Filibuster

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As a filibuster ( be [ 'fɪlɪbʌstə ] ae [ ' fɪlɪbʌstəʴ ] from the Spanish "filibustero") So the law loosely looters were in the 19th century privateers, which in South Americawere active, designated. Today the term filibuster is used in rhetoric, so often in politics, more precisely in parliament. There it means the tactic of a minority of preventing or delaying a resolution by the majority through persistent speeches or the mere threat of persistent speeches. At the same time, behind the scenes, attempts are usually made to convince individual members of the majority parliamentary group against the decision. The filibuster is not a new phenomenon, but goes back to the Roman tradition of fatigue speech .

In the German-speaking world, the generalized term of filibuster has seeped in, which describes every grueling voting tactic. This generalization ("filibustering") also exists in the English-speaking world. Almost all democratic systems have historically known a form of filibuster, even if speaking time in parliament is limited, for example through motions on the agenda, questions to clarify individual points and the use of extended pauses.

Word origin

The term was taken over from the Spanish filibustero , whereby this term is derived from the French flibustier , which in turn is derived from a distorted pronunciation of the Dutch vrijbuiter ( privateer ) - originally referring to the pirates who traveled the Caribbean between Cuba between around 1680 and 1800 and made Nicaragua unsafe. In later American history, the term filibuster was used to describe private individuals and mercenaries who led military interventions against Latin American states.

background

Time is a scarce commodity in decision-making bodies. A long discussion not only blocks the current project, but also all subsequent items on an agenda can no longer be put to a vote. Through filibustering, a significant minority in a parliament can determine the fate of the legislative process as a whole. The possible delays are ultimately limited, but so are the terms of office of the decision-makers.

Filibustering is not a US invention. Already in ancient Rome there were marathon speeches, Julius Caesar complained in his book De bello civili that his arch enemy Cato spoke all day in the Senate. In the House of Representatives of the Austrian Reichsrat the tactic was called “ obstruction ” and was used so frequently at the beginning of the 20th century that the reputation of the entire parliament suffered.

Filibuster in the US Senate

Vermont Senator Warren Austin (R) in a filibuster (1939)

This tactic of marathon speech is made possible by the Senate's rules of procedure , which are very permissive compared to the House of Representatives : The senators have the right to speak for as long as they want, without having to do anything with the topic in question, without being interrupted . One exception is the reconciliation procedure , which was introduced to prevent filibusters in certain legislative procedures.

Regulations and customs

After there were no rules at all that limited the speaking time of senators until 1917, a debate of three-fifths of the senators (usually 60) can now be broken off. However, such a vote on the end of the debate must be requested two meeting days in advance and, if successful, allows a further 30 hours of debate (i.e. significantly more than the debate on most of the resolutions lasts), so that a filibuster still gains a lot of time leaves.

From 1917 to 1949, the rule was that the debate could be closed by two-thirds of the voting senators. Then it was tightened until 1959, so that only two thirds of all senators could decide this. Then they returned to the previous regulation. In 1975 the current regulation was introduced.

A change in the Senate's rules of procedure, including the stipulation on the closing date for debates, could theoretically be decided by a simple majority of 51 votes. However, the amendment to the Rules of Procedure would itself be subject to unrestricted debate, and in this case the votes of two-thirds of the senators present (i.e. 67 if all are present) would be required to close the debate. Such a change in the rules of procedure is currently not being seriously discussed. Apart from the fact that both parties have benefited from the filibuster at different times, the unlimited right of debate that enables it is also understood as the essence of the Senate, which in the system of checks and balances is supposed to be a more deliberate and moderating chamber than the House of Representatives. It is therefore accepted that work in the Senate is slower and that filibustering is seen as a typical aspect of its constitutional task.

Since the Senate can effectively not deal with any other questions during a filibuster and a filibuster tires both parties, questions about which at least 41 senators threaten with a filibuster are usually not even put on the agenda in practice. Such so-called procedural filibusters are part of everyday business; however, it is very rare for the majority to force a filibuster long speech to be broken off.

