VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
planning and environment LIST	vcat reference No. P1655/2022
Permit Application no.CW1234 	

CATCHWORDS	
Section 149A(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987;  Extractive industry;  Application for declaration;  Area to which permit applies;  Principles in construction of a permit	

Applicant	Barro Group Pty Ltd	

Responsible Authority	Cardinia Shire Council	

SUBJECT LAND	610 & 550 Westernport Road
LANG LANG VIC 3984	

HEARING TYPE	Hearing	

DATE OF HEARING	14 February 2023	

DATE OF ORDER	10 March 2023	

CITATION	Barro Group Pty Ltd v Cardinia SC [2023] VCAT 252	

Order

1	In accordance with section 149A(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Tribunal declares:
Permit CW1234 authorises the use and development for extractive industry of all the land within the ‘Licence Boundary’ shown on the ‘Locality Plan’ endorsed under the permit on 23 September 1981, being all of the land in lots 1 & 2 Plan of Subdivision 704171X.

Geoffrey Code 
Senior Member		Ian Potts
Senior Member	

Appearances
For Barro Group Pty Ltd	Emily Porter SC and Robert Forrester of Counsel, instructed by Ian Harris, lawyer, Ashurst	
For Cardinia Shire Council	Patrick Doyle, lawyer, TP Legal	
  Reasons
Background
1	Barro Group Pty Ltd (Barro) owns land at 610 & 550 Westernport Road, Lang Lang (the subject land) and operates an extractive industry on part of that land.
2	A planning permit allowing extractive industry applies to the subject land.  We will shortly refer to that permit in more detail.
3	There is now a dispute between Cardinia Shire Council (the Council) and Barro as to whether further planning permission (ie a new permit or an amendment to the current permit) is required to allow expansion of the extractive industry onto other parts of the subject land from which stone has not yet been extracted.
4	Barro has applied to the Tribunal for a declaration under section 149A(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the PE Act) to determine the legal position and resolve the dispute.
The permit
5	On 23 September 1981, the predecessor of the Council issued permit CW1234 (the permit) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1981 (now repealed) (the TCP Act).
6	It is not in dispute that previous owners and occupiers of the subject land acted on the permit and the permit remains in force.  So, for more than 40 years Barro and its predecessors have won stone (primarily gravel and sand) from 610 Westernport Road.
7	The permit starts with the following words:

8	The permit was issued subject to 10 conditions that are set out in Appendix A.
9	On the day it issued the permit, the Council endorsed two plans under the permit.  Those plans have not been substituted or amended.  They remain in force.  We consider the effect of these plans later in these reasons.
Subdivision
10	The permit describes the subject land as Crown Allotments 71A & 71B (CA71A & CA71B).  In 2014 CA71A & CA71B were subdivided into two new lots.  The effect of the subdivision was to re-align the boundaries between the two allotments.  Lot 1 is now known as 610 Westernport Road and lot 2 is known as 550 Westernport Road.  Those lots continue to exist in that configuration.
11	The cadastral boundaries in 1981 and in 2014 are shown in figure 1, below.

Figure 1	Crown Allotments 71A & 71B (on the left) and lots 1 & 2 PS 704171X (on the right)
12	Planning permission for this subdivision contained conditions the effect of which the Council originally contended sought to confine quarrying operations post-subdivision to the ‘Approved Working Area’ in the endorsed plans.  This area is shown in figure 4, below.
13	At the hearing, the Council did not press this contention and it is therefore unnecessary for us to consider.
14	Barro currently operates its extractive industry on the substantial part of lot 1 in accordance with Work Authority 456 (WA456) that is effective under the Mineral Resources (Sustainable Development) Act 1990 (the MRSD Act).
Proposal
15	Barro now wants to expand its extractive industry activities into the combined area of lots 1 & 2.  An extract of its draft 2022 Locality Plan is at figure 2, below.

