STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

TRANSCRIPT OF EVIDENCE TAKEN AT PERTH, WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2000

SESSION 1 OF 12

Hon M.D. Nixon (Chairman) Hon Ray Halligan Hon Ken Travers <1>O/4

Committee met at 9.30 p.m.

THOMPSON, MR ROBERT WILLIAM, Secretary, Australian Milk Producers Association, PO Box 5, Walpole, examined:

PALMER, MR KINGSLEY, Treasurer, Australian Milk Producers Association, Railway Road, Waterloo, examined:

GREEN, MR ARTHUR, Director, Australian Milk Producers Association, Box 138, Bunbury, examined:

CHAIR—Good mornng, ladies and gentlemen. As you are aware, this is a meeting of the Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee of the Legislative Council. You are probably also aware that under the standing orders, the committee deals with two sets of matters. One is petitions and, also under Standing Order 230, it is required to review any uniform legislation. That is legislation which has to be passed by all States in accordance with the Commonwealth Act. The committee automatically had this bill referred to it because it is part of a piece of uniform legislation. Also under our standing orders, the committee must report back within 30 days. The only exception is when parliament is not sitting; we can then report to the President or at the next meeting of parliament. The committee is under a deadline to report back to the parliament by 20 June. The committee has a very difficult job to cover in that time what you are all aware is a rather controversial piece of legislation. I must go through a few formalities, while also trying to keep the matters as informal as we can.

The committee has three members. Under the Standing Orders, other members of the Legislative Council can also participate. The committee is a committee of parliament, it is not a committee of the government. Three of the political parties from the Legislative Council are represented here today.

Because at this stage it is a public hearing, I must ask anybody sitting in the public gallery firstly not to speak, and, secondly, not to take notes. Under the Standing Orders, Hansard are the only people allowed to take notes of the committee meetings.

Have each of the witnesses signed a document entitled 'Information for Witnesses' and have they read and understood that document?

Mr Thompson—Yes.

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 1 Mr Green—Yes.

Mr Palmer—Yes.

CHAIR—These proceedings are being recorded by Hansard. A transcript of your evidence will be provided to you. I remind you that your transcript will become a matter for the public record. If for some reason you wish to make a confidential statement during today's proceedings, you should request that the evidence be taken in a closed session. However, even if your evidence is given to the committee in a closed session, the committee can still report on your closed evidence to the Legislative Council if it considers it necessary to do so, in which case your closed evidence will become public. That means that generally speaking, the committee can receive evidence, and discuss it in private between the committee and staff. If the committee mentions that evidence in a report to parliament, at that stage what you have said will become public. There is a way out of it. If it is a special case, the committee can request to parliament - it has never happened to my knowledge - that it not be made public. Those are the ground rules.

If anyone has any evidence they wish to give to the committee only and they do not want it made available to the public gallery, we will take that evidence in a closed session. Anything they say will appear on the public record and will be printed on the Internet once the transcripts have been finalised.

You have probably all spoken to David Driscoll on the telephone. Felicity Beattie is a research officer and also a lawyer. Those staff work with the committee full time. They are always working on committee business. Any evidence you give can either be oral or submitted in writing. In other words, if you have something written and you do not want to say it, you can table the matter and it will be made public. I will ask each of you to make an opening statement. Because you all coming from the same area, I ask you not to be repetitive if you can avoid it, as many of the matters raised will be common to all of you. Someone can make an opening statement. If anybody wishes to add or contradict the statement, it is appropriate we deal with matters when they arise rather than leave them to the end.

Mr Thompson—I will comment on some aspects of the second reading speech of the Dairy Industry and Herd Improvement Legislation Repeal Bill. The second reading speech of the Minister for Transport states:

. . . the recommendations of the national competition policy legislative review of Western Australian Dairy Industry Act 1973 were accepted. The review demonstrated that a net public benefit currently arose from the regulated farm-gate price for milk and the vesting of milk, in so far as it provides funds to the Dairy Industry Authority to provide services to the industry and to licence processors and dairy farmers with respect to food safety standards.

<2>G/4

No mention is made of licensing of quotas in the Bill. I assume that is because quotas are a capital asset and a tradeable asset on the auction floor and are being treated as such in the bill by the government.