The Senate is a continuous body, i. This means that it has no legislative periods at the end of which it dissolves and a new Senate is elected. Instead, a third of the senators are elected every two years, but never the entire Senate. Since there is never a new Senate, it does not decide the rules of procedure anew after each election, as in the House of Representatives or in the German Bundestag. Instead, it remains in force permanently. Nonetheless, the Senate is empowered to regulate its rules of procedure, which is contained in the constitution, which is interpreted by several majority leaders to the effect that it is unconstitutional to bind future generations of the Senate by compelling a two-thirds majority to change the rules of procedure. This gives rise to the possibility that is referred to as the nuclear option or, in some cases, by supporters as the constitutional option : A (non-debatable) procedural motion can establish that the incumbent Senate President - in such an important debate this would be the Vice President of the United States - despite the conflicting rules of procedure from It is constitutionally obliged to give the [simple] majority the opportunity to vote. Then a filibuster could be terminated with a simple majority.

This practice was only used in 2013, and then again in 2017, for voting on candidates for federal courts (see below). Up until then, the threat had played a political role several times, including in 1917 when the possibility of enforcing an end to the debate with a three-fifths majority was introduced. In 2005 Republicans threatened to terminate a Democratic filibuster against the approval of five judges proposed by President Bush in this way. That did not happen in the end, as a compromise was negotiated. After that, seven Democrats voted for three of the five judges to close the debate, and in return seven Republicans pledged to vote against the two other judges against ending filibusters through this “nuclear option”, ie a change in the rules of procedure. The Republicans no longer put the foreseeable hopeless debate regarding the other two judges on the agenda.

On November 21, 2013, the “nuclear option” was finally exercised: The Republican minority in the Senate prevented the confirmation of the appointment of 59 people for posts in the federal administration and 17 people for judges in federal courts through filibuster. Republican representatives had declared that they would literally refuse incumbent President Obama "any further appointment to federal appeals courts." Therefore, the need for 60 votes to end the debate on the appointment of people to posts in federal administration and in federal courts has been removed by 52 votes to 48. Three Democratic senators voted against the change. Exceptions are appointments for the Supreme Court , for which the old regulations continue to apply.

The nuclear option was again exercised on April 6, 2017 when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed as judge of the Supreme Court . After the Republicans had only 52 members in the Senate and three other votes from related Senators, they could not exercise the affirmation against the stated will of the Democrats, who considered the total disregard of the original nominee Merrick Garland to be illegal. The motion to amend the Rules of Procedure was passed by 52 votes and the filibuster for appointing judges to the Supreme Court was abolished.

Longest speeches

Strom Thurmond, record holder for the longest speech (24 hours and 18 minutes)

Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina gave the longest single address, totaling 24 hours and 18 minutes, on August 28 and 29, 1957 to prevent the Civil Rights Act of 1957 , which was intended to make it easier for African Americans to exercise their right to vote. After explaining the matter, he cited the United States ' Declaration of Independence , the Bill of Rights and the electoral laws of all states. During this speech, he also gave a lecture on his grandmother's cake recipes. Thurmond had announced and prepared his filibuster. He had previously been in a sauna so as not to have to go to the toilet during the speech. If this did happen, a member of the staff stood ready in the next room with a bucket so that the Senator could have relieved himself while he was still present with one leg in the Senate. The senate colleagues had also prepared for the long speech and brought blankets with them. At the end of his speech, his speech became indistinct and monotonous. The New York Times wrote that the cited passages of law might just as well have been "from the phone book". In total, the deliberations on the law lasted 57 days, during which the Senate was unable to pass other resolutions. Thurmond's efforts were ultimately in vain as the law passed shortly after his speech, but his supporters cheered him. Thurmond acquired a. a. through this speech, but also through his extremely long Senate membership of almost 50 years, the reputation of a legend.

