Bills Digest no. 137 2009–10
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1)
2010
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1)
2010
Date introduced: 17 March 2010
House: House
of Representatives
Portfolio: Defence
Commencement: Sections 1–3, Schedule 2 and Schedule 5 on the
day of Royal Assent; Schedules 3 and 4 on the 28th day after the
Royal Assent; Schedule 1 on a day to be fixed by Proclamation, or
at the latest, six months after the date of Royal Assent.
Links: The
links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second
reading speech can be found on the Bills page, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The primary purpose of the Bill
is to amend the Defence Act 1903 (Defence Act) to formally
establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal.
In addition the Bill contains amendments to:
- ensure that there is procedural fairness in the termination and
discharge process which arises from a Defence member testing
positive for a prohibited substance
- clarify that certain determinations made in accordance with the
Defence Act are disallowable instruments
- amend the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act
2008 to include all Reserve members, and
- make minor amendments to the discipline scheme in the
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.
The Imperial system of honours and awards, including orders,
decorations and medals had exclusive application in Australia until
14 February 1975, when the Australian system of honours and awards
was first introduced to reflect the changing nature and character
of Australia.[1]
In April 1983, the Hawke Government announced that the Federal
Government would no longer make recommendations under the Imperial
honours system, and would use only the Australian system of honours
and awards. Until this time, the two systems operated in
parallel. Then in 1986, an announcement was made about the
institution of new awards for the Australian Defence Force
replacing the Imperial awards for gallantry, distinguished service
and campaign and other service.[2]
A bipartisan agreement announced by Prime Minister Keating on 5
October 1992 recognised the agreement between Federal and State
Governments (as well as the Federal Opposition) and Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth II, that all Australian citizens be recognised
exclusively in the future by the Australian system of honours and
awards.[3]
In accordance with that agreement, the Keating Government
announced in the following year that it intended to establish a
comprehensive public inquiry into the Australian system of honours
and awards. The terms of reference for the inquiry extended
to a comprehensive review of Defence and Defence-related areas of
interest, including the application of Australian awards in
recognition of service by Australians in Defence-related
activities.[4]
The Committee of Inquiry Report (CIDA report) commented on the
decision-making process as follows:
The final set of issues raised with the
Committee in relation to the Order of Australia was a perceived
lack of transparency in the decision making process relating to the
nominations made for appointments to the Military Division of
the Order. There was a feeling that nominations, once made,
disappeared into the system and there was no feedback on their
progress or their merits.[5]
That being the case, the Committee of Inquiry recommended that
the processes by which nominations in the Military Division of the
Order of Australia are formulated, handled and approved, should be
made public. In addition, the Committee recommended that the
Department of Defence examine its existing internal decision-making
processes and guidelines leading to the award of service
medals.[6]
The Howard Government recommended various honours and awards as
part of an End of War List for the Vietnam conflict as a way of
providing appropriate recognition to Australians who served during
the conflict. The decision was based, amongst other things,
on the principles that:
- the list should comprise those persons who were recommended for
an Imperial honour or award at the time of the conflict, but whose
awards were subsequently not awarded or downgraded, and
- as Imperial awards were no longer available, the original
Imperial awards recommended were to be translated to the nearest
equivalent honour or award in the Australian system.
In response to representations from the ex-service community,
the Government appointed an independent panel (the End of List
panel) to carry out a review and report to the Government on any
further action that may be required (the End of List report).
