On X 2002 Ms Kendall Mcmaster of the Wilga Pastoral Company, Wilgawongawee, Applied To

Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078Philippa Spence Emily Murphy General Counsel Legal BranchTHE Boss General Manager Movable Cultural Heritage Department of Australian Heritage 1 Australiana Square Heritage Building Canberra ACT 26003 May 2003 Dear Miss Boss,REVIEW OF STATEMENT OF REASONS - McMASTERPlease find below the review and re-draft of the statement of reasons relating to the Minister’s refusal to grant an export permit for a Furphy water cart to Ms Kendall McMaster, Wilga Pastoral Company.As you advised, the report sent to the Minister is the same as the draft report on file. And the Department disclosed all documents pursuant to McMaster’s freedom of information request.This has been prepared in response to a request for a statement of reasons by Ms McMaster.1. Review1.1 A review of the Statement is important because if incorrect, McMaster may take the following actionsA. Have the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) review the decisions to refuse a permit under Section 48 of the PMCH Act. B. If McMaster does not apply to the AAT, and the Ombudsman considers this failure is not unreasonable under s6(3), the Ombudsman will investigate the matter. Otherwise the Ombudsman may take action if is under the impression that proper reasons have not been given for the making of a decision, under Section 15(2) of the Ombudsman Act. C. If an application is made to the AAT and McMaster believes the AAT has made an error of law in its decision, she may appeal to the Federal Court for judicial review.1 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 1.3 The statement of reasons does not comply with relevant guidelines and Commonwealth legislation on several grounds a) The statement does not comply with Administrative Review Council guidelines b) The statement does not comply with provisions of the PMCH Act c) There are problems regarding procedural fairness and bias in the decision making process d) Possible breaches of natural justice e) Concerns regarding the validity of the Freedom of Information request are addressed1.4 Advice is provided on these matters.2. Compliance with Administrative Review Council (ARC) guidelines.2.1 According to ARC guidelines, the Statement should provide McMaster with a logical explanation of how and why the decision was reached. All steps of reasoning should be outlined. 2.2 The present draft statement states only conclusions reached by the Minister. This is inadequate under the ARC guidelines because more information must be given to McMaster as to why and how the decision was reached.2.3 The Statement should refer to legislation, policy statements and background information and relate this to the material facts so that McMaster will understand how the decision was made.2.4 Where the criteria for decision-making was applied, the Statement fails to indicate the source of the criteria. The criteria are not applied to the material facts. 2.5 The statement must: f) Set out the legislative criteria applied in the decision-making process. g) Provide adequate findings of fact h) Apply the criteria to the material facts i) Draft the statement in a clear way, giving straight answers and place McMaster at ease as to the decision-making process to prevent further action being taken.2.6 This is consistent with the ARC Guidelines to a) provide consistency and transparency for the decisions b) make it easier for a court to review the decision c) allow the applicant to understand the basis of the decision d) help ensure the decision maker takes into account all relevant considerations2 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 3. Compliance with the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth) (PMCH Act)3.1 Section 10 of the PMCH Act states conditions that must be satisfied before the Minister can exercise the power to refuse the application for export permits under s10(5). These conditions were not complied with on several accounts.4. Procedural Fairness4.1 There is evidence that procedural fairness in the decision making for the refusal of export permit was not complied with.4.2 There is not enough information to determine whether the Committee consisted of the relevant people under s17(1) of the Act.4.3 Pursuant to s21B all the members of the Committee must sign the document containing the recommendation or report made in relation to an application. This was not complied with as only four members of the Committee signed the document. 4.4 The recommendations of the Committee regarding the Furphy water cart were not final recommendations of the Committee 4.5 This is evident from a) The email from Professor Smart requesting further information from the committee b) The minutes of the meeting reveal that the recommendations in the report were not final recommendations of the Committee c) The draft report was only signed by four members of the Committee, which is insufficient to constitute a quorum under s21(3) of the PMCH Act d) The missing Minutes from the meeting recommending the refusal of export permit for the water cart4.6 No attempt has been made to determine exactly how rare the water cart is, nor has there been an attempt to determine if it is not represented in at least 2 public collections in Australia by an object of equivalent quality as required by Pt4.3(c) and Pt 9.4.7 These inconsistencies may be used to show that there was a lack of decision making in the process of refusing an export permit to McMaster for the water cart. 4.8 They may be used to show the lack of proper recommendation made to the Minister in accordance with procedural requirements of the PMCH Act and that the Minister has failed to perform functions under requirements of the PMCH Act.3 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 4.9 The technical mistake of the missing Minutes can be redeemed if the paperwork can be re-submitted and re-decided. 