The second reading speech goes on to state:

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 2 It is well known that Victorian milk processors and the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria had been pressing for deregulation in Victoria. Due to the size of the production and processing sectors in that State, a decision by Victoria to deregulate would be likely to place considerable pressure on markets in other States.

It must be noted that 92 per cent of Victorian milk production is already deregulated; that is, 92 per cent of milk processed in Victoria is sold in a deregulated environment. Only 8 per cent of that state's production is subject to regulation. The important point is that Victorian farmers sold their milk quotas to the Victorian government through the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority. Those farmers have already been compensated for their loss of quota property rights.

CHAIR—What were they paid for their quotas? Was it a free-auction system?

Mr Thompson—It was based on a levy system operating over 10 years. The compensation was paid for by the consumers through the levy. The farmers could drop out at any time between the first and the last year. The amount reduced as they stayed in the system to take advantage.

CHAIR—Quotas were auctioned from time to time in Western Australia, so they had a market value that varied. How was the value determined when the Victorians sold their quotas back to the government?

Mr Thompson—I do not know because there was no auction system.

CHAIR—Was it a fixed price?

Mr Thompson—I am not sure how they arrived at the price, but it was set.

CHAIR—The going rate was paid and the quotas were purchased by the government.

Mr Thompson—It was paid for by the consumers but underwritten by the government.

The second reading speech continues:

In addition, the national competition policy review of dairy legislation in Victoria found there was a negative public benefit from retaining dairy legislation.

The reason there was a negative public benefit was that Victorians wanted deregulation. One could imagine the case they would have put to the NCP committee – if they put a case, and I do not know whether they did. The outcome was completely predictable: they wanted a negative public benefit and they got one.

The second reading speech further states:

Strong representation of Western Australia's interests towards the Federal Government's structural adjustment package was made by the Western Australian Farmers Federation dairy section president in his role as WA's representative on the Australian Dairy Industry Council.

That is correct, but it was always with the assumption that Western Australia would pursue compensation for loss of quota and property rights.

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 3 The minutes of the WAFF meeting of 1 March this year stated that Mr Harris - the president of the WAFF - said it was imperative that the package be delivered across all states in Australia the same as it was under federal legislation. However, he acknowledged that Western Australia had to resolve the local issue of quota compensation. It was always that case that Western Australia would pursue the issue.

The second reading speech continues:

The main feature of the package is that farmers will be paid a total of 46.23¢ a litre for drinking milk and 8.96¢ a litre for manufacturing milk produced in 1998-99. Western Australian dairy farmers will receive approximately $109m from that package.

Between $170 million and $200 million will be raised through the levy over eight years. Depending on what model is used, the figure will vary within that range. It is a large variation and it will depend on growth and how much milk is sold in Western Australia by Victorians. The levy will be imposed on all milk sold in Western Australia regardless of its origin.

We believe that the money raised in Western Australia should remain here to help pay for compensation. Western Australian producers and consumers should not be asked to subsidise the Victorian dairy industry.

The second reading speech continues:

If the national dairy industry restructure package is unsuccessful, it is likely that the national dairy industry will deregulate in any event and Western Australian dairy farmers will miss out on the opportunity to receive the financial restructure assistance money.

The implication is that only Western Australian dairy farmers will miss out if the package is not successful. On the contrary, all farmers across Australia will miss out if it is not successful.

The second reading speech further states:

Recognising the various arguments, the Western Australian dairy industry conducted a plebiscite of Western Australian producers. Of the 92 per cent who voted, 58 per cent voted to proceed with the deregulation of the dairy industry in this State.

There were 37 producers in the poll who do not contribute to the regulated system in this State. They do not supply milk 365 days a year, nor are they subject to the same penalties and capital loss as quota holders if deregulation occurs. Therefore, we think it is a bit rich to allow these people to vote. The yes vote would still have got up, but by a much narrower margin.

