Re Maryborough/Hervey Bay Friendly Society Chemists Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority
[2008] AATA 932
•20 October 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 932
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/6334
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re MARYBOROUGH/HERVEY BAY FRIENDLY SOCIETY CHEMISTS LTD Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President P E Hack SC; Mr RG Kenny, Member Date20 October 2008
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal:
(a) sets aside the decision under review;
(b) substitutes a decision to recommend to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing that approval be granted of the premises at Shop 12 Chancellor Park Shopping Centre, Scholars’ Way, Chancellor Park, Queensland...............Signed..............
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES – pharmaceutical benefits - application for approval for relocation of a pharmacy – definition of “catchment area” – whether required population levels are met – whether required population growth rates are met – relevant date for assessments of population and growth rates - whether more than one pharmacy in catchment area – relevant statutory requirements met - decision under review set aside
National Health Act 1953 – ss 90(1), (3A), (3B), 99L(1), 99K(2)
National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 – ss 9, 10
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 82 ALJR 1147
Re Hargreaves and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2) (1995) 41 ALD 147
Re Fraser Coast Pharmacy Pty Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2007] AATA 1472
Re Uzuncakmak and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2008] AATA 472Strutt v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Ors (2006) 92 ALD 608
REASONS FOR DECISION
20 October 2008 Deputy President P E Hack SC; Mr RG Kenny, Member Introduction
1.The applicant, Maryborough/Hervey Bay Friendly Society Chemists Ltd (Chemists), operates a pharmacy at “approved premises” at 80-82 Blackall Terrace, Nambour, Queensland. On 11 September 2007, Chemists made application for relocation of the approval premises to new premises at Shop 12 Chancellor Park Shopping Centre, Scholars’ Way, Chancellor Park, Queensland (the proposed premises).
2.The application by Chemists was considered by the respondent, the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (the Authority). The Authority was not satisfied that the application met the statutory criteria and determined to recommend to the Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing that approval not be given to the proposed premises. The solicitors for Chemists were notified of that decision by letter dated 29 November 2007.
3.Chemists seeks a review of that decision.
The statutory setting
4.The legislation in issue is the National Health Act 1953 (the Act). It does not operate by controlling directly where pharmacies may be located but it has that effect by regulating the premises from which pharmaceutical benefits[1] may be supplied. By virtue of s 90(1) of the Act, the Secretary may approve a pharmacist for the purpose of supplying pharmaceutical benefits at or from particular premises. An application for such approval is required by s 90(3A) of the Act to be referred to the Authority.
[1]The Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to pharmaceutical benefits by virtue of s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution.
5.The task of the Authority is to consider applications made under s 90 and to make a recommendation to the Secretary whether or not approval should be given in respect of the particular premises. The Secretary is not bound by a favourable recommendation but may not grant approval without one[2].
[2] See s 90(3B) of the Act.
6.The Minister for Health and Ageing must determine rules governing the Authority’s recommendation power[3] and the Authority (and thus the Tribunal in its stead) must comply with the rules determined by the Minister[4]. The rules governing the recommendation power are contained in the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 (the Determination).
[3] See s 99L(1) of the Act.
[4] See s 99K(2) of the Act.
7.Section 9 of the Determination requires the Authority to recommend approval under s 90 of the Act if relevant criteria specified in Schedule 1 to the Determination are satisfied. It is accepted that the nature of the present application is such that Item 108 in Schedule 1 is relevant. The requirements of that Item are these:
“1. The proposed premises are not in a rural locality.
2. Either:
(a) the proposed premises are at least 500 m, in a straight line, from the nearest approved premises; or
(b) the proposed premises are within 500 m, in a straight line, from the nearest approved premises, and:
(i) the Authority is satisfied that there is a genuine barrier to access between the proposed premises and each approved premises that is within 500 m, in a straight line, of the proposed premises; and
(ii) the proposed premises are at least 500 m, by the shortest lawful access route, from each approved premises that is within 500 m, in a straight line, of the proposed premises.
