|
senate vote 2009-09-15#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:20:03
|
Title
Description
The majority agreed with the [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1 motions] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate Richard Colbeck] and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate Steve Fielding], which means they were successful.(Read the complete debate on these motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2 here].
)Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.(Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].)Senator Colbeck's motion was:''That the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/ecr1982385/ Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982], be disallowed.''Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding's motion was:''That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:''''(a) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];''''(b) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02110 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/ Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997] [F2009L02110];''''(c) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02113 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03156 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985] [F2009L02113]; and''''(d) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02104 Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eica1985382/ Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985]''References- The majority agreed with the [motions](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1) moved by Liberal Senator [Richard Colbeck](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate) and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [Steve Fielding](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means they were successful.(Read the complete debate on these motions [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2). )
- Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.(Read more about motions of disallowance [here](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance).)
- Senator Colbeck's motion was:
- _That the [Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097), made under regulation 3 of the [Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/ecr1982385/), be disallowed._
- Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding's motion was:
- _That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:_
- _(a) the [Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097), made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];_
- _(b) the [Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02110), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the [Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/) [F2009L02110];_
- _(c) the [Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02113), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the [Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03156) [F2009L02113]; and_
- _(d) the [Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)](http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02104), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the [Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eica1985382/)_
- References
|
|
senate vote 2009-09-15#1
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:37
|
Title
Description
- The majority agreed with the [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1 motions] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate Richard Colbeck] and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate Steve Fielding], which means they were successful.(Read the complete debate on these motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2 here].
)
The majority agreed with the [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1 motions] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate Richard Colbeck] and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate Steve Fielding], which means they were successful.[1]Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.[2]- Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.(Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].)
- Senator Colbeck's motion was:
- ''That the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/ecr1982385/ Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982], be disallowed.''
- Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding's motion was:
- ''That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:''
- ''(a) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];''
- ''(b) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02110 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/ Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997] [F2009L02110];''
- ''(c) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02113 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03156 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985] [F2009L02113]; and''
- ''(d) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02104 Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eica1985382/ Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985]''
- References
* [1] Read the complete debate on these motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2 here].* [2] Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].
|
|
senate vote 2009-09-15#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-20 12:01:03
|
Title
Description
- The majority agreed with the [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1 motions] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate Richard Colbeck] and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate Steve Fielding], which means they were successful.[1]
- Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.[2]
- Senator Colbeck's motion was:
''That the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the [Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982], be disallowed.''- ''That the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/ecr1982385/ Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982], be disallowed.''
- Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding's motion was:
- ''That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:''
- ''(a) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];''
- ''(b) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02110 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/ Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997] [F2009L02110];''
- ''(c) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02113 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03156 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985] [F2009L02113]; and''
- ''(d) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02104 Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eica1985382/ Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985]''
- References
- * [1] Read the complete debate on these motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2 here].
* [2] Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].- * [2] Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].
|
|
senate vote 2009-09-15#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-20 11:59:56