The Western Australian Dairy Industry Authority submission to the NCP committee on the impact of the Hilmer reforms states that an expectation exists among producers that each individual farmer will receive the same proportionate allocation of total market milk production in a proceeding year as its quota bears to the total market milk production in the current year. Quota certificates are a valuable commodity. Their value derives from the premium paid for market milk over manufacturing milk, and from the limitations placed on entry to the industry by the quota system. Mr Connell, the chairman of the authority at the time, estimated the quota certificates had a capitalised value of approximately $200 million. This would relate to the

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 4 average auction price today of $130 million. Therefore, the DIA agreed that quotas have a value in its submission to the NCP committee.

We are a little concerned about part 4 of the bill, which refers to transitional provisions. The definition of "liability" provides:

"liability"means any liability, duty or obligation -

(a) whether liquidated or unliquidated, actual, contingent or prospective; and

(b) whether owned alone or jointly and severally with any other person;

The second reading speech continues:

I turn now to the essential philosophies contained in the Bill. It will dissolve the Dairy Industry Authority and vest its assets and liabilities in Dairy Western Australia Limited, a public company formed for the purpose of providing overarching support for the dairy industry in Western Australia.

Does this mean liabilities will include any pending legal action against the DIA, and will this pending legal action transfer to the new company, which would mean farmers, as the new owners, will be taking legal action against themselves? I am sure that is not the intention of the bill, but I would like it clarified if possible.

Finally, I refer to the report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Committee. The inquiry considered the effect of dairy deregulation around Australia. The report states that the committee has a number of specific concerns about the proposal to deregulate the industry, including the application of the public interest test in the state-based legislation review under the terms of the national competition policy, the precise impact on farmers' income and the adequacy of the restructure package, the failure to date by state governments to address the issue of compensation for quotas, where appropriate, and the impact on rural and regional communities.

<3>K/4

On the national competition policy, the report states that the assessment of the public interest in the review has been less than comprehensive and appears to favour narrow sectional interests. The report of course was referring to multinationals, major supermarkets and processors, because it does not favour the farmers, rural communities or consumers. On the restructure package, page 5 of the report states that the committee is further concerned that the consequences of deregulation for individual farmers, their businesses and communities are not being sufficiently addressed. It also states that the impacts for farmers include an abrupt loss of income by farmers across Australia as farmgate prices drop; a reduction in the value of capital assets; a loss of the value of quota entitlements in some states, which includes Western Australia; and the lack of any compensation by the states for loss of quota entitlements.

On page 8 of the report, the recommendations of the committee state that there is political will in all of the political parties, particularly those that are most concerned about rural communities, and that the recent Victorian election – this time it was referring to the general election and it is strange that it comes in just after the by-election in Victoria, so the same thing applies – showed

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 5 that there was political will amongst ordinary country people who are prepared to change their vote if they believe that they are not being represented by those whom they have elected. It also stated that country people understand that they must take control of their own futures and that politicians must take account of the concerns they express. If politicians do not take account of those concerns, if we cannot resist the forces that are doing this to our country areas, then we should perhaps get out of the road.

Also, paragraph 5 on page 9 of the same report states that a much larger proportion of milk supplied from states such as Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia goes into whole milk. There is no doubt that the premium price they receive is certainly under threat from the milk processors in Victoria. The report also says that we need to indicate that we believe it is about time the federal government and state agricultural ministers got together and recognised those pressures themselves and, if they cannot be resisted, put together a package which is more adequate than the package being offered. That package does not address the issue of the loss of quotas and their values and it does not address the regional impacts which in some cases will be very severe.

That concludes what I have to say on behalf of the AMPA members. In view of the information contained in these reports about the absolute necessity for compensation for loss of quotas, we hope that you will recommend to the government that a restructure package for producers' loss of quota and property rights is both justified and necessary.

CHAIR—We do not recommend to the government; we recommend to the parliament because we report to the Legislative Council. I make the point that we started a little late and we have a lot of evidence to hear so we will have to be brief. What is the difference between the Australian Milk Producers Association and the WA Farmers Federation milk section? Are they one and the same, are they in competition or are they rivals?

Mr Palmer—We are not in competition. We are an Australia-wide organisation. We felt that state organisations were not doing the best on our behalf. A group got together and started up the organisation to try to get a better deal for farmers. We are there to help, in conjunction with Western Australian Farmers Federation.