3. The Authority is satisfied that:
(a)the resident population of the catchment area for the proposed premises:
(i) is, for most of the year, at least 8 000; and
(ii) has grown at least 5% in each of the 2 years before the date the application is made; and
(b) the catchment area for the proposed premises contains 1 approved premises.”
8.The Authority accepts that the matters in paragraphs 1 and 2 are satisfied. The matters in paragraph 3(a) and (b) are the focus of the contest in these proceedings. Thus what needs to be determined is the “catchment area” for the proposed premises, the population of the catchment area, the rates of population growth and whether that catchment area contains one approved premises. We also observe that the Authority’s submissions concede that if we were to accept that the catchment area was as contended by Chemists then that catchment area contains only one approved premises thus satisfying paragraph 3(b).
9.Subparagraph 3(a)(ii) expressly requires that that the growth be assessed in the two years before the date of the application. In this case, this was 11 September 2007. However that qualification does not apply to the requirements in subparagraph 3(a)(i) and paragraph 3(b). For those matters, the assessment is to be made as at the date of the Tribunal’s decision[5].
[5]See Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 82 ALJR 1147.
What is a catchment area?
10.The first task is to determine what is meant by the expression “catchment area” in paragraph 3(a) of Item 108. The term is not defined in either the Act or the Determination. The term, as used in an earlier version of the Determination, was considered by Deputy President Forgie in Re Hargreaves and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 2)[6]. At paragraph [101] the Deputy President held that the words ought be accorded their ordinary dictionary meaning and that the catchment area ought be regarded as being “that area from which people may flow or gravitate to the pharmacy”.
[6] (1995) 41 ALD 147 at 169, [101].
11.Deputy President Forgie then expanded upon the matters involved in determining the catchment area in the following terms[7]:
“A catchment area, by way of contrast [to a market], is concerned with the area populated by those who may come to the pharmacy. In determining that area, the actual choices which people will make are not relevant. What is relevant in identifying the catchment area are many matters which people consider relevant in making their choice as to the area in which they will available [sic] themselves of a particular service. It is all a matter of degree. It seems to me that considerations of price and substitutability of other goods are too peculiar to each individual to be relevant in determining a catchment area which is concerned with people who may use the pharmacy rather than those who will. Considerations of distances and the existence of other attractions in the area are more broadly based considerations and do[[8]] seem to me to be relevant in determining the catchment area. They are features which could either encourage or discourage people from travelling to that pharmacy. Other features which would tend to do the same would include the distribution of the population in the area, people’s ease of access to Walloon, geographical features of the area and other services and attractions located in the area. The existence of other pharmacies in the general area is not relevant in itself for that is more associated with the consumer’s choice, with competition and with a market than with a catchment area.”
[7] 41 ALD 147 at 170, [103].
[8] At this point in the report the word “not” appears. The context suggests that the Deputy President intended these considerations to be relevant and that “not” should be disregarded.
12.In Re Fraser Coast Pharmacy Pty Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority[9], the Tribunal, then constituted by Deputy President Hack SC, took the view that it was necessary to give greater content to the concept of a catchment area if it is to be regarded in terms of those who might come to the proposed premises. It was there said[10]:
“Entire areas would be sterilised, proper competition would be prevented and community needs would not be met if the test for determining a catchment area was based solely upon the mere possibility of use. And equally, potential use by only a small proportion of persons within a given area could not be regarded as, of itself, creating a catchment area defined by reference to the place from whence those persons came. Something more, beyond the mere possibility of use, is required to give meaning to the term “catchment area” in its present context.
In my view, when the issue is whether a particular area is within or without the catchment area of a proposed pharmacy the question that needs to be considered is this – ‘is it likely that a significant number of customers from within the area in dispute will naturally and reasonably gravitate or flow to the proposed premises?’”
[9] [2007] AATA 1472.
[10] At [12]-[13].