4.10 If there is a jurisdictional error, it is likely that the Minister’s decision making power to grant or refuse the export permit has not been finalized in these ‘initial decisions’ and is not binding. 4.11 Given the differences of the facts here and the facts in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11, it is likely the Minister can still remake the decisions as there are no provisions in the PMCH Act that require the Minister’s decision to be binding.4.12 These errors would be serious enough to warrant the AAT on appeal to remit the decision to the Minister for reconsideration.5. BiasAn allegation of bias will affect the Minister’s compliance with the statute by failing to ascertain if the reports produced by the committee were accurate and unbiased. 5.1 The issue of bias should be considered in the following documents, if they are not McMaster may have a stronger case in the AAT if the following documents are not addressed and dealt with accordingly a) Letter from Sly to Doyle which may be used to prove defamation of McMasters and bias by the employee of the Department b) Post-it note on this letter requesting the destruction of the letter if an FOI request is made5.2 McMaster should be given the chance to answer such allegations made against her regarding motives to export5.3 The Department has acted with bias by not disclosing the business interests of members of the Committee, which precluded a fair and full assessment of the application. This is in breach of s20 of the PMCH Act. 5.4 Recommendations for this are as follows: a) The letter must not be destroyed or removed from the file b) The document should be presented on request of FOI because it will probably be requested in the following discovery process of litigation c) Present any evidence that the document was not seen by any member of the Committee and did not affect the Committee’s decision d) Present any evidence of a professional conduct reprimand given to Sly e) Upgrade staff training regarding file materials and decision making4 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 6. Freedom of Information (FOI) request6.1 The FOI request for information regarding the applications for export permits for the Furphy water cart is valid under s15(2) of the FOI Act. This is because a) the amount of information requested is not too broad as the information is easily obtainable from the file b) It has been sent to the relevant person c) The documentation is not voluminous which lessens the possibility of a section 22 or 24 refusal d) Suitable correspondence and contact details are provided e) The cheque for the fee is provided, whether this is waived or not does not affect the validity of the request7. Possible breaches of Natural Justice 7.1 The Department has denied McMaster the opportunity of obtaining the relevant issues and facts considered by the Committee and Minister in the decision-making process. a) no advice was given as to the personal interests of some Committee members regarding the water cart b) McMaster was never consulted as to the intention to sell the water cart to the American World Them Park organization. This also includes the conversation with HR Nichols7.2 McMaster was denied the opportunity to request further and better particulars and the opportunity of preparing submissions 7.3 McMaster was also denied the opportunity to provide the Committee with additional information on the water cart, which may have influenced them on their decision to refuse the export permit 7.4 If these issues are not addressed, McMaster will possibly make an application under s5(1)(a) of the AD)JR) Act on the grounds that there was a failure of natural justice in the decision making process. If successful, the Department may have to reconsider the application and decision. 7.5 The Department should a) disclose materials and information prejudicial to the Department’s interest b) disclose the personal and business interests of the Committee members and experts c) make the decision making process transparent by increasing correspondence of progress of application to McMaster and requiring additional information to help the decision making process. 7.6 This will also clear up any misunderstanding on McMaster’s behalf of the Ministerial decision to allow the export of the Emu Eggs, but not the water cart. 5 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 8. Advice8.1 The Minister should re-consider the issues in the case and re-make the decision based on the revised Statement. 8.2 This provides McMaster with a proper statement of reasons, which will weaken her case before the AAT if she decides to appeal. 8.3 This should be done soon because once an appeal is lodged, the Minister cannot remake the decision without the consent of the Tribunal. 