviewed the material filed since the directions were issued and the material before Commissioner McKinnon.  Now, Mr Piefke, you may supplement the written material that you have referred to variously in those emails, and in a large volume of material that was before Commissioner McKinnon.  In doing so, I would however ask you to focus any oral submissions you wish to make on the decision of Commissioner McKinnon that is under appeal and identify why the Commissioner was in error in dismissing your application.  Or why it would be in the public interest for permission to appeal to be granted.


Today is not the day to ventilate the merits of your complaints that you may have with your treatment or alleged treatment by Rio Tinto.  The focus of today's proceeding is whether the Commissioner's decision to dismiss your application was in error.  So, I'd ask you to focus on that in any oral submissions you wish to make to supplement your written material.  Is that clear, Mr Piefke.


MR J PIEFKE:  Very clear sir.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Thank you.  You may now proceed.


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, I'll pass over to my wife and let her go to how she's been.


MS PIEFKE:  Yes, but – good morning, everybody, but what I would like to say that in the quantum report which is – are you aware of the quantum reports?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, we are aware of the quantum report, but I just as you again to recall what I said, and that is the decision of Commissioner McKinnon is under appeal, not the correctness or otherwise of the quantum report.  But please proceed.


MS PIEFKE:  To start with it says that you guys were saying that Jeffrey worked for Rio Tinto.  Now, in the investigation report line one introduction it says, 'The insured is Alcan Gove Pty Ltd', so it say Jeff wasn't employed by Rio Tinto, he was actually insured by Alcan Gove and we don't even know who Alcan Gove is.




MS PIEFKE:  And that's on there, and now another thing about – on our deed that we had to sign that Jeffrey was well, he signed because he was under pressure at the time.  But actually, I'm asking everybody around the table, is it correct to destroy evidence?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Well, this is not a hearing where parties are asked to answer questions.  If you wish to make a submission, you may do so.  But I understand the submission to be to the effect that you contend that evidence was destroyed, that's your submission.


MS PIEFKE:  Well, Rio Tinto has in the deed – Jeff was stood down by being told – stood down on a day that had nothing to do with the sexual harassment that happened to Jeff.  That actually happened 18 months prior to when he was stood down, so he was - - -


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, we understand the history of the events that appears to have started with the incident in July 2017.  The Bench is aware that Mr Piefke was subsequently stood down, I believe in May 2018.  We are aware that there was an investigation and we're aware of the contents of the quantum report.


MS PIEFKE:  Right.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  That is all before the Bench. What we're interested in is the decision of Commissioner McKinnon to dismiss the application, why that was in error.  Why her decision was in error.


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, I'll step in now, that was my wife's – my perceive is, is that as submitted is the Waterfall Agile Safety Systems, right.  Now, duty of care under (indistinct) all section 12, if you have look.  It's my god given right to protect the community and the people within the heavy industry.  Now, my certificate at the Fairfax WorkSafe where the employer, whoever they were, Pacific Aluminium, whoever's shirt they want to wear on their back, like that.  Now, they lied and misled WorkSafe by – the quantum report wasn't even submitted to WorkSafe and that was the foundation of the investigation.  I didn't get that quantum report till after the deed was signed.


Now, anyway, that's a fact.  Now, I'm coming back to Critical Risk Management Systems, Waterfall Agile Safety Systems, which is the company's insurance to protect life.  Now, it's in colour and high definition I was trained and under my licence to operate, the foundation for - - -


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Mr Piefke, can I just stop you there.  Sorry, I understand from reviewing the material that you had concerns about the safety of the vessel on which you were then engaged, that being the BARU, I believe.  Hang on, hang on, just – please, just wait.  So, we understand that history.  Are you saying that there are a series of unresolved matters relating to that and therefore it's in the public interest for those issues to be ventilated in a proceeding?  Is that what you are contending?


MR J PIEFKE:  Yes.  This is - - -


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Sorry, sorry Mr Piefke, I don't need to hear, the Bench doesn't need to hear the details of the merits of your argument, all we need to determine is whether it would be in the public interest for the appeal to be determined in your favour, right.  The Bench understands that you say it would be in the public interest because there are safety matters relating to your previous employment with Rio Tinto that should be heard.  Is that what you say?