Wayne Morse held the record in front of Thurmond with a 22-hour speech on April 24 and 25, 1953. The 15-hour filibuster was also made famous on June 12 and 13, 1935 by Huey Pierce Long , in which he was among other things Announced recipes for fried oysters . Robert Byrd gave a 14-hour speech against the Civil Rights Act on June 9-10, 1964 . Alfonse D'Amato gave the first long filibuster since the introduction of live broadcasts from the Senate on October 5, 1992 with over 15 hours of speech and singing to prevent a typewriter factory from moving from his home state New York.

Filibuster-safe majority

A majority of three fifths of the senators (currently 60), a so-called super majority (“super majority”), can cancel a filibuster. Such a clear majority is seldom given in practice; and even with a formal majority, the group discipline is often not so strong that the required number of votes is achieved.

An exception to the three-fifths majority was introduced in November 2013. Since then, debates about nominations by the President for federal officials and judges, but not nominations to the Supreme Court , can be broken off with a simple majority. In all other areas, however, the old rule remains.

When the rule was introduced in 1975, there was a filibuster-safe majority. The 94th Congress, which met on January 3, 1975, had a Democratic majority of 60 seats (later it was temporarily even 61 seats). In the following 95th Congress, which held office from 1977 to 1979, there was also a majority of 61 seats, which was reduced to 60 seats on November 8, 1978 after the election of David Durenberger . The majority was lost on December 30, 1978 with the appointment of Thad Cochran .

Only in 2009 was there another brief majority, again for the Democrats, although it also included the independent Senators Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders .

From July 7, 2009 to August 25, 2009 it was achieved after Al Franken had been sworn in, who had won the November 4, 2008 election by just 312 votes over his opponent Norm Coleman , but only after several recounts and won a long lawsuit on June 30, 2009 by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Previously, Arlen Specter had changed party after 44 years as a Republican. This majority was lost on August 25, 2009 due to the death of Ted Kennedy .

From September 24, 2009 to February 4, 2010 the majority existed again after Paul G. Kirk had been appointed successor to Kennedy. However, he did not run for the by-election, and the Democratic candidate Martha Coakley was defeated by her Republican competitor Scott Brown . With his swearing in on February 4, 2010, this second short period of a filibuster-safe majority ended.

On April 6, 2017, against the background of the appointment of a new federal judge, a filibuster threatened by the Democratic parliamentary group in an effort to prevent the candidate favored by President Trump. When a proposal from the Republican side to limit the debate time to 30 hours and then vote on the appointment of the office did not achieve the required absolute majority, the Republican parliamentary group tabled a proposal to amend the Rules of Procedure. In the new version, a simple majority is sufficient to deprive the filibuster of the right to speak. A simple majority was found in favor of this new version. The entry into force was followed by the first application, in which the Senate limited the debate to 30 hours before voting. This option was called the "nuclear" option in the media because on the one hand it is radical and on the other hand only gives the Republicans an advantage if they do not come into opposition - that is, they can use the filibuster again as a minority privilege. From the point of view of possible self-interest, this is seen as very short-sighted.

Filibuster in other legislative bodies in the United States

The U.S. Senate isn't the only legislative body in the United States that knows a filibuster. The House of Representatives also knew this instrument earlier, but abolished it in 1842. Due to the higher number of members, the approval of the filibuster would be a problem in practice.

At the state level, there are also occasional filibusters. However, 36 of the respective state senates expressly forbid a filibuster; and while it is possible in 13 states, it only occurs regularly in Alabama , Nebraska , South Carolina, and Texas . In the latter state, it is subject to strict rules: the speaker must speak continuously on the topic and stand during the entire speech without leaning against or supporting himself. After three violations, the contribution will be terminated. Nevertheless, it has already been possible several times to decisively delay legislative projects in this way by exceeding certain deadlines for the successful implementation of a law by the filibuster.

Filibuster in the film

In the history of film entered the marathon speech that is James Stewart as a senator (successfully) in the feature film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from 1939 holds.

Insufficient funds for autism research lead Republican Senator Stackhouse to become a filibuster in The West Wing (season 2 episode 17). The US series Parks and Recreation (Season 6, Episode 6, 2013) and House of Cards (2013+) take up the filibuster theme in a humorous way.

