Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Current HansardDownload Current Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 10 August 2004
Page: 26044


Senator HILL (Minister for Defence) (5:59 PM) —The point is that there is benefit in maintaining consistent language. I think that is why there is common nomenclature. It does not mean that items under it are currently traded. Senator Brown knows that Australia is not going to trade in these products. Yes, I meant to say WTO. With the government having assured those who are interested in the issue that there is no intention, it might be argued that it would be better to let the matter rest there. It is obviously difficult to change the headings in a schedule that have been agreed on a global basis. This is a bilateral agreement. It might use the common language of the World Customs Organisation, but in terms of these particular items there is no intention of trading them. Neither side intends to trade them with the other. To create a panic out of that—I am not saying that Michelle is doing it but I suspect Senator Brown might be seeking to do it—is, I would respectfully suggest, mischievous.