8.4 If the Minister does not correct the errors, and McMaster applies to the AAT for review, this will strengthen McMaster’s case based on considerations of procedural fairness and natural justice. Please find attached a re-drafted statement of reasons. If you have any questions please contact me.Yours sincerely,Philippa Spence and Emily Murphy.6 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078STATEMENT OF REASONSApplication for export permit for a Furphy Water Cart.Introduction 1. On X 2002, the Minister for the Department of Australiana Heritage (the Department) made a decision pursuant to s10(5)(b) of the Protection of Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (the PMCH Act) and Part 9 of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Regulations 1986 (Cth) (the Regulations), not to grant the applicant, Ms Kendall McMasters of the Wilga Pastoral Company, Wilgawongawee an export permit for a Furphy Water Cart. The Ministers decision was based on the conclusion that the loss of the item would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia: s10(6)(b). Background 2. On X 2002 Ms McMasters applied to the Minister of the Department for a permit to export a Furphy Water Cart pursuant to the PMCH Act.3. The Minister referred the application to the National Cultural Heritage Committee (the Committee) who referred it to two expert examiners to consider. The Minister, Committee and the expert examiners considered whether the Furphy Water Cart was a class B object as defined in the Control List in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, and if so whether an export permit should be granted.4. Both of the expert examiners submitted written reports to the Committee recommending that an export permit be refused. The Committee forwarded their recommendations together with the expert reports to the Minister, in accordance with s10(4).5. On X 2002, after considering the reports and recommendations of the Committee and expert assessors, the Minister made a decision pursuant s10(6)(b) of the PMCH Act and Part 9 of the Regulations to refuse the application for the export permit. The permit was refused on the basis that ‘these items have such heritage and cultural significance and are of such rarity that they cannot leave the country.’6. On X 2002 Ms McMaster made a request to the Department to furnish a statement complying with section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (the AAT Act) and 10(7) of the PMCH Act. Section 28 of the AAT Act requires the Minister to provide reasons for their decision together with findings on the material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which the findings are based.7 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 Findings on material questions of fact: The Relevant Law7. The PMCH Act is designed to protect the Australian heritage of movable cultural objects by way of export and import controls. 8. The sections of the PMCH that are of particular relevance to this decision are sections 7,8 and 10. 9. “Movable cultural heritage of Australia” is defined in s7 to include objects that are of importance to Australia, or to a particular part of Australia, for historical… scientific or technological reasons, being objects falling within one or more of the following categories:…(g) objects of scientific of technological interest;… (j) any other prescribed categories.10. Section 8 provides that the regulations will prescribe a list, named the National Cultural Heritage Control List (“the Control List”), of the categories of objects that constitute the movable cultural heritage of Australia and are subject to export control.11. Section 8(2) provides that the control list shall be divided into 2 classes: (a) Class A objects, being objects that are not to be exported otherwise than in accordance with a certificate; and (b) Class B objects, being objects that are not to be exported otherwise than in accordance with a permit or certificate.12. Regulation 4 of the Regulations provides that the control list is contained in schedule 1. This Schedule contains a list of 13 categories. The two categories of relevance to this application are provided in Part 9 and Part 4.13. Part 9 of Schedule 1 lists objects in the category of “Objects of Historical Significance”. Pt9.3(d) refers to objects relating to work life, including specialised trades and labour material, trade unionism, company activity and corporate identity, trade and commerce.14. Under Pt9.2(b), an object coming under Pt9.3(d) will be a class B object if it:(i) is associated with a person, activity, event, place or business enterprise, notable in Australian history; and (ii) is at least 30 years old; and (iii) is not represented in at least 2 public collections in Australia by an object of equivalent quality.8 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 317507815. Part 4 lists the objects in the category of “Objects of Applied Science or Technology”. Pt4.2 provides that this category relates to objects of human enterprise and activity, other than artistic activity, such as (a) tools, weapons, implements and machines…16. Pt 4.3 provides that an object of the sort listed in Pt4.2 will fall into this category if it : (a) is of significance to Australia; and (b) for an object: (i) of Australian origin – made in Australia at least 30 years ago; or (ii) that has substantial Australian content – the Australian content made in Australia at least 30 years ago; … and (b) is an object of kind mentioned