CHAIR—It is a national body.

Mr Palmer—Yes, at this stage.

CHAIR—Are people members of both the WA Farmers Federation and your body, or are they one or the other?

Mr Palmer—People in the AMPA are members of the WAFF as well. We have no distinction and we do not hold anybody out.

CHAIR—You are parallel organisations.

Mr Palmer—Yes, virtually. We are trying to get Australia thinking about all states and whether the WA Farmers Federation and other states' federations are not making the grade.

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 6 Mr Green—We are represented by all states. All states have a committee. There are two directors on each board from each state and we are growing at a very rapid rate.

CHAIR—There is the WA Farmers Federation milk section.

Mr Green—It is a section going its own way and we are a section going another way. We are trying to work in conjunction to get some sense into them so we have a unified voice, but we do not have that.

CHAIR—Mr Palmer, can you add to that but not be repetitive.

Mr Palmer—This is a letter written by our president, Tony Pratico. He gave it to me because he is in Queensland. It reads:

Dear Sir,

I welcome the opportunity to make a submission to the Standing Committee.

In my view, I support the present system because of its record of accomplishment.

The present system is not what we started with. The Industry has changed the quota system to fit the market and to increase flexibility to the producer without jeopardizing the guaranteed supply to the consumer. As well assuring the milk quality continues to improve in keeping with the market demands, and leading the nation.

Manufacturing milk has grown to an amount very close to the state's capacity process.

The private sector has not been comfortable with the market signals to expand processing capacity.

The regulation has always delivered a regular price.

It is now official. Announcements this week reveal that farmgate prices for market milk have fallen 50% more than Australian Dairy Industry Council's (ADIC) worst case predictions and are still falling. The Australian Milk Producer's Association (AMPA) is calling for the Australian Dairy Industry Council (ADIC) Chairman, Pat Rowley to stop deregulation. AMPA is calling for a new inquiry into the future of the dairy industry in light of the ADIC's error and the new price information.

In the official ADIC Submission to Agricultural Minister Vaile for the package on 20th of April 1999, the ADIC rejected that prices would fall 20-25c/l as predicted by ABARE and the Industry Commission (IC) submissions to the State NCP inquiries. The ADIC stated that "if ABARE's assessment were correct, the value of the (dairy adjustment) package . . . would need to be doubled."

On the ADIC's own calculations and specific recommendations, they got it very wrong. ABARE was correct. Farmgate prices are down 22c/l. Farmers will be devastated. The adjustment package "would need to be double".

The ADIC states "Under the ABARE analysis the loss of the premium would be about 25 c/l, where as the industry's estimates range from 8-13c/l." "The IC put the transfer . . . at up to 20-25c/l." The announced price falls are 50-200% worse than the industry estimates, and falling.

The Inquit Report commissioned and adopted by the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria (UDV) stated a 12c/l fall, and even it's worse case scenario has been exceeded, as predicted by AMPA.

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 7 Prices announced this week show a 40% fall in farmer price:

• The 90-day interim price is down 16c/l, but economic reality is likely to force it down at least a further 6c/l to the 12-month price.

• In Brisbane, Sydney, and Melbourne, falls of 22c/l in the announced 12-month prices. The concrete evidence has finally emerged to confirm AMPA's predictions and disprove ADIC and UDV figures.

• A loss of farmer premium of 34c/l on large volumes of milk from Victoria is expected. Where will the downtrend prices stop?

• In WA, all prices are not out other than Capel Dairy Manufacturing prices. AMPA calls on the ADIC chairman, Pat Rowley to stand by his statement and immediately double the package. If this is unachievable, he should stop deregulation, for authorizing the ADIC stance "that the industry rejects the ABARE analysis."

Is this action consistent with his own words of 1998 that aptly describe the current situation? He said, "Without some countervailing mechanism, producers would be driven to half of an inch within the poverty line".

WA President of AMPA Tony Pratico

<4>J/5

CHAIR—Mr Green, I suggest that if you have everything printed, you might wish to table what you have printed and add a few matters.