The End of List panel heard criticism that, in many cases, the
recommendations of field commanders had been downgraded by senior
commanders who were not involved in the action, but who allegedly
wished to ensure that there was an ability to grant higher level
service awards to themselves. Lack of consistency was also
cited.[7]
In light of those criticisms, the End of List panel concluded
that it was time that the system of handling award recommendations
after completion by the field or ship commander was reviewed:
- to arrive at more objective assessments, and
- to streamline the levels of recommendation then in
existence.[8]
Subsequent inquiries were carried out, including:
- a review of the action of Flight Lieutenant GG Cooper on 18 and
19 August 1968 to determine whether his actions were worthy of a
recommendation for the award of the (Imperial) Victoria
Cross[9]
- a review of service entitlement anomalies in respect of
South-East Asian service 1955–1975 to assist in the
assessment by the Government of entitlements to repatriation
benefits and service medals flowing from service during this
period[10]
- review to consider the recognition for Air Force personnel
stationed at Ubon during the Vietnam War and to determine whether
there is sufficient evidence to amend the regulations governing the
award of the Vietnam Logistic and Support Medal to cover the Ubon
service from 25 June 1965 to 31 August 1968,[11] and
- a review of post-armistice Korean service to consider the level
of recognition of Australian service in Korea between 28 July 1953
and 26 August 1957, following the armistice.[12]
Each of these reviews clearly demonstrates the complexities
faced by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in making a
determination about whether particular service should be given
recognition for the purpose of defence honours or awards. In
particular, the Report of the Post-Armistice Korean Service
Review stated that:
‘Complexity’ and
‘anomaly’ are two of the words we have encountered most
in the course of this Review. Given the high degree of interest
that ADF members, both past and present, take in their medal
entitlements, there is a case for reducing the complexity and
increasing the transparency of the Australian Honours and Awards
System, and increasing the effort devoted to prior consultation and
explaining the System to its clients—many of whom are not
able to cope easily with technical explanations.[13]
On that basis, it recommended that the Department of Defence
‘examine options for modifying the medal system’s
rule-making, and making it more transparent and reviewable for the
future’.[14]
The Review also recommended that an independent, part-time,
military honours tribunal be established.[15] It stated that such a tribunal
would:
- overcome veterans’ current sense of exclusion from the
decision-making process
- protect the important national institution of military honours
from instability, undue political pressure and short-term
decision-making
- be able to recommend ways of making the process more
transparent
- provide a forum for independent advice to the Minister on any
difficult remaining anomalies from past campaigns, on the
institution of new medals, and on any major changes in the military
honours system
- avoid the need for further external reviews of specific medal
issues, and
- require an adequately resourced and accommodated secretariat
provided by the Department of Defence.[16]
The Howard Government did not accept either of these two
recommendations on the grounds that the existing honours and awards
system was ‘already subject to the highest levels of
scrutiny, with an interdepartmental committee being the principal
advisory body to government’.[17]
During the 2007 election campaign, the Australian Labor Party
(ALP) unveiled its plan to form an independent Defence Honours and
Awards Tribunal stating:
A Rudd Labor Government will form a permanent
and independent tribunal to consider issues arising in the area of
Defence Honours and Awards, to take the politics out of medals
policy.
This tribunal will constitute [sic] seven
members appointed by the Minister. For each issue, a three
member panel will be formed from the appointed seven members.
The Tribunal’s decisions will be binding
upon the Government. The Tribunal will have matters referred to it
by the Minister.
It will also have the power to self initiate
investigations if sufficient evidence presents itself.[18]
Consistent with this election promise, on 30 April 2008, Mike
Kelly MP, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support,
announced that the position of chair of the independent Defence
Honours and Awards Tribunal would be advertised on 3 May
2008.[19] The
announcement of the inaugural members of the Defence Honours and
Awards Tribunal was made on 23 July 2008.[20] However, as the Tribunal, at
that time, was not supported by legislation, the Department of
Defence issued an initiating directive which set out the roles and
responsibilities of the Tribunal and its members.[21] There is no indication in
the directive, or on the Tribunal’s website, of the origin
of, or the authority for, this directive.
The difference between the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal
which was set up as an interim administrative measure and the
Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal which is established by
the Bill is that
the current Tribunal can only inquire into and
make recommendations relating to issues referred to it by
Government and the Government has undertaken to be bound by [those
recommendations]. The current Tribunal, however, has no
authority to make separate decisions or to independently review
Defence decisions concerning eligibility for Defence honours and
awards.[22]
Medals are created by Letters Patent and Regulations and
administered in accordance with Determinations made under the
Regulations.
In Australia the system of honours and awards can be broadly
divided into two main categories—those relating to service
and those relating to individual, or unit, conduct.