Other states

Germany

The filibuster is not used in Germany. In the German Bundestag , speaking time for a member is usually limited to 15 minutes. The parliamentary groups also divide the speaking contingents according to a certain key, the so-called “ Berlin hour ”. In the 16th legislative period , the CDU / CSU and the SPD were given 19 minutes each, the FDP 8 minutes and Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen and the Left were given 7 minutes each. A filibuster is therefore not possible due to these regulations. The only way to delay a vote is to have the Bundestag review the quorum . Since large numbers of MPs are not present in the plenary hall at many Bundestag sessions, such a review would often show that the number of people present is insufficient to pass resolutions. Pending decisions would have to be postponed. In such a case, the governing coalitions would then have to convene all MPs in order to achieve a quorum and to bring about a decision with their own majority. This is rarely used.

In the Bundesrat (Germany) usually there is no time limit for speakers, but again filibuster is not common.

Historically, however, this tactic was used in Germany. The means of parliamentary obstruction was used for the first time in 1900 during the third reading of the dispute over the Lex Heinze by the Social Democrats. Since they were supported by a public protest movement , they won. Also around 1900 the Social Democrats in the Reichstag used the means of "obstruction", which also involved filibusters. The main reason for this was that the Social Democrats received 27% of the vote, but only 14% of the seats because of the broadly different constituency sizes. They therefore wanted to use all parliamentary means to prevent quick decisions by the conservative majority. The longest speech was given by the cigarette manufacturer and SPD member Otto Friedrich Antrick , who had eight hours to speak in the Reichstag on December 13, 1902 . His subject was actually the Customs Tariff Act, but basically it was about postponing a vote on increasing grain tariffs. He proceeded in such a way that he went through each article individually and then gave a half hour lecture on the importance of what was mentioned in it for the German economy. However, he failed. The law came to a vote at five in the morning and his party was defeated. Twenty years after this incident, a speaking time limit of one hour was introduced at the end of December 1922.

In July 2005 Otto Schily spoke for four hours and five minutes before the Visa Investigation Committee .

France

In France, the form of massive rules of procedure is mainly used. The opposition speculates that the President will take a replacement resolution under Article 49-3 of the Constitution, on the grounds that Parliament does not have a quorum. However, this abolition of parliamentary rights is extremely unpopular and is strictly rejected by the government camp - the president would publicly discredit himself.

Remarkable records are here with 13,000 applications to the UDF for European regionalization reform in February 2003, shortly afterwards in June 2003 still exceeded by 137,537 applications of the communist parliamentary group and the Parti socialiste for the merger of GDF-Suez - this alone exceeds the number of all normal points of order of the three times as much throughout the year.

Switzerland

In Switzerland, filibusters rarely appear in the National Council due to limited speaking times. Similar constructs, such as exhausting the right to ask questions with the aim of postponing a vote to the next legislative period, do occur.

Japan

Extended voting processes are often referred to as “the slow pace”, which often refers specifically to delays in voting. In Japan there is a particularly theatrical variant of this, in which the members of parliament can be called individually to go to the polls, in order to then rise particularly slowly and move in demonstratively small steps towards the ballot box. While the ruling party cast its votes within 15 minutes, it took the opposition almost an hour and a half. In Japanese usage, this behavior has been given the name “go into the cow walk” ( 牛 歩 , ushi aruki or gyūho ).

South Korea

To stop a new secret service law that would give the South Korean secret service NIS more powers to conduct domestic espionage, opposition MPs in the South Korean parliament started a speech marathon on February 22, 2016 to stop a vote during this parliamentary term. The MP Jung Cheong Rae spoke for almost twelve hours, one and a half hours more than his colleague Eun Soo Mi., who had spoken for 10 hours and 18 minutes three days earlier. The last filibuster before that took place in 1969.

Canada

A special form of filibustering was used in April 1997 by the social democratic Ontario New Democratic Party in the Ontario Legislative Assembly . This was directed against a law of the ruling Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario , which should create a megacity Toronto . The NDP group used a computer to generate 11,500 proposed changes by calling for a public hearing on every street in the new city, in which the citizens of that street should be involved. The Ontario Liberal Party took part in the filibuster with a slightly smaller number of applications relating to the history of the named street.