Figure 2	Extract of draft 2022 Locality Plan (Source: Barro tendered documents)
16	Under the MRSD Act, Barro must obtain a variation to the work plan approved under WA456 before it extracts stone from outside the current WA456 boundary.
17	Before a work plan variation is approved, the Department administering the MRSD Act must ensure any necessary permit or amendment to an existing permit under the PE Act has been issued.  In practice, the Department will rely on advice from the responsible authority administering the relevant planning scheme as to what may be necessary.
18	In correspondence dated 24 September 2021, Barro’s planning consultants asked the Council if a new permit or an amendment to the permit was required for the expansion.  Barro contended neither was required.
19	In reply correspondence dated 16 December 2021, the Council’s ‘preliminary advice’ to Barro was that a new permit or an amendment to the permit was required for quarrying activities outside the ‘Approved Working Area’ on the endorsed ‘Working Plan’ (see figure 4, below).  In correspondence dated 26 June 2022, the Council confirmed this preliminary advice.
Application
20	Barro has applied to this Tribunal for the following declaration:

21	The Council opposes the making of this declaration and maintains that a new permit or an amendment to the permit is required for any expansion beyond the Approved Working Area on the endorsed Working Plan (currently located on lot 1).
22	The requirements for a declaration application under section 149A of the PE Act are met because:
(a)	Barro is the owner of the subject land.
(b)	The matter relates to the interpretation of a permit.
(c)	There is a dispute that is real and not hypothetical because, as will become apparent, we find the permit is ambiguous.
23	Barro’s application does not involve any claim of existing use rights.  Barro might have sought a declaration that the subject land (or lot 2, in particular) has existing use rights for extractive industry.  Barro has not chosen to frame its application in this way.
Analysis
24	Whether the permit allows use and development for an extractive industry across the whole of the subject land depends on the proper construction of the permit.  We therefore start by referring to the normal principles for construction of a permit.
Principles 
25	The principles for construction or meaning of a permit are well established.
26	It suffices to state that the meaning of a permit must be ascertained objectively from the terms of the permit itself and from documents or things expressly or impliedly incorporated into the permit.  If there is ambiguity, relevant extrinsic evidence may be considered.  As well, a permit should be construed so as ‘to produce a harmonious result and to give meaning to every word of its provisions’.
27	As a permit is intended to benefit future owners and occupiers, it ‘must be construed in accordance with its enduring functions’.
28	We agree with Barro that there are two enduring functions of the permit.  First, to allow the use of the subject land for the purpose of extractive industry.  Second, to regulate the manner in which that use is carried out.
29	In this proceeding, only the second of these enduring functions is in dispute, being whether the permit properly construed restricts the use to only the area shown on the Working Plan (see figure 4, below) ie the substantial part of CA71A.
Construction of the permit
30	The permit must be construed having regard to its text and to documents endorsed or approved under the permit to form part of the permit.
31	As we have stated, it is uncontroversial that the text at the start of the permit makes it clear that:
(a)	The land to which the permit applies is the whole of the subject land ie CA71A & CA71B.
(b)	What is allowed is ‘[use] for the purpose of … Establishing an Extractive Industry, in accordance with the endorsed plans’.
Endorsed plans
32	We start with the plans endorsed under the permit.  We choose to do this because the Council’s submission was that the effect of the endorsed plans is a ‘complete answer’ to Barro’s application and means the requested declaration should not be made.  For reasons we will come to, we do not agree the endorsed plans are the complete answer.
33	The first plan is entitled ‘Locality Plan’– see figure 3, below.  

Figure 3	‘Locality Plan’ endorsed under permit CW1234
34	It will be observed that the Locality Plan shows:
(a)	Contours and some existing features such as buildings, dams, fences and vegetation.
(b)	The boundaries of CA71A & CA71B.
(c)	A red line around the outer boundaries of CA71A & CA71B as the ‘Licence Boundary’.
(d)	An ‘existing gravel pit’ on CA71A.
(e)	A broken line outside the whole of the Licence Boundary marked as ‘Limit 200 M [metres] Zone’.
35	The second plan is entitled ‘Working Plan’– see figure 4, below.  