in 4.4; and (c) it is not represented in at least 2 public collections in Australia by an object of equivalent quality17. Pt 4.4 provides that objects in this category are Class B objects for the purposes of the PMCH Act and include:…(a)any agricultural object, including:(iii) an object relating to an industry producing products for use in agriculture; and(iv) any tool, implement or equipment used or intended for use in agriculture or farming life;…(e) any object of road transport, including:…(v) any other thing related to road transport;…(g) any object of water transport, including:…(iv) any other thing related to water transport; 18. Section 10(1) of the PMCH Act provides that a person must apply to the Minister for a permit to export a Class B object. The application is to be made in writing on the prescribed form: s.10(2).19. The Minister shall refer an application for a permit for a Class B object to the Committee, who in turn refer it to one or more expert examiners: s.10(3). The 9 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 experts have to report in writing to the Committee, which then forwards these reports, together with its recommendations (if any) to the Minister: s10.(4).20. The Minister considers the reports and recommendations and may grant a permit to export the Class B object concerned, subject to any such conditions the Minister specifies, or refuse to grant a permit: 10(5)(b).21. In considering the application, the Committee, expert examiners’ and the Minister must not recommend the grant of a permit to export an item if they are satisfied that the object is of such importance to Australia, or a part of Australia that its loss to Australia would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia: s10(6)(b).22. If the Minister refuses to grant the permit, the Minister shall within a prescribed period after the decision is made, serve on the application a notice in writing setting out the reasons for the refusal: s10.(7).23. The Committee is established under s.15 of the Act. A function of the Committee is to advise the Minister whether or not to grant a permit: s16. The Committee consists of : (a) 4 persons, each of whom represents a different collecting institution; (b) a member of the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee; (c) a nominee of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs; and (d) 4 persons having experience relevant to the cultural heritage of Australia24. Five members of the Committee must be present at a meeting to constitute a quorum: s21(2).25. The expert examiners must be listed on the register of names of persons determined by the committee to be expert examiners: s22. The Facts26. On X 2002 Ms McMasters applied to the Minister for the Department of Australiana Heritage (the Department) for a permit to export a Furphy Water Cart pursuant to the PMCH Act.27. The application was made in writing on the prescribed form in accordance with s10(2). Ms McMasters’ application contained a description of the Furphy Water Cart and extracts from the J Furphy & Sons website and from Simpson’s Old Farm Machinery in Australia: a field guide and source book, 1988.28. In accordance with 10(3), the Minister referred the application to the National Cultural Heritage Committee (the Committee) who referred it to two expert examiners registered under section 22 of the PMCH Act.10 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 29. The Minister, Committee and the expert examiners considered whether the Furphy Water Cart was a Class B object as defined in the Control List in Schedule 1 of the Regulations, and if so whether an export permit should be granted.30. The experts examiners were A Header from McKay Ferguson Farms, Tippary and Ms Ironstone, Irontones, Malvern Road, Melbourne. 31. The criteria applied by Ms Ironstone to make her recommendation was the age of the water cart.32. A Header applied the critieria in parts 4 and 9 of the Regulations (as outlined above) to determine whether the Furphy Cart was a Class B Object. 33. A Header’s decision in relation to whether an export permit should be granted was based upon the criteria in parts 4 and 9; in particular: Whether the water cart is part of Australia’s economic, technological and agricultural development;  Whether the cart represents a considerable interest for the local area of Shepparton, Victoria;  and its age; 34. The reports of the expert examiners were provided to the Committee as required by s10(4).35. On X 2002 the Committee convened to consider the application for the export permit. Five Committee members attended the meeting, thereby constituting a quorum: s21. No information is provided as to whether the Committee members were elected in accordance with the requirements of s17.36. The Committee members in attendance were:  Professor Whylie Smart, Chair of the Committee, Reality University;  Mr Chas Chippendale, Department of Australiana;  Ms Victoria Silver, Superior Silver, suppliers of Rare Silver to their Majesties;  Ms A Collector, Museums Inc of Australia;  Dr Mick Tanami. (qualifications not available on the file)37. The Committee members considered the application and the report from A Header. It does not appear that Ms Ironside’s report was available to them Minutes of the meeting were taken. The Committee decided that additional material was required.38. On X 2002 the Committee drafted a Report in relation to the