Those awards relating to service include but are not limited
to:
- the Australian Active Service Medal (AASM), which was
introduced in 1988 to recognise service in prescribed warlike
operations since 14 February 1975. A clasp with the name of
the theatre or action for which the award is made, is presented
with the medal[23]
- the Australian Service Medal (ASM), which was approved in 1988,
and may be awarded for service in, or in connection with, a
prescribed non-warlike operation[24]
- the Australian Defence Medal (ADM), which was established to
recognise Australian Defence Force Regular and Reserve personnel
who have demonstrated their commitment and contribution to the
nation by effective service for an initial enlistment period or
four years’ service whichever is the lesser.[25]
The award of service medals is dependent on whether or not the
relevant service was in a warlike or non-warlike operation.
It sometimes occurs that different operations in the same country,
for instance Somalia, may be classed as warlike, whilst others are
not. A separate declaration and determination under the
relevant regulations is made for each theatre of action and each
operation.[26]
A person who believes that he or she is entitled to any of these
medals is able to lodge an application with the Department of
Defence.
Those honours and/or awards relating to conduct include but are
not limited to:
- Victoria Cross for Australia[27]
- Star of Gallantry, Medal for Gallantry and Commendation for
Gallantry (which are governed by specific Letters Patent and
regulations)[28]
- Distinguished Service Cross, Distinguished Service Medal and
Commendation for Distinguished Service (which are also governed by
specific Letters Patent and regulations).[29]
Each of these awards has a different nomination
procedure.[30]
It is also notable that:
Traditionally, Gallantry and Distinguished
Service awards—except the Victoria Cross—have been
subject to an allocation by operational scale. The purpose of
this scale is to maintain control over the number of awards made to
members during a campaign.[31]
In short, they are subject to a quota.
Overall, the major complexity of the honours and awards system
is that the regulations and determinations which govern the
decision-making process may contain discretions, thus introducing a
subjective element into the consideration of whether an honour or
award is merited.
At its meeting of 18 March 2010, the Selection of Bills
Committee deferred consideration of the Bill to the next
meeting.[32]
That being the case, at the time of writing this Digest, the Bill
is not subject to inquiry and report by any Parliamentary
Committee.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, ‘the amendments
in the Bill will have no additional impact on Commonwealth
expenditure or revenue’.[33]
However, the establishment of the Tribunal may well have modest
downstream financial implications if the Tribunal makes decisions
or recommendations which ultimately open up the eligibility to a
defence award to a broader class of persons than currently
exists.
Schedule 1—Defence Honours and Awards
Appeals Tribunal
Item 1 of Schedule 1 to the
Bill inserts proposed Part VIIIC into the Defence
Act to formally establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals
Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Proposed section 110T contains those
definitions which will apply to proposed Part VIIIC. In
particular, the terms ‘defence
award’ and ‘defence
honour’ have the meaning given by the
regulations.[34]
Proposed Division 2 establishes the Tribunal
and sets out its two functions:
- to review reviewable decisions, and
- to inquire into matters concerning honours or awards for
eligible service.
Proposed section 110UB provides that (except as
provided in proposed Part VIIIC or another commonwealth law)
neither the Tribunal nor any Tribunal member is subject to
direction from anyone in relation to the performance or exercise of
his or her powers and functions. On its face, this would
appear to guarantee the independence of the Tribunal.
However, proposed subsection 110VB(6) provides
that when reviewing a reviewable decision, the Tribunal is bound by
the ‘eligibility criteria’
that governed the making of the original decision. The
regulations which apply to the particular honour or award in
question, may define or clarify the ‘eligibility
criteria’.
Proposed Division 3 provides the framework for
the Tribunal’s review of decisions function.
Specifically, proposed section 110V defines those
decisions which are ‘reviewable
decisions’ as decisions:
- to refuse to recommend a person, or group of persons,
for a defence honour or award, or a foreign award: proposed paragraph
110V(1)(a)[35]
- made by the Minister or a former Defence Minister whose
responsibilities included Defence of Defence-related matters; or by
a person within the Department of Defence or a department which was
administered by a former Defence Minister; or by a person within
the Defence Force: proposed paragraph 110V(1)(b),
and
- made in response to a formal application by a person, or group
of persons, for a defence honour or award, or a foreign award :
proposed paragraph 110V(1)(c).