13.That qualification to the interpretation ascribed to the term “catchment area” in Hargreaves was not accepted by the Tribunal in Uzuncakmak and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority[11]. In that decision it was noted that the term “resident population”, rather than “customers”, is used in paragraph 3(b) of Item 108[12]. As the facts in Fraser Coast demonstrate, a catchment area may contain areas where people work rather than reside. In Fraser Coast it was relevant to determine whether a commercial area (where there were no residents) formed part of the catchment area for the purposes of determining whether s 3(b) was satisfied. Thus, whilst we accept that Item 108 is concerned with “resident population” so far as s 3(a) is concerned, we are of the view that s 3(b) may, in some cases, raise different considerations.
[11][2008] AATA 472 per Senior Member Handley.
[12]At [87]-[88].
14.The Tribunal in Uzuncakmak also noted that the term “significant” does not appear in Hargreaves or in policy documents published by the respondent[13]. While we accept that to be the case we are of the opinion that, for the reasons given in Re Fraser Coast, something beyond the mere possibility of use is required for the purposes of delimiting a catchment area. We also note that in both Uzuncakmak[14] and Re Fraser Coast[15] the Tribunal referred to the reasonable gravitation of persons to the site in issue. We are satisfied that the appropriate question to be asked in determining a catchment area is this: is it likely that a significant number of people from within the area in dispute will naturally and reasonably gravitate or flow to the proposed premises?
[13] At [89].
[14] At [71].
[15] At [13].
What is this catchment area
15.The site for the proposed premises is in the Sunshine Coast suburb of Sippy Downs and, within that area, Chancellor Park. The general locality is bounded to the west by the Bruce Highway and to the north by the Sunshine Motorway. To the east is the Mooloolah River National Park and undeveloped land. To the south is more undeveloped land. To assist us in determining the catchment area, the Chief Executive Officer of Chemists, Mr Deon List, and the solicitors for the parties accompanied us on a view of the roads and the residential and other areas within the area said to be the catchment area and in the surrounding areas. That view was of considerable assistance to us in understanding the evidence.
16.The parties approached the task of determining the catchment area by reference to the population count in the Census Collection Districts (CD) used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We accept that the definition of a catchment is rarely going to be as precise as the definition of Collection Districts however the parties’ submissions, sensibly, were based upon them and we will adopt a similar process.
17.Chemists submitted that the following comprised the catchment area:
·CD3120322, CD3120309[16] and CD3112501, to the west of the proposed premises and on the western side of the Bruce Highway;
·CD3110904 and CD3110911, to the north and north-west of the proposed premises and on the northern side of the Sunshine Motorway;
·CD3110922, CD3110928 and CD3110929, immediately to the west of the proposed premises and between the proposed premises and the Bruce Highway/Sunshine Motorway; and
·CD3110917, CD3110918, CD3110919, CD3110920, CD3110921, CD3110926, CD3110927 and CD3111302, immediately to the east of the proposed premises and south of the Sunshine Motorway.
[16]This District is included in the list in the evidence of Mr List but is not referred to in the Applicant’s final submissions. We assume that that latter omission is the result of oversight rather than a conscious decision to abandon the claim.
18.The Authority submitted that the catchment area comprised only the last of those groupings as well as CD3110922.
19.There are only two shopping venues in the area covered by the census districts referred to above. One is a major centre called Chancellor Park Marketplace (the Marketplace) on land bounded by Sippy Downs Drive, University Way and Chancellor Village Boulevard and within CD3110928. Approximately 1.3 kilometres away is the much smaller Chancellor Park Shopping Centre (the Shopping Centre) which is the site of the proposed premises. It is in CD3110921.
20.The Marketplace has a Woolworths supermarket, a medical practice, a pharmacy, a pathology practice, a bank, a travel agency, an optometrist, a liquor store, a hair salon, a gift and kitchenware store, a property consultancy, a newsagency, an eatery, a bakery, a video store, an internet café, a gym, a post-office and a real estate office. Many of the businesses, including the pharmacy, have direct walk-in access from the off-street car park. The Marketplace also includes several warehouse structures in which retail businesses are located.