application. This report considered the importance of the Furphy Water Cart to Australia for historical reasons, as objects of social history. The criteria considered was the 11 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 requirements in Part 9 and Part 4 of the Regulations and the criteria in section 7 and 8 of the PMCH Act.39. Attached to the draft report is an e-mail from Professor Smart to Chas Chippendale dated X 2002 noting that the Committee had not received any further information regarding the water cart. The e-mail states that the report cannot be finalised until all the information requested by the Committee has been provided.40. The report was signed by W Smart, Victoria L Silver, Ms A Collector and Dr Mick Tanami on X 2002. Chas Chippendale did not sign the report. The further information does not appear to have been received prior to the report being signed. This report together with the expert reports were provided to the Minister :s10(4).41. On X 2002, Chas Chippendale from the Department provided a submission to the Minister. The submission indicated that the Committee considered the application and the experts’ assessment. This submission refers to the Report made by Ms Ironside as well as that by A Header. In addition the submission states that McMasters appears to be one of a number of Australians, dealers and agencies exporting considerable quantities of Australian artefacts, furniture, fine arts and items of domestic and agricultural origins of the last 100-150 years overseas, especially to theme parts in the United States and elsewhere. This information was not provided in the expert reports or in the Committee’s Recommendations. It appears to have come from a letter attached to the file by S Sly. It is not a relevant consideration and should not have been included in the submission. 42. On X 2002 the Minister advised Ms McMaster of Wilga Pastoral Company that the application for an export permit for the Furphy Water Cart was refused. The Minister’s decision was based upon the expert reports, the Committee’s report and the Submission from the department.Evidence 43. The above findings on questions of fact were based upon the following evidence:The Application 44. Ms McMasters application form describes the object as a Furphy Water Cart, 3.2m in length made in Shepparton, Victoria in the 1880’s by J Furphy & Son. The current Australian market value is listed as $A10,000.45. The application indicates that the Water Cart has the following distinguishing marks:  The inscription “Furphy” on a separate square plate at the top end of the water cylinder; and  That it is manufactured of sheet iron, black in colour.12 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 46. Extracts relating to Furphy Water Carts from Simpson’s Old Farm Machinery in Australia: a field guide and source book 1988 and from the J Furphy & Sons website were attached to the application.47. The extract from Simpson’s Old Machinery in Australia: a field guide and source book indicates that the iron water cart was invented by John Furphy, and the first one was made between 1878 and 1880. For the first few years the cylinders were made from 118 in black iron and were 3ft 6. The best method of dating Furphy water carts is from the descriptions on the end plates. The first end castings had the simple inscription ‘Furphy’ in a small square at the top end of the plate, and in 1890 this was changed to read ‘J.Furphy, maker, Shepparton’.48. The extract from the J Furphy & Sons website provides the same information.The Expert Reports 49. Ms Ironstone advised that the water cart was made between 1878 and 1889 because of the inscription “Furphy” on the watercart. The inscription was changed in 1890 to read J Furphy. She considered it to be an early example and advised that it should therefore, be retained in Australia.50. A Header made his recommendations based upon further research, including contact with the existing Furphy & Sons business in Shepparton. He confirmed that the cart was one of the early ones made in Shepparton by the original J Furphy. 51. A Header claimed that it is one of very few of the original carts in “any sort of intact condition”, stating although many pieces survive, they have however, been cut down into other items and have become too damaged to restore to their original condition.52. A Header stated futher that from their conversations with Furphy & Sons in Shepparton it appears that Furphy & Sons may be interested in acquiring the watercart for their own museum. They noted that they would appreciate this information being provided to the applicant, should the Committee and Minister agree with the recommendation that the application for an export permit be refused.53. A Header recommended that the permit be refused on the basis that:  the water cart is part of Australia’s economic, technological and agricultural development.  