Only a person, or one or more of a group of persons, who has
made a formal application may apply for a review of the decision
arising from that application: proposed section
110VA.
Where the Tribunal reviews a decision relating to a defence
honour it has no power to make a new decision. Instead it
is only empowered to make recommendations to the Minister:
proposed subsection 110VB(1).
In contrast, proposed subsection 110VB(2)
empowers the Tribunal to review and either affirm or set aside a
decision relating to a defence award or a foreign
award. Where the Tribunal sets aside the original
decision, it must either substitute a new decision (to recommend a
person or group for the award), or refer the matter to a specified
person for reconsideration in accordance with any directions which
the Tribunal gives. In that circumstance, the substituted
decision has effect on and from the date determined by the
Tribunal: proposed paragraph
110VB(4)(b).
If the Tribunal refers the original decision relating to defence
awards or foreign awards to a specified person for consideration in
accordance with its directions, and the outcome of that
consideration is a refusal—then that new decision is also
reviewable by the Tribunal: proposed subsection
110VB(5). This will afford an applicant, or group of
applicants, procedural fairness.
In addition to affirming or setting aside the decision under
review, proposed subsection
110VB(3) authorises the Tribunal to make
recommendations to the Minister about matters that arise out of, or
relate to, the review. This will afford the Tribunal the
opportunity to inform the Minister of such things as inconsistent
decision-making, anomalies in the application of the regulations
and determinations to a certain group or groups of persons, or any
perceived lack of clarity in regulations and determinations.
Proposed section 110VC empowers the Chair of
the Tribunal to dismiss an application for review in circumstances
where:
- there is another process of review available—and it would
be preferable for the decision to first be reviewed by that
process
- the matter has already been adequately reviewed, or
- the application is frivolous or vexatious.
The dismissal must be made in writing: proposed
subsection 110VC(1). The dismissal is not a
legislative instrument and is, therefore, not subject to
Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance: proposed
subsection 110VC(4).
The Tribunal’s second function is detailed in
proposed section 110W which provides that the
Minister may direct the Tribunal to hold an inquiry into specified
matters concerning honours and awards.[36] The Minister’s direction
must be in writing and is not a legislative instrument.
Where the Minister makes a direction, the Tribunal must hold an
inquiry and must provide a report to the Minister detailing the
outcomes of the inquiry. The Tribunal may also make any
recommendations it considers appropriate about matters arising out
of, or relating to, the inquiry.
Under proposed section 110X, the Chair is the
executive officer of the Tribunal and is responsible for its
overall operation and administration. The Chair may delegate
any or all of his or her functions or powers to another Tribunal
member.
If the Tribunal is undertaking an inquiry, it must be
constituted by three or more members. For all other
proceedings, the Tribunal is to be constituted by one or more
Tribunal members: proposed section 110XA.[37] Where the
Tribunal is constituted by more than one member, the decision of
the majority of the members prevails. If there is no
majority, the decision of the presiding Tribunal member prevails:
proposed subsection 110XA(4).
The Tribunal may summon a person to attend before the Tribunal
to give evidence or produce documents. The Bill does not
contain a definition of
‘person’. That being
the case it is presumed to include serving and former members of
the ADF and Defence Force officials. A person commits a
criminal offence if he or she fails to comply with the summons:
proposed section 110XC.[38] The defence of
‘reasonable excuse’ is available to a person who fails
to comply with the summons.[39] The Bill does not specify whether this
would include an ADF member or Defence Force official refusing on
‘public interest’ grounds.