Mr Green—I will, to cut it down, because Mr Palmer has covered a fair bit of what I was going to say. I have been a farmer for 65 years. I started at the age of 10 years. What I have built today will virtually be destroyed. I come from a family of four generations, starting with group settlement. Today, I have finished up on the quota. I have been on the quota since 1952. I want to put before the committee my financial position last year and this year under the average price that Peters Ice Cream (WA) has given us of 31.6c a litre.

CHAIR—I meant to ask a question of somebody, and you might be the appropriate person. At this stage, have the producers offered a contract price for the deregulated period, should that come about?

Mr Green—That is what I will put to the committee now.

CHAIR—You have a price of 31c a litre.

Mr Green—Yesterday we were given a price from Peters of 31.6c a litre average.

CHAIR—Is that for you or for everybody that delivered to Peters in the past?

Mr Palmer—No. National Foods Ltd (WA) has not done its share.

Mr Green—I do not know anything about National Foods. I had better explain the situation to

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 8 the committee. What Peters has offered is 43 per cent of my quota - and I gather everybody else's quota - at 38c a litre. The balance, which is manufacturing milk, is at 21c a litre. The average price is 31.6c a litre. I have spoken to Peters about this matter. The situation is that our business is then bankrupt.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—What are you currently getting for your quota milk?

Mr Green—I am getting 50c or 49.5c a litre - generally 50c a litre - which is above the average price. The average price is about 47c or 48c a litre, and it is paid on the quality of the milk; otherwise, we would receive the average price. These statements have been compiled by Brian Taylor. They set out the projected prices for last year and this year on the price that Peters has offered us. Those figures have also been substantiated by the previous Commonwealth Bank of Australia bank manager, Mr Brett, who is well known and who is prepared to give evidence before the committee, if required, to substantiate their correctness. It is my business, and I wonder whether I should spell it out with everybody here. I do not know.

CHAIR—You have the right to submit it in camera. That is what I mentioned earlier.

Mr Green—Yes, okay. Apparently, the right pages have not been photocopied.

CHAIR—We will take on notice that you intend to table some of your papers in camera.

Mr Green—It may as well be private business, because I want to spell out where we will finish this year and where we finished last year. Last year our income was $675,000. That figure might vary because I might have it wrong. This year our income will drop by 40 per cent. Last year we made a profit, after paying everything to everybody, of $125,000. The committee should understand that that may not be quite right because I do not have the papers. This year, at 31c a litre, after my son and his family are paid and my family and I are paid, we will each have $750 to last for a year. That is an enormous drop. That means that under deregulation and the price that has been offered to us, we are bankrupt.

CHAIR—I did not catch those figures. On the figures you have been offered - I do not know whether you have accepted them - you estimate that you will be trading at a loss. You obviously have some figures that you may be prepared to give the committee.

Mr Green—I have those figures and they can be substantiated.

CHAIR—I suggest you give them to the committee in private, if that is your wish, and then only the committee will know about them. Is that what you would like to do?

Mr Green—Yes, because it is all substantiated there; the whole thing is put together.

CHAIR—It would be valuable evidence for the committee, but I understand why you do not want to make it public.

Mr Green—Does it matter a great deal? I will be on the rocks next year. Deregulation will put my whole family in that position. This time last year we had a debt of $1 million. This year, I

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 9 have paid back $775,000 over the year. We still owe $360,000. Okay. However, there is no money to repay that debt any further. It is not possible. That is what deregulation is doing to everybody. One could use my figures and then look at everybody else's figures, with the exception of some people who are producing a lot more milk, and one would find that the majority of Western Australian farmers, when they sit down and work it out, will not be producing milk 12 months from now. That is the situation. I refer to what has happened in England since 1994 to the present time. The supermarkets now take 50 per cent of the dollar, the processors take 40 per cent, and the farmer is left with 10 per cent. That is exactly where deregulation will take us. It will destroy our industry, our farming community and the surrounding towns, because millions of dollars cannot be taken from those towns without destroying them.

CHAIR—I take your point. We have received one or two letters which make that point.

Mr Green—That is very good. The other thing is what will my son do if we walk out and leave the farm? I am all right because I have different businesses.

CHAIR—I have my eye on the clock. It is not altogether your fault because we started a few minutes late. However, we should move on because we have six hours of evidence to take, and if we get behind we will be in trouble.