MR J PIEFKE:  Affirmative.  It's a scientific fact.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, so the public interest you say is related to those safety issues that you had raised.


MR J PIEFKE:  Yes, you don't shoot the messenger.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, I see, all right.  I think the Bench understands that from reading the material.  Are there any other grounds on which you say either there is error on part of the Commissioner, or are there any other public interest grounds on which permission to appeal should be granted?


MR J PIEFKE:  It falls under my jurisdiction, under my duty of care under section 12 and my licence to operate.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Section 12, is that – which piece of legislation is that, Mr Piefke?


MR J PIEFKE:  It's against the law.  They all occur under the Fair Work Act, and it falls under the Health & Safety Act.




MR J PIEFKE:  It's the sub (indistinct) base, the base line (indistinct).  What it is Commissioner, in layman's terms is, it's knowing before (indistinct) and it protects you from getting hurt, or catastrophic which is the submission, you've got a catastrophic (indistinct) it's global.  Now, work comes into money.  It's not about money, right.


MS PIEFKE:  We want to be compensated.


MR J PIEFKE:  Paula please, it's about safety.  It's about money.  In the submissions, it's got to say Rio Tinto tendered $20 million because of what happened on the Apollo, it exploded.  Now, coming back to safety, well I had these concerns, that's part of my duty of care.  We can't just drive home and go home to your kid, because you're at sea; you can't jump over the side.  You expect a lawyer to throw you a life ring.  It's front-line safety.  So, the Waterfall Agile Safety System is the fabric and the foundation of safety because you can go to work consciously knowing you can go home and consciously go back to work knowing that you're in a dangerous situation before mankind even knows what's going on.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, the Bench is conscious of the history to this matter, having read the material and that there were concerns you held in relation to the reliability – I think it was the thrusters on the vessel and that was an issue that you had raised with your employer and was not resolved to your satisfaction.  I understand that, and I think my colleagues understand.


MR J PIEFKE:  But they hid it, they suppressed it from WorkSafe and the authorities from the people in their tests.  Now, coming back to the harassment now.  We're cutting forth, we'll head down to the section on harassment situation under the Fair Work Act and it says, should be going to the Sex Discrimination Commission.  It doesn't matter, you don't destroy evidence, is one, and if that was me, and if I'd done that to you or done that to Mrs Hamburger, I'd be thrown over the side with no life raft.  You just don't do that.  And I protected – I don't hurt kids.  This is about kids.  I do not hurt kids.  I didn't say a word for 11 months and they didn't know what I had there, the fun boy Jeff.  I'm finished in the industry.  Here's Jeff the bum boy.  Paula Paula please!


Now, I didn't submit anything cause I protect kids and families.  I didn't want to destroy his life.  Well, here he is, I'm trying to protect his life using technologies that I was provided under critical mismanagement systems.  I was trained and brain-washed for Pete's sake.  But when you do that, hide it from WorkSafe and answering health problem within themselves, cause Mr McDonald and Mr Murray and Ms Aronbeen, decided to hold it – put it in their top draw and hide it from everybody.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Mr Piefke, can you just ask your wife to not to interrupt, please.


MR J PIEFKE:  Park it up please.


MS PIEFKE:  Sorry.


MR J PIEFKE:  Now, the information you need is how did Mr Piefke come across such sensitive information that I put in (indistinct).  Now, Mrs Hamburger in Ms McKinnon's hearing started blabbing on, or started opening her lips explaining why it was sanctioned.  I want to know whose conversation before (indistinct) with her, and how I got hold of that information and ask Commissioner Williams what happened to it, please Mrs Hamburger, respond.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Ms Hamburger is not here to be cross-examined, all right.


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, it's been reported that she said I was sanctioned because of a third party.  Was that the third party (indistinct) up here or is that the third party I'm trying to protect?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Again, I just want to remind you we're not here to traverse all of the history of this application, the rights and wrongs, all we're here to traverse is why Commissioner McKinnon was in error in dismissing your application, that's the focus of this appeal.