Proposed section 110XD authorises the Tribunal
to make an order prohibiting or restricting the publication of
specified confidential or sensitive evidence, documents or
submissions. A person commits a criminal offence if his or
her conduct contravenes such an order.[40]
Proposed section 110XE sets out certain formal
requirements which the Tribunal must satisfy as follows:
- all decisions, orders, determinations, reports and
recommendations of the Tribunal must be in writing
- review decisions must include a statement of reasons
- copies of review decisions must be given to the person or
persons who applied for the review and any other person that the
Tribunal considers appropriate, and
- inquiry reports are (subject to any order made under section
110XD) to be published on the Tribunal’s website or by any
other means that the Tribunal considers appropriate.
Importantly, proposed section 110XH lists those
matters about which the Chair of the Tribunal may, by legislative
instrument, make procedural rules in relation to the practice and
procedure to be followed by the Tribunal. They include but
are not limited to:
- how the Tribunal is to be constituted for certain
proceedings
- the form of Tribunal proceedings including whether they are to
take the form of a hearing, and whether the hearing is to be held
in public or in private
- circumstances in which a person may be represented by a lawyer
or other person in a Tribunal proceeding, and
- the manner in which evidence is given, submissions made or
persons summoned.
According to proposed section 110Y, the
Tribunal consists of the Chair of the Tribunal plus no less that
six and no more than ten others.
The Minister is to appoint members in writing on a part-time
basis, taking into account the desirability of having diverse
expertise, experience and gender of members. In addition, the
Minister must have regard to the need of Tribunal members to be
independent of the original decision-makers. To that end, the
following persons are not eligible for appointment:
- as Chair—a person who is, or has been, a member of the
Defence Force rendering continuous full-time service, or a person
who (in the Minister’s opinion) does not have an appropriate
level of security clearance: proposed subsection
110YA(4)
- as a member—a person who is, or has been in the last 12
months, a member of the Defence Force rendering continuous
full-time service, or a person who (in the Minister’s
opinion) does not have an appropriate level of security clearance:
proposed subsection 110YA(5).
The initial period of appointment must not exceed three years,
although a Tribunal member may be reappointed at the end of a
term. However, neither the Chair nor any other Tribunal
member may hold office for more than six consecutive years:
proposed section 110YB.
The Remuneration Tribunal determines what remuneration Tribunal
members are to be paid. If there is no determination in
operation, then Tribunal members are paid the remuneration that is
prescribed by regulations. Tribunal members also get paid any
allowances prescribed by the regulations. Proposed
section 110YE has effect subject to the Remuneration
Tribunal Act 1973 which would prevail in the case of any
inconsistency.
The Minister may terminate the appointment of a Tribunal member
for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. In
addition the appointment of a Tribunal member may be terminated by
the Minister in specified circumstances listed in proposed
subsection 110YH(2).
Proposed section 110Z contains a
regulation-making power which is to operate in addition to the
general regulation making power already contained in section 124 of
the Defence Act. Proposed section 110Z
governs the making of regulations about:
- any fees that are payable in respect of applications to the
Tribunal
- prohibiting disclosure of information obtained by the Tribunal,
a member of the Tribunal or a person assisting the Tribunal,
and
- proof of decisions or orders of the Tribunal.
Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bill contains
transitional provisions which will allow the Tribunal created by
this Bill to complete reviews and inquiries by the current Tribunal
which was established on an interim basis in 2008. These provisions
effectively override the eligibility criteria for membership to the
Tribunal contained in proposed
subsections 110YA(4)–(5). This will be possible
because the members of the current Tribunal will be automatically
appointed to the proposed Tribunal upon the enactment of the Bill
for a period of either 12 months or 24 months. The period is
to be determined by the Minister in writing.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends Part VIIIA of the
Defence Act which relates to testing for prohibited
substances. The purpose of the amendments is ‘to ensure
there is procedural fairness in the discharge and determination
process which relate to a person who has returned a positive test
result for a prohibited substance’.[41]
Essentially, Part VIIIA currently provides for the following to
occur:
- the Chief of the Defence Force or service chief may determine
that a person is an ‘authorised
person’ under this Part and that
‘authorised person’ may
require a person to undergo a prohibited substance test[42]
- the Chief of the Defence Force may determine that a substance
is a ‘prohibited substance’
and that a test is a ‘prohibited substance
test’[43]
- if the prohibited substance test returns a positive test
result, the ‘relevant
authority’ must give the person a written
notice of the result, and invite the person to provide a statement
of reasons as to why his or her appointment should not be
terminated or why the person should not be discharged (depending on
the nature of their engagement)[44]
- the circumstances in which the ‘relevant
authority’ is to terminate or discharge the
person.[45]
Items 1 and 2 of
Schedule 2 to the Bill amend paragraph (c) of the
definition of ‘relevant
authority’ in section 93 and section 101
respectively so that different people make the decisions (a) to
issue the written notice of positive test result and (b) to
terminate or discharge the person.