21.The Shopping Centre is substantially smaller in overall area than the Marketplace. It does not include warehouse buildings but has a small supermarket, a clothing and gift store, a truck rental/removal business, a dentistry practice, a medical centre, a real estate office, a pizza shop, a butcher shop, a chiropractor practice, a hair salon, a noodle bar, a café and a pool shop. There are two vacant shops, including the proposed premises.
22.A large component of CD3110918 is taken up by education facilities including the University of the Sunshine Coast, Chancellor College and Sienna Catholic College.
23.We had the assistance of evidence from two town planners on the question of the area comprising the catchment area for the proposed pharmacy. Mr Lochlan Mummery gave evidence that the area covered by CD3120322, CD3120309 and CD3112501 to the west of the Bruce Highway and CD3110911 and CD3110904 to the north of the Sunshine Motorway comprise low density development with no shopping venues. While he conceded that there was access to the north to the township of Buderim, he considered that Chancellor Place was much more readily accessible to residents in these census districts via the Bruce Highway and Sunshine Motorway. Mr Mummery was also of that opinion for all of the residents in the remaining census districts identified by Chemists. His opinion was that the weekly shopping needs of residents in all of the census districts identified by Chemists would be met by the Marketplace and Shopping Centre and that these comprised the catchment area for both venues. Indeed, he considered that the catchment area extended further eastwards than was claimed by Chemists.
24.Mr Mummery described the Marketplace, correctly in our view, as a “higher order” venue which would attract those undertaking a large weekly shopping excursion. He described the Shopping Centre as more of a local venue which would be attended by those who wished to purchase minor items such as milk or bread or to attend the other retail or service outlets within the Shopping Centre. He considered that people would select a shopping venue on the basis of the nature of the purchases that were intended. While recognising that residents to the north and west of the Bruce Highway/Sunshine Motorway would need to pass by the Marketplace in order to shop at the Shopping Centre, his evidence was that many residents would do this because it involved only a short additional journey and had the advantage of providing ready parking and less congestion than at the Marketplace.
25.Mr John Gillespie described the Marketplace as a district-sized centre and the Shopping Centre as a local or neighbourhood centre. Features which made each of them attractive to consumers were their size and the range of their retail outlets; ease of vehicular access; readiness of walking access from the nearby residential areas; and access by bus. Attractiveness of the pharmacy at the Marketplace was enhanced by the presence of medical services in the form of a doctor, physiotherapist, pathologist and optometrist. A pharmacy at the Shopping Centre was attractive because of the presence of a doctor and dentist.
26.Mr Gillespie also noted the proximity of the primary school to the Shopping Centre and described this as a significant factor because he had witnessed numerous parents and children crossing to and from the Shopping Centre during the day. He described the centres as serving different purposes, with the Marketplace being the likely destination for a large shopping excursion and with the Shopping Centre as having less drawing power and more likely to be utilised for minor items such as milk or bread. He described both centres as being accessible. He described parking at the Shopping Centre as being less difficult because of numbers except at school time.
27.Mr Gillespie agreed that the census districts to the south of the Sunshine Motorway and to the east of the Bruce Highway were in the catchment area of the proposed premises. He described this as the spatially defined catchment. He did not include the census districts to the west and north of the Bruce Highway/Sunshine Motorway in the catchment area of the existing pharmacy at the Marketplace or the proposed premises. In part, this was because it was not practical to access either the Marketplace or the Shopping Centre other than by vehicle and only by negotiating the Bruce Highway and/or the Sunshine Motorway. He said that the majority of traffic that entered the Chancellor Park area did so because of a residential connection or to access an attraction such as a school or the University. He also said that entry to Chancellor Park would take them past the Marketplace and not ordinarily the Shopping Centre. He considered that it was unlikely that people would pass by the Marketplace in order to stop at the Shopping Centre.