Mr Green—I ask that all committee members read what I put before them in writing. There is a lot of material.

CHAIR—That will be great. You can table those papers, and the only question you must ask yourself is whether you want to table them as public or private documents.

Mr Green—The committee can put my financial affairs before Parliament, because I consider it so important that we do not allow the group that is trying to destroy our industry - the processors and the supermarkets - to do to Australia what it has done to England, South Africa and all the other countries. That is what I am really asking.

Hon KIM CHANCE—I want to be sure that I have noted your figures correctly. On the calculation that you have made of your average price, I think you said that for 43 per cent of your production your contract is for 38c a litre.

Mr Green—Thirty eight cents a litre for 43 per cent of our total quota.

Hon KIM CHANCE—For the remaining 57 per cent, your price is 21c a litre.

Mr Green—That is my understanding - 21c or 22c a litre.

Hon KIM CHANCE—When I calculated the weighted average price of that, I came up with 28.31c a litre. I wondered how you got to 31.6c a litre.

Mr Green—That is the calculation I made from the list that Peters gave us. I received it only yesterday and I meant to bring it with me. I will post it to the committee so that it can substantiate

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 10 what I have said. I will send the actual photostat copy of Peters' contract price issued to me.

CHAIR—That will be very valuable.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—At the end of your statement, Mr Thompson, you said that you wanted a compensation package. If the Government does not agree to a compensation package for your quotas, would you want the Parliament to oppose the bill? I know it is a tough question, but it is an important issue.

Mr Thompson—Yes, that is the big $64,000 question that is being asked around Australia. Just imagine that deregulation is a giant cyclone. It will go right around Australia through all the dairy industries and wipe them out willy nilly and affect different sections. That is what deregulation means. The package will select where that cyclone will strike. That is what it will do. It will determine where those bad places will be. That is the difference.

<5>I/8

It will still be a disaster but it will be selective. I have said all along my position has been that Western Australia needs the package.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—Mr Palmer, were the changes to the advised price and the price you expect it to be now for non-quota milk known at the ballot?

Mr Thompson—No.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—The ballot was taken on the earlier expected price rather than the price you now expect?

Mr Thompson—Yes, the higher price.

Mr Green—Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia are putting another ballot into operation now.

Hon KIM CHANCE—Is that a ballot of quota holders only?

Mr Green—It should be quota holders only because they are the only licensed people with a large amount of invested money in the quota system. I have $1m invested in the quota. That is my superannuation and my sons' and their sons' future; it has gone.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—What are your current quotas? If you do not want to tell me, that is fine, but I am interested in that.

Mr Thompson—My quota is 690 litres.

Mr Palmer—My quota is 1 455 litres.

Mr Green—My quota is 2 657 litres, I think. I do not handle it. It could be 2 750 but it is

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 11 around that figure.

Hon HELEN HODGSON—Mr Green, we have your financial statements for the past financial year. Have you had time yet to do a cash flow comparison with the new prices or is it too soon for you to have done that?

Mr Green—No, we have done that. One side of the document shows last year's figures and there should be a page showing the figures put together by the accountant in the Commonwealth Bank.

Hon HELEN HODGSON—That is not in the copy I have, which goes up to June 1999. That is why I asked the question.

Mr Green—I will have that photocopied for you.

Hon KEN TRAVERS—For how long have the contracts with Peters been offered? Is it three years?

Mr Green—At this stage they state it is for 12 months. We have not received the actual contract but we have received a statement as to what they will be paying. I believe there is a difference with other companies who are apparently looking after some, and some companies are not looking after others. I was promised that I would be looked after; however, I have not been looked after at all because of the circumstances which I have not explained. I paid back the money by selling off a section of that land to try to secure the property for these young people because I am now retired and have other interests.

CHAIR—We had better move on as we are running over time. Thank you, gentlemen, for your contribution. Feel free to write a letter to the committee making any point that you should have made and did not. If you would like to table any information, contact the committee clerk or the research officer. If you wish to sit in the gallery and listen to other evidence, you are welcome to do so.

Constitutional Affairs 24 May 2000 Page 12