MR J PIEFKE:  Yes, well, that comes to Waterfall Agile Safety Systems and the unawareness of safety at the frontline operations.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, okay, so just so I understand your submission.  Your submission is that the Commissioner was in error in dismissing your application by reason of you say, failure to have regard to important safety information, is that correct?




DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Is there anything else you say the Commissioner was in error?


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, you know it's a question of safety, it's a knowledge-sharing training exercise and my wife's more distraught about sex.  Anyway, I'm here about the kids and life and making sure that kids go to work and the Commissioner does her bit behind the (indistinct) and they lie about it and then destroy the evidence and say it didn't happen.  Cause I wouldn't do it to anybody.  They're lucky I didn't – this is our story, the minute the (indistinct) was telephone call I was on the phone to, bending down, talking to my wife while she was getting Ruby to hospital to get her gastric sleeve removed and a full bypass.  She was in tears and crying when he come up behind me and started dry-humping me like I'm a dog.  Now, that should go to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.  Doesn't matter when it happened.  They destroyed the evidence and hide it and say it didn't happen.  The dog come along and get Mr Quinn to dish up the trainee and teach you all about sexual harassment.  That's what my wife, and I'm hurt.  But it's not about that, it's about - - -


MS PIEFKE:  You being emasculated.


MR J PIEFKE:  Critical risk, safety management systems that falls under duty of care, section 12(f) of the law.  Why would you hide it from WorkSafe and hide the quantum report?  You read the quantum report, then lie and said that I didn't want to investigate.  He's lying through his teeth.  I've got rotten teeth that I have to lie – I don't lie, but he's saying that I didn't want it investigated and that it was all – let's sweep it under the carpet Jeff.


But anyway, it's all there in fact.  I don't have to say anything, but Waterfall Agile Safety Systems are there, you don't shoot the messenger.  Hang on, I'm trying to protect life here and it's next generation safety system.  So, you don't need any Commissioners, you don't need anything because you stick to employees' insurance parameters and there was five parameters broken and they want to put 200 (indistinct) and six (indistinct) and 30 knots.  I think this is omitted from the Freedom of Information Act.  Who does that?  Where you've got a health investment next to it, and then they put the same propeller back on and send it back and didn't fix it.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  I see, all right.  I understand from reviewing the material that there are a number of safety concerns you held that you were not satisfied were addressed.  At this stage – are there any other further points you wish to make, Mr Piefke?


MR J PIEFKE:  No, that's it, to be honest.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Yes, we've reviewed the material.  I'll just turn to my colleagues.  Commissioners, is there any questions you have for Mr Piefke at this point?


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Yes, Mr Piefke, it's Commissioner Hampton here.


MR J PIEFKE:  Is that Hatcher of Hamper?




MR J PIEFKE:  Is that how it's spelt – is that Hatchet?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  No, it's Commissioner Hampton.




MR J PIEFKE:  Sorry sir, I'm just confused with who I work for, what I work for, who I'm trying to protect and I know that I work for people and you don't.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Are you right now?


MR J PIEFKE:  It's just my mental health.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Just perhaps take a deep breath and listen, because believe it or not, I'm actually going to try and help you here.  It's just helpful if we focus on the actual central issue in the appeal.  So, look, as a marine engineer, you'll understand that there are due processes to follow.


MR J PIEFKE:  I've been there and it's cool.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Of course, and I understand, I take on face value your commitment to safety.  So, you understand that involves due processes, people doing what they should do and following appropriate procedure.


MR J PIEFKE:  I only follow the intelligence that I was gifted.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Okay, well, okay.  Well, the Fair Work Commission also has to follow appropriate processes and procedures including it is only able to do what the Parliament has given it the scope to do.  In other words, to deal with - - -


MR J PIEFKE:  That's right, the Health & Safety Act right, the primary principle of Health & Safety Act is to go to work healthy an be safe.  Then the Fair Work Commission stepped in to make sure that you do show up healthy and safe and you're treated appropriately.  Well, none of that's happened, as submitted.  It's the foundation of


safety, isn't it?