Items 3–8 amend section 120A of the
Defence Act which authorises the Chief of the Army, Chief of the
Navy and Chief of the Air Force to delegate their powers in respect
of these decisions.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends Part IIIA of the
Defence Act which relates to remuneration, allowances and other
benefits. Existing section 58B provides for the Minister to
make determinations about these matters. Item
1 operates so that any Ministerial determination under
section 58B may incorporate, by specific reference, other
determinations under sections 58B or 58H of the Defence Act or
under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999.
Item 2 repeals existing subsections 58B(4) and (5)
and substitutes proposed subsections
58B(4)–(5C) which ensure that determinations made
under section 58B are not legislative instruments but are subject
to the tabling and disallowance procedures set out in section 46B
of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Schedule 4 to the Bill contains amendments to
the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act
2008. The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme
applies to eligible members of the ADF serving on or after 1 July
2008. The scheme provides a subsidy on the home loan interest
expense incurred in purchasing a home in which a member of the ADF
and his or her family are to live. It allows for
progressively higher levels of benefits to members as an incentive
to remain in active service. Those higher levels of
assistance become available on completion of eight and 12 years
service for permanent ADF members and on completion of 12 and 16
years for Reserve Force members.[46]
Item 1 amends existing subsection 5(1) of the
Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 so that
members of the Reserve Force will be covered by the scheme
regardless of the way in which they became a Reserve member.
Schedule 5 to the Bill contains amendments to
the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982.
Part IXA of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
(DFDA) deals with minor disciplinary infringements—that is,
an act or omission that constitutes:
- an offence against section 23,[47] section 27,[48] section 29,[49] subsection 32(1),[50] section 35[51] or section 60,[52] or
- an offence against section 24[53] in relation to an absence without leave for a
period not exceeding three hours.
Existing section 169D provides for the issuing of an
infringement notice to a prescribed defence member where there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the person has committed a
disciplinary infringement. In that case, existing section
169E provides that the prescribed defence member may elect to have
the disciplinary infringement which is set out in the infringement
notice dealt with by a discipline officer.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum:
On 23 January 2009, the final report into the
Health of the Reformed Military Justice System …
recommended that the [Discipline Officer] scheme be extended to
allow the Navy and Air Force equivalents of Warrant Officer Class 2
ranks to be discipline officers.[54]
The amendments in Schedule 5 to the Bill put
this recommendation into effect. Items 1 and
2 amend the existing definition of
‘junior officer’ in section
169A of the DFDA to exclude a person who holds the rank of officer
cadet. This means that ‘discipline
officers’ have jurisdiction over all officer
cadets and that all officer cadets may be subject to the
punishments set out in the table contained in section 169F.
Items 3 and 4 will overcome
the current limitation on who can be appointed as a
‘discipline officer’.
The amendment to section 169B will operate so that a commanding
officer may appoint not only officers and warrant officers (Army),
but also sailors holding the rank of chief petty officer and airmen
holding the rank of flight sergeant as discipline officers.
Item 5 inserts proposed subsections
169BA(3) and (4) so that a service chief
may determine that certain chief petty officers and certain flight
sergeants are not subject to the discipline officer
scheme.
Items 6–8 update the table in section
169BB which sets out which discipline officer which has authority
over the separate categories of prescribed defence members.
Items 10 and 11 extend the discipline officer
scheme to visiting, transient or members attached to another
unit.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further
information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2434.
Paula Pyburne
15 April 2010
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
Back to top