SENATOR XXXXXXX. One of the better things, Senator Xxxxx, that has happened during this session was the a g r eement w h ich w a s reached on LB 44 6 . Numer o us meetingswere held. There were three or four bills discussed as a pac kage, i ndividually and collectively. It is my opi n ion that the issue which weare speaking about today, at this moment, is an absolute and t o t al misunderstanding between tw o p a rties . I have b e fore me my notes, my h a ndwriting. I have U . C . m e a ning u n employment compensation w ith an asterisk before it, dash effective date of January I, dash floor amendment. It was my understanding that that was x x xxxx u po n a t th a t t i me . Obvi o u sly there isa misunderstanding and that is why we are here debating the issue. S F24ATOR XXXXX: O k a y .
SENATOR XXXXXXX. S e n a t o r D e Camp. SENATOR XXXXXX: Well, the old internationalist is here.
SENATOR XXXXXXX. Did cabinet make the decision? Xx Xxxxxx—I think so. I was not there at the time. Senator XXXXXXX—But you will take that on notice? Xx Xxxxxx—Yes.
SENATOR XXXXXXX. If the MAI had made sure that it had reservations such as that working conditions or environmental conditions of other treaties we had signed could not be overridden, would that assuage some of your fear? Xx Xxxxxxx—It would not, given the norms that are laid out within the treaty and enforced through its dispute mechanism. The OECD and some states in the OECD have argued that there perhaps needs to be some reference to these other treaties. But this has always been voluntary. It has never been enforceable within the draft MAI. There has been talk about references to sustainability, for instance, under the Rio Declaration but this would not be included under the— Senator XXXXXXX—But presuming we accept the evidence that the MAI under the OECD negotiations is now basically dead for political reasons for a fair time, and the debate will be whether it should go off to the WTO, are you concerned that some of the countries in the WTO are not exactly noted for having an excellent record on human rights? Xx Xxxxxxx—Yes, certainly. Senator XXXXXXX—We then run into the problem of the WTO negotiating with countries which have very bad records on human rights, whereas the full membership of the OECD basically gets a reasonably clean tick as being democratic and having rule of law processes protecting human rights. Therefore, is there an argument to say on that basis that the OECD might be a better body to deal with that than the WTO, if China joins, for example? They want to join and they do not exactly have a great record on human rights. Xx Xxxxxxx—If the MAI had been signed by the OECD states, the argument put would have been that it undermined a whole range of rights and existing legislation within those OECD states because it created a dispute mechanism that allowed corporations to sue governments and allowed them to influence legislation at the national level in a way not possible under other international regimes. That is the concern. It is a concern as much for the consequences of the MAI within the OECD states as for its consequences beyond the OECD. Senator XXXXXXX—Do you think it is a bad idea that an individual has the right to sue and take legal action against a dictatorship which has appropriated property—assets of ordinary people? You say corporations would be able to sue under the dispute arrangements. But it might not necessarily be Coca-Cola, which may be the image we all have of some antisocial features of multinationals. It might be quite a small ...
SENATOR XXXXXXX. But that is a discrimination against us in world trade. We are an OECD country; they are OECD countries; they have a CAP amongst a group of them; we cannot sell our beef into Europe because there are quotas, there are tariff protections, et cetera. We are discriminated against. Even without an investment or even wanting to invest in Europe, all we want to do is say, ‘We produce better beef in North Queensland. We want to sell it to Europe at a better price and of better quality. Let the consumer choose.’ As you understand it, before the MAI fell over in the OECD, is that an area in which we could take action under the tribunal that this discriminates against us as a signatory to the MAI? Xx Xxxxxxx—A point I should have made earlier on—and made very clear when I was responding to the point on agricultural subsidies—is that the MAI is about investment; it is not about trade. Senator XXXXXXX—Okay, but you have given evidence that it is a very wide definition of investment, of discrimination. We could say, ‘We want to invest in a distribution system of selling meat in Europe. We want to go and set up butchers shops to sell our high quality cheaper beef.’ Mrs XX-XXXX XXXXX—You cannot do that if you have growth hormone promotants in them. You do not know enough about this, with respect. Senator XXXXXXX—I do not want to actually produce the beef in Europe; I just want to invest the money in a distribution system. It is going to cost us millions more dollars to put up a marketing system. Xx Xxxxxxx—That would apply there. Senator XXXXXXX—Okay. There is the discrimination: we are stopped from doing that, because they will not let our beef in because of quotas. I am asking you whether you understand that therefore we could have accordingly taken an action against the OECD signatories from the European Community. Xx Xxxxxxx—In so far as it relates to discrimination against an Australian investor within the European Union, yes, but only if this area of legislation is not under a country reservation— Senator XXXXXXX—But that would be a positive outcome for a national interest in Australia—our beef industry would get higher prices, more production, more jobs in Australia. That could be seen as a positive outcome. Senator XXXXXX—He is saying that the investment has to be in Europe, though. Senator XXXXXXX—No, but what you are misunderstanding is that, if the investment is in the distribution system that creates more demand for beef in Australia, more people will be empl...
SENATOR XXXXXXX. Thank you, Mr. President. S enator Wesel y , you have said this was the Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxx and somebody else and somebody else's amendment. And you had r e ached an agreement, but what is...you say there i s j u s t o n e w or d y o u changed i n i t '> SENATOR XXXXXX: One word different from the Xxxxxx-Xxxxxxx amendment which was on Select File w hich was not a d o pted o r considered. SENATOR XXXXXXX: W e ll , what...for a vote to return i t , somewhat like Senator Xx Xxxx, I want t o know w hat I am voting to return it for. S ENATOR XXXXXX: W e l l , the one w ord difference i s t ha t i nstead o f " responsi b i l i t y " you s ay " r e sponsi x x x . " There was just a drafting error. SENATOR XXXXXXX: Instead of saying "responsibility" you say " responsi x x x " ?
SENATOR XXXXXXX. I only asked the question b ecause I w a n t
SENATOR XXXXXXX. Okay. So at any time in the future, do you...or is this boilerplate that's in every years appropriations bill? SENATOR XXXXX: Yes.
SENATOR XXXXXXX. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a minute on this and ask Senator Xxxxxxx, again, to listen to me for Just a minute. I know for two times we had a bill here
SENATOR XXXXXXX. Mr. President, usually we le ti".e committee chairman tell us what the amendments are before we vote. So, therefore, I ask that he do that please. P RESIDENT: S e n a t o r M u r p hy . SENATOR XXXXXX: Coming up. If I may, I ask the Clerk to read the amendment. Mv typing gets a little small, Mr. C l e r k . CLERK: To, renumber original sections one and two as sections two and three. SENATOR XXXXXX: Now, if I may, the amendment was a substitute amendment given to the committee by the introducer of the b111. I would let the introducer then speak to the bill, as the amendment actually became the bill. P PESIDENT: S e n a t o r J x x x x x x . SENATOR XXXXXXX: Mr. President, members of the Legislature, in 1974 the Federal Congress passed the Employment R tire- ment Income Security Act which authorizes indiv'dual retire- ment accounts. This is a tax shelter available only to those individuals not actually participating in some other tax affiliated pension plan, profit sharing plan, or government retirement plan. The X.X.X. allows employees to annually contribute to a trust plan, which is from fifteen hundred, or fifteen percent of the earned income. A portion of that contributed amount is tax exempt and the interest therefrom is not taxable until retirement. The purpose of the X.X.X. is to allow a retirement fund for those seventy-five million people who are not presently able to be covered by some other form of retirement plan. While the Federal law authorizes