28.It is correct to say, as Mr Gillespie does, that neither shopping centre is readily accessible except by vehicle. But we consider that Mr Mummery is correct to conclude that a significant number of persons from the areas to the west of the Bruce Highway[17] and to the north of the Sunshine Motorway[18] would gravitate to the Marketplace and the Shopping Centre. Those two centres are the most convenient for residents of those areas. The alternative would be to travel the far greater distance to the more congested shopping centres in Buderim via the single lane Castle Hill Road. We accept, as Mr Mummery says, that a significant number of residents from within these areas will find it more convenient to use the Shopping Centre for occasional purchases rather than shopping at the Marketplace. We accept Mr Mummery’s opinion that, where the purpose is to fulfil a relatively minor shopping need, the proposed premises would be selected in many cases because of the ease of parking which was recognised by him and also by Mr Gillespie. This is despite the need to travel an additional short distance. In that regard, we also note the evidence of Mr Mummery and Mr Gillespie that both venues have a range of facilities that will be attractive to customers depending on the purpose of the customer’s attendance.
[17]CD3120322, CD3120309 and CD3112501.
[18]CD3110904 and CD3110911.
29.The same is true, we consider, of the areas immediately to the west of the proposed premises[19]. We also accept the evidence of Mr Mummery in relation to these districts. Each of them is proximate to both the Marketplace and the proposed premises. Indeed, Mr Gillespie’s evidence was that these residents had equivalent ease of access to both the Marketplace and Shopping Centre. Although Mr Gillespie included CD3110928 and CD3110929 in the catchment area, he qualified the extent to which the Estimated Resident Population (ERP) should be taken into account. Each of these census districts is close to both the Marketplace and the Shopping Centre. Each includes approximately 50% of a large retirement village with the remainder being medium density accommodation. Mr Gillespie’s opinion was that residents have equivalent ease of access to both the Marketplace and Shopping Centre and that the dominant factor influencing a resident’s choice of pharmacy would be proximity. He concluded that 44% of CD3110928 and 50% of CD3110929 were closer to the proposed premises than the Marketplace and that the total ERP should be discounted by those respective margins.
[19]CD3110922 (conceded by the Authority), CD3110928 and CD3110929.
30.There is clearly an overlap in the catchment areas of pharmacies at the Marketplace and the proposed premises. In Strutt v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Ors[20], in addition to recognising that two or more pharmacies may have the same catchment area, it was held that, in those circumstances, the population within those areas should not be apportioned. Mr Dillon accepted that, on that basis, some proportion of overall population in a census district should not be selected. He sought to distinguish that principle in relation to CD3110928 and CD3110929 on the basis that the closest component of each of the catchment areas could be specifically identified as being likely to attend one or other pharmacy on the basis of proximity. Based on Mr Gillespie‘s evidence, this was 44% for CD3110928 and 50% for CD3110929. We do not accept that contention. We are satisfied that the principle in Strutt v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and Ors should be applied and, in any event, we do not accept that proximity, alone, will dictate attendance trends and that the purpose behind a shopping venture will continue to have relevance.
[20] (2006) 92 ALD 608.
31.We are satisfied that it is likely that a significant number of people from within CD3110928 and CD3110929 will naturally and reasonably gravitate or flow to the proposed premises and that the catchment area of the proposed premises includes these census districts.
32.The logical choice for residents within these areas is between the Marketplace and the Shopping Centre. The Marketplace will have obvious attraction to the shopper undertaking a weekly shopping visit however the Shopping Centre will have a considerable attraction to the person making occasional purchases. In that regard the Authority places reliance upon the planning objective said to be evident from the Maroochy Plan 2000 which, it is said, does not contemplate Chancellor Park as servicing people beyond Chancellor Park itself. That may be so but it remains likely in our view that residents from outside Chancellor Park will gravitate to retail facilities within the Chancellor Park area where that is a more convenient choice than shopping at the Marketplace.
33.In the result, we are satisfied that the catchment area for the proposed premises comprises CD3120322, CD3120309, CD3112501, CD3110904, CD3110911, CD3110928 and CD3110929 as well as those conceded by the Authority, that is, CD3110917, CD3110918, CD3110919, CD3110920, CD3110921, CD3110922, CD3110926, CD3110927 and CD3111302.