It represents considerable interest for the local area of Shepparton, Victoria; and  It is over the age of 75 years;53. A Header claimed that:13 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078  The water cart comes within parts 4 and 9 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations (as amended). Specifically, he decided that it comes: o Under Part 4 at 4.2(a); 4.3(a), (b)(i) and (ii) in addition to 4.4(a)(iii) and (iv); and stated that it is arguable that it fits within 4.4(e)(v) and (g)(iv); and o Under part 9 at 9.2(b),(c) and possibly (d) and 9.3(d). o A Header indicated that further research is needed to determine whether it comes under 9.2(d).Committee Meeting Minutes54. The minutes taken by the committee included the following:55. Ms Chippendale noted that the application and the expert examiner’s report from McKay Ferguson Farms both stated that the identification marks of the manufacturer, Furphy, indicated that the cart was made in the very early days of the foundry and that little of the work from that period had survived intact.56. Ms Collector and Dr Tanami were concerned about the lack of reports from two experts as the Committee appeared to have only one report. It appears that the Committee overlooked the report provided by Ms Ironstone.57. Dr Thompson considered that an expert report should also have been obtained from the Thompsons as they were the world renowned experts in antique, vintage farm and related machinery.58. The Committee decided that:  The decision to grant an export permit be deferred pending clarification with the Furphy Museum in Shepparton as to the rarity of the cart and need for an intact cart;  A second Expert Advisers opinion should be sought.59. A file note dated X 2002 indicates that N.O. Dole telephoned Conservator Wil Plough at the Furphy Museum, Shepparton but he was not available. A message was left for him him/her to call N.O. Dole. There is no evidence that this contact was made. 60. The file note also contained a message to A/G Dr Sly to prepare a draft letter requesting information sought by the Committee for the Director, Exports branch to sign. It does not appear that this was done.61. The Committee Report recommended that the Minister refuse to grant the export permit for the Furphy Water Cart. This recommendation was based upon the reports provided by both Ms Ironside and Mr A Header. The Committee therefore14 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 must have located the report by Ms Ironside. and a consideration of the relevant sections and regulations.62. The Committee recommended that the application be refused as the items are important to Australia under subsection7(1) of the PMCH Act. The Committee advised that the loss of the item would significantly diminish the cultural heritage of Australia: subsection 10(6)(b) of the Act.63. The Committee’s report recommended that the application for an export permit be refused by the Minister pursuant to ss10(4) and 10(5)(b).64. The Report provided that Part 9 of the schedule, including 9.1, 9.3(c) and (d) applied to the Furphy Water Cart. The Report does not indicate whether the Water Cart satisfied the criteria in Pt9.2(b) which needs to be established in order for a Part 9 object to be considered a class B object. 65. The report considered that the item may also come within other categories including Part 4 – Objects of Applied Science of Technological. Once again the report does not indicate why the Committee considered that the criteria in Pt 4 was satisfied;66. The Committee also recommended that item comes within sections 7(1)(e), (f) and (g) and 8 (the Control list) of the PMCH Act. The Committee also considered regulations 2, 3 and 4 relevant. No reasons were given for these conclusions.The Submission from the Department 67. The submission states that the Committee recommended that the application be refused as the items are important to Australia under subsection 7(1) of the Act. Further, it states that the Committee was satisfied, after detailed consideration, that the loss of the item would significantlydiminish the cultural heritage of Australia: subsection 10(6)(b). The submission does not provide any reasons that these subsections were satisfied and does not refer to the regulations at all.68. The submission from the Department to the Minister provides that McMasters appears to be one of a number of Australians, dealers and agencies exporting considerable quantities of Australian artefacts, furniture, fine arts and items of domestic and agricultural origins of the last 100-150 years overseas, especially to theme parts in the United States and elsewhere. The submission claims that McMasters intended to export the Furphy Cart to the World of Nations Theme Park, a large American corporation creating a park in Texas based on pioneers of the last century.69. This submission appears to be based upon a letter placed upon the file by S Sly, A/G Director of the Department addressed to N O Dole. In this letter S Sly 15 Philippa Spence 4011110 Emily Murphy 3175078 indicates that he knows of the McMasters as his mother lives two hours away. He suggests that the McMasters are “trying to sell out our country to the yanks”.70. This is not a relevant consideration under the Act and should not have been included in the Submission.Decision71. The Minister considered McMaster’s application with reference to the recommendations made by the expert examiner’s, the Committee and the Submission provided to him. 72. After consideration of the application and expert reports, the Minister decided to accept the recommendation of the Committee that the expert permit not be granted on the basis that the item has such heritage and cultural significance and is of such rarity that it cannot leave the country. 16

On X 2002 Ms Kendall Mcmaster of the Wilga Pastoral Company, Wilgawongawee, Applied To

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support