|
Title
Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1); Australian Meat and Live-Stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1); Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1); Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1) — Motion for Disallowance- Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1) and related instruments - Motion for Disallowance - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>Pursuant to the notice of intention I gave earlier today, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today for the disallowance—</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Fielding</p><p>Mr Acting Deputy President, I object to the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 and ask to have my name put on that notice. The intention to withdraw this notice of motion was given earlier. I am getting in first to object to the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2. I ask to have my name put on that notice.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Hutchins</p><p> I had a bit of cross-information. Of course that motion can now stand in your name, Senator Fielding.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I move:</p><dl><dt></dt><dd>That the Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1), made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982, be disallowed.]</dd></dl><p>At the request of Senator Fielding, I also move:</p><dl><dt></dt><dd>That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:<dl><dt>(a)</dt><dd>the Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1), made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];</dd><dt>(b)</dt><dd>the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the <i>Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997</i> [F2009L02110];</dd><dt>(c)</dt><dd>the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the <i>Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985</i> [F2009L02113]; and</dd><dt>(d)</dt><dd>the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1), as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the <i>Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985</i>].</dd></dl></dd></dl><p>Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, as we discussed at the tabling of the report on the disallowance of AQIS fees and charges yesterday, it is with no pleasure that we do this, but we find it necessary because of the complete and utter mismanagement of this process. There are real concerns about the way that the minister has negotiated this process, right from the time that we first put a disallowance on the table.</p><p>We are genuinely concerned about this process. If the government had been prepared to have or were interested in a genuine reform process, it would have adequately resourced it right from the start. It would not have come as a complete surprise, out of the blue, from the Beale process. The industry understood that Beale was reviewing AQIS in respect of imports into Australia. Industry told us at the inquiry last week that they had no expectation at all that Beale was going to make a recommendation to remove the 40 per cent rebate on AQIS export fees and charges; therefore, they did not engage with that issue. Had they known that it was going to be a problem, they would have engaged with it and put their point of view. The first the meat industry knew about it was at a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Burke, in February. They told us that at the meeting on Friday.</p><p>Over the last 24 hours, when the minister has suddenly realised that this is going to go pear shaped, there has been this frantic process to try to negotiate a way out of his problem. Again, it is a demonstration that the government has no real plan for reform. It has tried to cobble together a deal at the last minute. In fact, as late as two o’clock, when the beef industry found out that there was supposedly a deal floating around—they had not been consulted—they were trying to negotiate an outcome on behalf of their industry with the minister. But what about the fishing industry? What about the horticulture sector? What about those small abattoirs who still do not know, under this alleged deal that Minister Burke has done with the Greens, whether they are still paying an extra $50,000 a year? This does not demonstrate that. All that we know will happen under this deal is that the fees and charges will go up. We do not know how it is going to be applied. The government said in the budget that by going to full cost recovery there would be a $43 million a year saving in the budget. That is what the budget papers said. The government put $40 million on the table. Supposedly that $40 million is going into ‘effectively allowing a rebate on fees’, but what does that mean? Nobody knows what it means. Nobody knows what the bottom line of the deal is. We cannot tell the abattoirs in Victoria who look after the emu industry or the ostrich industry—the only abattoirs that do that—whether they are going to have to pay a $50,000 registration fee or whether the only export abattoir in Western Australia is going to be charged extra. We do not know.</p><p>The industry has put to the minister a list of demands. We do not know whether the minister has signed that off or not. He was almost promising them anything they wanted at one stage during the afternoon, but they have not had that signed off. He has looked after the big guys, but what about the rest? Those that ring up and complain might get some attention. Yet the Greens call this a great deal. They are prepared to sell-out agriculture for a bit of publicity. Granted, there is some money attached to this, and we said all along that there should be some more money put into this process.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p><i>Senator Milne interjecting—</i></p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Senator Milne, I am glad you interjected, because that brings me to another point about the dishonesty of this government. John Cobb, the opposition spokesman on agriculture, went to the minister yesterday to try and do a deal. He was told there was no more money.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>What did he ask for?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>He was told there was no more money at one o’clock yesterday, yet by yesterday evening there was $20 million on the table. How can you trust what this government says? How can the industry trust what this government says? They do not know whether there is going to be some money on the table. They do not know what it is going to apply to. We gave the government an opportunity three months ago to work through the industry plans and to put them on the table. We suspended our disallowance motion so that the government could have the opportunity to work through things with industry. We gave them the chance to work and negotiate with industry and to come back and show us the progress on the industry plans. They came to our inquiry last week on Thursday night and told us that all this could be sorted out in 12 months. AQIS said to the committee, ‘We are confident that all of these six reform plans can be dealt with within six months.’ Industry came the next day and said, ‘We don’t think that’s the case.’ The grains industry told us that it would be at least two years. The meat industry told us a minimum of two years for the big items and out to five years. The government appears now to be conceding that this is the case. Where is the confidence that existed last Thursday night? The whole process is a complete shambles. The government will not negotiate with the opposition but can do a deal worth $20 million later that night with the Greens.</p><p>What this deal does not do is protect the industry from higher prices. The government is going to charge higher fees. Then it is going to put it into the industry liability accounts and perhaps apply it later to fees and charges. This is what the letter says:</p><p class="italic">All cost reductions will accumulate to the benefit of affected sectors within the industry liability accounts, potentially enabling downward adjustment of fees and charges for 2010 and 2011, or continued investment in further reforms.</p><p>We said that this process needed funding in the first year and that the rebate should continue for the next 12 months. This does not guarantee that. The charges will continue. The only way to guarantee the rebate continues for 12 months is to disallow these regulations. That is the only way industry has any guarantee that the rebate will continue. The government is also saying, as I said yesterday, ‘reform or rebate’. The government needs to continue this process. Everybody accepts that there needs to be reform. The opposition has said all along that there should be reform, and we support reform. What we want is a proper process.</p><p>We said at the outset: put the industry plans in place, fund them, implement them and then pass the savings back to industry. That is a reasonable process. And industry sector after industry sector came to us last week and said exactly that: ‘We want the reforms identified, we want them implemented and then we’re prepared to go into a new cost structure.’ Where is the problem with that? Why is that an issue? The problem is that the government is not being straight up and down. It will not deal with the opposition. The opposition spokesman went to meet with the minister and was told there was no money.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p><i>Senator Milne interjecting—</i></p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>Well, if you are told there is no money, Senator Milne, what are we supposed to say?</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>I don’t accept that; I never accept that!</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>It is just absurd, Senator Milne.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Hutchins</p><p> Order! Address your remarks through the chair, Senator Colbeck. And Senator Milne, please cease your interjecting.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>The way that the government are treating agriculture generally is completely absurd. It is completely and utterly absurd. This industry exports close to $30 billion a year. They almost wet themselves when there is a gas deal signed with China that runs for 25 years for $25 billion—they go berserk. But here is an industry that is doing more than that every year, and what are they prepared to do? They will not even genuinely fund the reform process. There is $30 billion worth of exports every year. The beef industry on its own exports more than the car industry. They supply hundreds of millions to the car industry but they will not fund a simple reform process of export fees and charges. It is absolutely absurd.</p><p>Let us have a look at what happens in other countries. In Argentina, industry funds the on-plant inspection component only. In Australia they want us to fund that plus all the overheads. In Canada: on-plant inspection only. In Denmark: on-plant inspection only. In Great Britain: on-plant inspection only. In Japan: laboratory testing regimes only. In Korea, industry pays nil. In Mexico: vet costs only. And in the United States: shift and overtime only.</p><p>This is a significant industry for Australia. It is the sector that kept us out of recession, yet this is how this government treats it. It is not prepared to put up the money. The department have been absolutely decimated because of the fact that the minister will not stand up for them in cabinet. They have been copping all the cuts, and yet the government will not put in the money for a simple reform process, even though we are talking about an industry that exports $30 billion a year.</p> <p class="speaker">Glenn Sterle</p><p>Oh, come on Richard—what did your lot do in 11½ years?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>You’ll get your chance. We put the 40 per cent rebate in place, Senator Sterle.</p> <p class="speaker">The Acting Deputy President</p><p>Order! Senator Sterle.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- The majority agreed with the [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-09-15.83.1 motions] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Colbeck&mpc=Senate&house=senate Richard Colbeck] and by Senator Colbeck and Family First Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Steve_Fielding&mpc=Senate&house=senate Steve Fielding], which means they were successful.[1]
- Because these motions of disallowance were successful, the instruments are disallowed and therefore will cease to have effect.[2]
- Senator Colbeck's motion was:
- ''That the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the [Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982], be disallowed.''
- Senator Colbeck and Senator Fielding's motion was:
- ''That the following legislative instruments be disallowed:''
- ''(a) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02097 Export Control (Fees) Amendment Orders 2009 (No. 1)], made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982 [F2009L02097];''
- ''(b) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02110 Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Export Licensing) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 108 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/amalia1997407/ Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997] [F2009L02110];''
- ''(c) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02113 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 109 and made under the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A03156 Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985] [F2009L02113]; and''
- ''(d) the [http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2009L02104 Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Amendment Regulations 2009 (No. 1)], as contained in Select Legislative Instrument 2009 No. 110 and made under the [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eica1985382/ Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985]''
- References
- * [1] Read the complete debate on these motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-09-15.81.2 here].
- * [2] Read more about motions of disallowance [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Statistics/statsnet/statements/disallowance here].
|