The filibuster started the Abbeywood Trail on April 2 and kept Parliament busy day and night, with members taking turns in shifts. On April 4, the exhaustion of MPs even accidentally got through an NDP motion, and the dozen or so residents of Cafon Court in Etobicoke were given the right to publicly question the bill, but this was suspended by a subsequent government amendment. On April 6th, when the alphabetical list arrived in the streets starting with E, the President of Parliament Chris Stockwell decided that the 230 identical words of each motion should no longer be read aloud, but only the name of the street should be mentioned. Still, every motion had to be voted on, and it took until April 8th to finally reach Zorra Street. Subsequently, the Liberals' motions were rejected one at a time, using a similar, abbreviated process. The filibuster finally ended after 9 days on April 11th.

Italy

Similar to the filibuster in Canada, the work of the Senate was blocked in Italy in September 2015 by automatically generated amendments. Senator Roberto Calderoli submitted 82 million amendments that were previously generated using a specially developed algorithm.

Austria

While filibustering is understood in the Anglo-Saxon parliaments as a legitimate means of parliamentarism, there were such cases of obstruction in the Austrian Reichsrat (1867 to 1918) because of inexpedient rules of procedure. Not only was there unlimited speaking time, but there was no translation from or into all languages ​​of the empire, so that long and important speeches also remained untranslated. On top of that, the parliamentarians were allowed to make noise while a colleague was speaking (rattling, rattling, children's trumpets, singing songs such as national anthems, etc.). Thus the freely elected parliaments (including the state parliaments) were immobile and put parliamentarism in a bad light. Hitler's impressions of parliamentary work, for example, came from the Vienna Reichsrat. The world press reported about the circumstances and grievances when z. For example, the radical Czech Lisy spoke alone with the presidium and the stenographer, took a bite of his sausage from time to time and drank a cognac. Previously, the Bohemian Landtag was paralyzed by the German nationalists through obstruction, which in return led to the obstruction of the Reichsrat mainly by radical Czechs.

In the recent history of Austria, it was mainly the Greens who tended to filibuster. The best known was an attempt started on March 11, 1993 to prevent the abolition of the labeling requirement for tropical wood through long-term speeches on the subject of jute . In total, the meeting lasted over 38 hours. With 10 hours and 35 minutes on March 11 and 12, Madeleine Petrovic held the record for the longest speech in the National Council for 17 years. As an aftermath, rules of procedure were then adopted in 1996 that limited speaking time in plenary sessions to 20 minutes. However, this did not prevent MP Werner Kogler from significantly delaying the debate in the budget committee that preceded the decision on the 2011 budget in the plenary session with a permanent speech on December 16 and 17, 2010. The speech began at 1:18 p.m. and lasted 12 hours and 42 minutes until exactly 2:00 a.m., thus setting a new record.

United Kingdom

In the UK , a successfully talked-out piece of legislation is known as talked out .

In the British House of Commons , a speech can go into any detail, provided it stays on the topic. The record for an uninterrupted speech is Henry Brougham's six hours , given in 1828. John Golding gave a speech in 1983, including several pauses, totaling 11 hours on the subject of British Telecom reform . The longest uninterrupted speech in the last century was given by Sir Ivan Lawrence , who gave a four-hour, 32-minute speech on the fluoridation regulation.

A particular note of this procedure becomes clear in a speech given by Andrew Dismore (Labor) - it lasted three hours and 17 minutes. In his speech on the change in the protection of property in criminal law, he repeatedly accepted objections from the parliamentary bloc, each of which he dealt with very carefully, before continuing with his own speech. With this tactic, an actually limited topic is clearly drawn out.