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  You appreciate that this is not an application under the Work Health & Safety Act; it's not an application under the main Safety Act, it's not an application to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.  This is an application to the Fair Work Commission.


MR J PIEFKE:  It doesn't say that in the Fair Work Act.


MS PIEFKE:  Listen.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Well, look if you don't want me to help you focus on something that might assist you there, I won't bother.


MR J PIEFKE:  I'm sorry.


MS PIEFKE:  He's here to help you.  Listen to him.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  So, you appreciate that there are – I'm trying to explain that there are parameters within which the Commission must operate.  We're not a court; we're a statutory tribunal, you understand that from the Fair Work Act.  So, what we can do is in the Fair Work Act.  When it comes to the stop bullying and stop sexual harassment jurisdiction, we don't have a general power to just deal with all sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace.  We can only deal with applications that meet certain requirements.  There are certain pre-requisites, certain scope.


Now, you've heard the term jurisdiction, the word jurisdiction is used in different context and used in different way, but the way it's being used here is that the appeal is about the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with your stop bullying, stop sexual harassment application.


MR J PIEFKE:  It is in the public interest, yes.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Well, it's not about whether you were bullied or sexually harassed, that's a second question.  The decision under appeal dealt with what I've described as jurisdiction.  That is the parameters or scope within which the Commission can operate in dealing with an application such as the one that you've brought.  There are various requirements that define the scope.  One of those is that in order for the Commission to deal with the application and make an order, it must be satisfied that there is a risk of further bullying and harassment of you as an applicant, by the individuals who you alleged bullied or sexually harassed you in the first place.


MR J PIEFKE:  Thank you.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  In practical terms, that means you must be in the workplace, or there must be a reasonable opportunity, risk that you will be in the workplace dealing with those individuals.  That's one of the parameters within which the Commission must operate.  Now, you might find that frustrating, we might find that frustrating but that's the law and that's the parameter we need to work in.  So, you appreciate that what the Commissioner did is decided that there is no risk that you were going to be in the same workplace working with the individuals who you claim had bullied you and sexually harassed you.  So, and therefore there was no risk that you'd be bullied or sexually harassed at least relevant to the application.  That's the basis upon which she decided to dismiss your application.


MR J PIEFKE:  It's got nothing to do with Commissioner McKinnon, this is – that's just a (indistinct) job.  We're dealing with that principle.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Well, yes, but I'm trying to explain that it is about the decision of Commissioner McKinnon and it is about that part of the scope of the capacity of the Commission to deal with the Fair Work Act.  So, if you say that's not wrong, then obviously that's a problem.  But if you say that that finding is an error, you need to tell us why, because at the moment, you've had advanced anything that would help us to say that was wrong.


MR J PIEFKE:  The Fair Work Act, I don't know who I work for, who I was working for, but lied about it and misinformed the Commission, misinformed WorkSafe and misinformed – destroyed evidence.  They do what they like.  Are they Alcan, Rio or Pacific Aluminium?  I've got an unsigned contract here.  So, the fabric starts for me trying to protect my life.


Now, if you don't understand Waterfall Agile Safety Systems, and this concept of (indistinct), this washes away everybody's thought patterns or decision or anything, because it's factual.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  Well, no, it's about – is there a context within which you are likely to be working again with the individuals you've named in your application?


MR J PIEFKE:  No, because I've been sanctioned.  I want to know why.




MR J PIEFKE:  They've sanctioned me.  You want me to tell you why I was sanctioned?  Because me, trying to protect a life.  Paula, can you please pipe it.  I want to know why I was sanctioned all of a sudden.  I've given this company my whole life and all they've done was protect their assets and their people and their industry to be told that I can't work for Rio Tinto and sexually harassed and dry humped and hid it and suppressed and destroyed evidence from the foundation of the law.


COMMISSIONER HAMPTON:  I understand, thanks very much.