The resident population
34.We have evidence from Mr Gillespie and from Ms Deborah Archbold. Mr Gillespie’s opinion about population numbers is based upon his view of the catchment which we do not accept. But in any event we consider that there were flaws in his analysis of populations. These flaws were identified by Ms Archbold who was critical of the methodology utilised by Mr Gillespie in calculating the ERP after 2006. In particular, she said that the normal order of annual growth in areas such as Chancellor Park was in the 6% to 7% range and that rates of 10% or more would be unusual. She said that this was because developers tended to release new areas in a regulated manner so that overall development could be controlled. She also considered that the average household figure used by Mr Gillespie was too high. She said that the census data placed it at 2.6 persons per household. In the result we need not consider the correctness of the opinions of Mr Gillespie beyond observing that his methodology is likely to have resulted in a greater ERP within the catchment area as we have found it to be than that determined by Ms Archbold.
35.Ms Archbold completed a report, dated 16 July 2008, in which she provided assessments of population. She included figures for a catchment area comprising the census districts relied upon by Chemists. In assessing population figures for the year ending 30 June 2006, Ms Archbold used data from the Planning Information and Forecasting Unit (PIFU) within the Department of Infrastructure and Planning which publishes population growth rates at the census district level. For the census districts which she included in the catchment area she gave the 2006 ERP at 10,155. She said that this was an increase of 7.2% over the previous year. This included 652 for CD3120309.
36.In the absence of published data for the years ending 30 June 2007 and for the period ending on the date of Chemists’ application, Ms Archbold provided estimates based upon local government building approvals in statistical local areas in the catchment area, a field assessment of housing development activity in the catchment area and interviews with developers and real estate agents in the catchment area. She said that the outlook for growth in the catchment area was strong with continuing land sales and development. Ms Archbold provided a table which estimated ERP for 2007 at 10,745. Her estimated increase over the previous year was 5.8%. Again, this included a component for CD3120309, not relied on by Mr Holzberger in his submission.
37.Ms Archbold conceded that, if the catchment area was limited to the census districts identified by the Authority, the ERP would be less than 8,000 in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008; however as we do not accept that the catchment area is as contended by the Authority it is unnecessary to consider the matter further.
38.We note however that in a written submission provided after the hearing[21], Mr Dillon, the solicitor for the Authority, whilst maintaining his contention that CD3110928 and CD3110929 were not in the catchment area, conceded that, if that was not accepted and the catchment was otherwise as he had submitted, the population of the catchment area would be 8,140 at the date of the hearing. As we have said, the relevant date for determining the ERP is the date of the hearing. We have determined that the catchment area includes CD3110928 and CD3110929. On the basis of the analysis by Ms Archbold we are satisfied that the concession of Mr Dillon has been properly made. On that basis, Item 108(3)(a)(i) of Schedule 1 is satisfied.
[21] For completeness we will have that marked as Exhibit 15.
39.The relevant time-frame for assessing the growth rate of population is the two years prior to the date of Chemists’ application of 11 September 2007. Different methodologies were adopted by Mr Gillespie and Ms Archbold in making this calculation. However, only Ms Archbold provided an analysis of all of the census districts we have determined to be in the catchment area. In her opinion, this rate of growth exceeded 5% over the two year period. Although limited to a smaller catchment area, Mr Gillespie also assessed growth at more than 5%. We note the criticism by Ms Archbold of Mr Gillespie’s methodology but we are satisfied that there is no inconsistency in their respective opinions insofar as the threshold figure of 5% is concerned. Item 108(3)(a)(ii) of Schedule 1 has been satisfied.
Decision
40.It follows that we are satisfied by the evidence or by proper concession that each of the criteria in Item 108 of Schedule 1 to the Determination is made out. We would set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision to recommend to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing that approval be granted of the premises at Shop 12 Chancellor Park Shopping Centre, Scholars’ Way, Chancellor Park, Queensland.
I certify that the 40 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President P E Hack SC and Mr RG Kenny, Member
Signed: ................Signed.....................................................
Jacqueline Woods, AssociateDates of Hearing 6 -7 July 2008; 8 September 2008
Date of Decision 20 October 2008
Solicitors for the Applicant Maunsell Pennington Solicitors
Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
6
4
0