Australia

In Australia, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed comprehensive regulations on speaking time, so that a filibuster is currently not possible.

literature

  • Laura Cohen Bell: Filibustering in the US Senate . Cambria Press, Amherst 2011. ISBN 978-1-60497-734-9 .
  • Gregory Koger: Filibustering: a political history of obstruction in the House and Senate . University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2010. ISBN 978-0-226-44965-4 .
  • Gregory J. Wawro, Eric Schickler: Filibuster: obstruction and lawmaking in the US Senate . Princeton University Press 2006. ISBN 978-0-691-12509-1 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Filibuster  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

swell

  1. True: German Dictionary , 2000, p. 474, top left column.
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/us/politics/reid-sets-in-motion-steps-to-limit-use-of-filibuster.html New York Times: In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster
  3. Spiegel online: Republicans push through vote on Trump's candidates , April 6, 2017
  4. Steffen Wurzel : SWR2 Zeitwort from August 28, 2009  ( page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / mp3.swr.de  
  5. Filibusters and Debate Curbs The New York Times April 30, 2009
  6. http://www.tagesschau.de:80/ausland/ussenat116.html ( Memento from July 4, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) Tagesschau.de: US Senate - 60 seats for Democrats (accessed July 1, 2009)
  7. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/04/Brown-sworn-in-to-fill-Kennedy-Senate-seat/UPI-82741265303270/
  8. Republicans prepare the way for Gorsuch. In: sueddeutsche.de. April 6, 2017, accessed March 11, 2018 .
  9. http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/03/rand-pauls-filibuster-in-historical-terms/
  10. Archive link ( Memento of the original from February 21, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.openleft.com
  11. SPIEGEL Online - Debate on Abortion Act: The Texas Marathon Hero , June 26, 2013
  12. Michael Stolleis: The murder case Lex Heinze and the Lex Heinze . In: Michael Stolleis (ed.): Margarethe and the monk. Legal history in stories . CH Beck, Munich 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-68209-4 , p. 237 .
  13. a b "The History of Parliamentarism: The History of the Reichstag" ( Memento of the original from December 28, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Hermann Schäfer in Focus on the Bundestag, German Bundestag , April 3, 1999 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundestag.de
  14. ^ Stenographic reports on the negotiations of the Reichstag. Xth legislative period. II. Session 1900/1903. Volume 8 (i. Volume 185 complete series), Berlin 1903, pp. 7181-7225. scan
  15. ↑ Key date December 13, 2007: "Eight-hour speech in the Reichstag" , Ralf Gödde, on WDR 2 and other ARD radio programs, December 13, 2007 (Audio: [1]  ( page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo : The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. )@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / medien.wdr.de  
  16. ZeitZeichen December 13, 2007: "Otto Friedrich Antrick speaks for eight hours in the Reichstag" , Ralf Gödde, on WDR5 and other ARD radio programs, December 13, 2007
  17. Schily annoys the chairman with a marathon lecture (spiegel.de)
  18. Among other things, Art. 44 and Art. 47 of the National Council's business regulations
  19. Antonio Fumagalli: Leuthard gets away with a black eye. In: Aargauer Zeitung . June 19, 2015, accessed August 6, 2015 .
  20. Japan: From the Cow-Walk to the Brawl . In: Time . July 5, 1963 ( time.com ).
  21. Archives of the parliamentary debates ( Memento of the original of May 11, 2006 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. in the provincial archives. The filibuster runs from section L176B to L176AE; the Cafon Court incident is at L176H, Stockwell Regulation at L176N, and Zorra Street at L176S. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ontla.on.ca
  22. Blockade in Italian - tagesschau.de (accessed September 25, 2015)
  23. ^ Brigitte Hamann : Hitler's Vienna. Apprenticeship as a dictator . Munich: Piper, 1996, pp. 174-186
  24. ^ Stenographic minutes of the 107th meeting of the XVIII. Legislative period (March 10-12, 1993) (PDF; 8.0 MB)
  25. Parliament Correspondence / 09 / 12.03.2007 / No. 156 , The Long Night in the House
  26. Werner Kogler blocks budget with a record long speech . In: Kronen Zeitung . December 17, 2010
  27. Archive link ( Memento of the original dated February 16, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed on May 23, 2010) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.aph.gov.au
  28. Archive link ( Memento of the original dated February 16, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (accessed on May 23, 2010) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.aph.gov.au