MR J PIEFKE:  No, can I please, can I please submit one last thing.  This is in the interests to make sure your kids go to work safely and come home safely and make sure they don't go to work and get dry humped by the supervisors.  It's in the interests of all our kids.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, thanks Mr Piefke.  Commissioner Wilson, did you have any questions you wished to ask?


COMMISSIONER WILSON:  No, I don't, Deputy President.


MR J PIEFKE:  Commissioner Williams?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  That's Commissioner Wilson.


MR J PIEFKE:  Wilcock.  Can I please see him, so I can see what he looks like?


COMMISSIONER WILSON:  I'm here, my name is Wilson, W-I-L-S-O-N.


MR J PIEFKE:  Sorry, sir.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All the members are visible on the screen, Mr Piefke.


MR J PIEFKE:  I saw that last at the end.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, thank you.  Well, thank you Mr Piefke for those submissions.  In the circumstances, we will not need to hear from the respondent.  We will adjourn the proceedings today and then we will consider the material that's been filed along with the oral submissions and render a decision in due course, which will be sent to the parties.  Is there anything else you wish to say before the proceeding is concluded, Mr Piefke?


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, basically the sexual harassment side is – the behaviour is just disgusting.  The second one is on the (indistinct) information, I've been to the Federal Court, and Judge Gleeson highlighted that I was systemically bullied.


MS PIEFKE:  Let him bend over and dry hump you.


MR J PIEFKE:  Did I do that?  Anyway, then I went to either the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission.  I didn't have the (indistinct) to be heard, right.  Now I've been invited by the Fair Work Act 1982, right in the submissions, I submitted on behalf of Rio Tinto trying to protect their people.  Now, I could have went back in the Federal Court cause I was invited to, but I want the rest of the documents that Rio Tinto of Pacific Aluminium whatever shirt they want to wear, will not download or give me a decision on the rest of the documents.  I have submitted (indistinct) documents that I have received already, but I'm waiting on the last documents and the document says, from (indistinct) we're operating to be very manufacturers, parameters and insurances.


Well, it was in effect the heavenly gods in Dampier that I logged on and - - -


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Mr Piefke, you're straying again into the merits of your grievances relating to what may have occurred some years ago.  That doesn't assist the Bench identify on what basis your appeal should be granted permission to appeal.  So, just a second.  The Bench understands you feel passionately about what happened.


MR J PIEFKE:  It was a lie; it was a lie.  Lie.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  If you could just wait until I finish speaking, thank you.  The Bench understands the passion with which you hold in relation to these matters but that doesn't identify for the Bench's benefit where there is error in the Commissioner's decision as Commissioner Hampton attempted to explain to you.  Now, I've invited you to make any further submissions that go to that point where error or public interest is highlighted in the Commission's decision.


MR J PIEFKE:  Well, it seems like nobody understands what Waterfall Agile Safety Systems is.  Safety systems to make sure that people are going to be safe to come home, and that is in the public interest.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  We've heard that submission now.  Thank you.  Is there anything else.


MR J PIEFKE:  What you have heard has been submitted.  I'm just the messenger, mate.  I'm not going to railroaded and sexually dry humped for try and help people.




MR J PIEFKE:  The (indistinct) would stop.  Sorry Rio, or Pacific Aluminium or Alcan Aluminium, whoever's shirt you want to put on today.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right, thank you Mr Piefke.


MR J PIEFKE:  Who I worked for, who did I work for, they lied to you.  And they got away with it.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  Thank you Mr Piefke, I think we've now concluded hearing from you in relation to your oral submissions.  As I said earlier, it won't be necessary for the respondent to advance any submissions and on that basis the Full Bench now intends to adjourn the proceedings and it will reserve its decision and issue in due course.  Thank you.


MR J PIEFKE:  Can I please say on a final note, please understand Waterfall Agile Safety System.  Next generation safety system.  Until you understand the fundamental base line and its primary function in protecting life, well we're all falling short here.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON:  All right.  Thank you, Mr Piefke, that submission has been noted.  Thank you.  The matter is now adjourned.

ADJOURNED INDEFINITELY                                                          [12.06 PM]