Figure 4	‘Working Plan’ endorsed under permit CW1234
36	It will be observed that the Working Plan shows:
(a)	‘Licence and Property Boundaries’ around the outer edge of what appears to be a substantial part of CA71A.
(b)	An ‘Approved Working Area’ with a boundary around the ‘existing gravel pit’ being part of CA71A.
(c)	A ‘Proposed Extraction Area’ adjoining to the south of the Approved Working Area.
(d)	Non-extraction activities to the east of the Approved Working Area and Proposed Extraction Area, including for stone and topsoil storage and water storage.
(e)	In a diagram near the corner of the Working Plan a hatched area identified as ‘Portion of Land for Proposed Extraction’.
37	The titles of both drawings include the expression ‘Extractive Industry Licence Application no. 938’.  Having regard to the requirement in 1981 that planning permission be obtained before the grant of a licence under the then extractive industries law (to which we shortly refer in more detail), we infer that Mr Tribuzi (the permit applicant) used his licence application plans in his permit application.
38	At first instance, the Council’s submission that the effect of the endorsed plans is a ‘complete answer’ is appealing because the endorsed plans do not expressly specify that extraction activities will take place beyond the Approved Working Area (as shown in figure 4) and across the whole of the subject land.
39	However, there is ambiguity in the endorsed plans.  The Licence Boundary on the Locality Plan and Working Plan are inconsistent. The boundary on the former is the whole of CA71A and 71B and the boundary on the latter is part of CA71A.
40	Nonetheless, the endorsed plans must also be considered in the context of the permit as a whole.  We now turn to those relevant matters.
‘Establishing’ the use
41	The permit allows ‘establishing’ the use.  The word ‘establishing’ the use is unusual.  It is normal for a permit to simply ‘allow’ the use.
42	According to the principles, we must try to give each word in the permit its proper meaning.  It cannot be the case that the permit only applied up until the use was established.  That cannot be inferred from the permit as a whole.
43	We infer that the word ‘establishing’ was an understanding by the Council that the conduct of the extractive industry after it was established would be primarily regulated by other means.  We infer the Council intended those means were the documents under the Extractive Industries Act 1966 (the 1966 Act) referred to in condition 1 of the permit.  We turn to that condition and those documents shortly.
44	The permit allows establishing the use ‘in accordance with the endorsed plans’.  While this connotes an intention that the endorsed plans are inextricably tied to the use, the strength of the tie is significantly weakened by the endorsed plans being related to ‘establishing’ the use and therefore of limited utility in regulating the ongoing use.
Condition 4(a)
45	The text at the start of the permit provides that use for purpose of ‘establishing the use in accordance with the endorsed plans’ is ‘subject to the conditions’ in the permit.
46	Only in condition 4(a) is there a reference to the ‘endorsed plans’.  Condition 4(a), in effect, protects vegetation outside extraction areas that are shown on the endorsed plans.  This specifies a specific and limited scope for the endorsed plans.
47	More relevantly, there is no usual condition that the use must be conducted strictly in accordance with the endorsed plans, unless those plans are subsequently amended with the Council’s approval.
Representations about the endorsed plans
48	The Council’s representations in 2009 as to whether the endorsed plans expressly or impliedly restrict the use to only the Approved Working Area is relevant to the question of whether the permit is ambiguous or unclear.
49	Barro tendered correspondence from the Council to the Department dated 8 September 2009.  This correspondence was responding to a request by the Department as to whether the then expansion of quarrying into what might be described as the rest of CA71A and a small part of CA71B ‘was in keeping with the [permit]’.  
50	The Council’s correspondence inferred that it was.  It confirmed that the permit applied to land at CA71A & CA71B.  It attached the ‘endorsed plan’ being the Locality Plan and stated this plan ‘shows the approved area for extraction’.
51	The reference to the singular ‘endorsed plan’ is relevant and was not an error because the Council attached the Locality Plan, being the first of the two endorsed plans.
52	On its face, the correspondence shows the Council’s current position on Barro’s application is opposite to its position in 2009.
53	At the hearing, the Council submitted its correspondence was incomplete and an administrative error.  Even though the correspondence is of limited relevance as extrinsic evidence, we would not dismiss it so lightly as evidence of ambiguity.  The ambiguity arises not only as to identification of endorsed plans but also what the Council meant by ‘approved area for extraction’.
54	If it were an administrative error, the Council tendered no evidence of its being corrected or withdrawn in the subsequent 13 years.  The Department acted on the Council’s advice in that correspondence.
Conclusion
55	After construing the permit as a whole, we find that the land to which extractive industry may be carried out under the permit is ambiguous or unclear.  To help resolve the ambiguity, we must now consider relevant extrinsic evidence.
Legal context
56	Relevant extrinsic evidence includes the legal context under which a proposed extractive industry was considered and approved under both planning law and extractive industries law when the Council issued the permit.
57	Section 18A of the TCP Act relevantly provided:

58	Therefore, Mr Tribuzi was unable to lodge the permit application with the Council’s predecessor until he had applied for ‘lease licence or extraction permit’ under the 1966 Act.  In addition, the Council was required to consider the report of the Extractive Industries Advisory Committee (the Committee) before deciding the permit application.
59	The provisions of the TCP Act are consistent with those of the 1966 Act in force at the relevant time.  For example, under the 1966 Act, if an extractive industry could be permitted under the relevant planning scheme, the Committee was required to give its report to the responsible authority for the planning scheme, a licence could not be granted unless a permit had been granted and the Minister administering the 1966 Act was required to consider the report before deciding a licence application.
60	Although we would not adopt Barro’s description of the TCP Act ‘deferring’ to the 1966 Act, we find two things are clear.
61	First, the legislative scheme enabled the Committee’s expert report on extractive industries to be provided to and considered by a responsible authority before making a decision under the TCP Act.  Second, there is nothing in the permit that suggests the Council did not adopt any part of the Committee’s report.
62	It might be the case that some of the permit conditions were not included in the Committee’s report.  However, there is no evidence that these conditions did nothing other than supplement (but not conflict with) the licence.
Licence
63	It is apparent that Mr Tribuzi applied for a licence under the 1966 Act before applying for the permit.
64	On 10 August 1981, a little more than one month before the permit issued, the Committee ‘approved’ Mr Tribuzi’s ‘Working Proposal’ (the Working Proposal).  The Committee’s report was not tendered but we infer the approved Working Proposal was part of its report to be considered by the Council and the Minister administering the 1966 Act.  
65	One reason for this inference is that the Committee made it clear that its approval of the Working Proposal was ‘subject to licence conditions’ when it approved the Working Proposal.
66	The licence application, and the Working Proposal in particular, is therefore relevant extrinsic evidence.
67	The Working Proposal refers to the ‘subject land’ that is the subject of the licence application and the Working Proposal as CA71A and CA71B.  The Working Proposal also refers to and describes the volume and extraction of the stone resources across the whole of the subject land.
68	The licence application included the same two plans that the Council endorsed under the permit.  The Locality Plan in the licence application states the licence boundary was intended to be the subject land ie CA71A & CA71B.  Although this is inconsistent with the intended licence boundary on the Working Plan in the licence application (and endorsed by the Council), it cannot be asserted that the licence application and the endorsed plans were unequivocally restricted to the substantial part of CA71A.
69	Nonetheless, the Department issued Licence 938 on 7 May 1982 (the Licence) for land specified in ‘schedule A’ to the Licence.  Schedule A only included that part of CA71A that was described as the ‘approved working area’ (containing the ‘existing gravel pit’) on figure 4.  Seven conditions were included in the Licence as well as ‘special conditions’ in ‘schedule B’.
70	The seven conditions are not relevant for present purposes.  We do not have the original special conditions.  However, the Department ‘revised and replaced’ the special conditions on 1 April 1986.  While these special conditions are of limited value as extrinsic evidence, three of them are worth referring to.
71	The first is special condition 1 and it required quarry operations in accordance with the Working Proposal and not the Working Plan.  In the next section of these reasons, we consider the Working Proposal and it suffices here to state that we find that it applies to the whole of the subject land.
72	The second is special condition 1.2 which allows operations beyond the stage 2 area on the Working Plan amended in 1984 with ‘the approval of the Deputy Director of Mining in consultation with the Shire Engineer’.  This stage 2 area is wholly within CA71A.  The inference is that such approval could be granted for CA71B and remain consistent with the Licence.
73	The third is special condition 1.3 which requires a revised Working Plan ‘based on the situation prevailing in the quarry at the time the plan is prepared’.  We take that to mean that if expansion is granted under special condition 1.2, a revised Working Plan may be required.
74	For completeness, Barro tendered Departmental correspondence dated 21 August 2009.  Three aspects of that correspondence have some relevance for present purposes.
75	The first is that when the 1966 Act was repealed by the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 (the 1995 Act), the Licence continued in operation as if it were a work authority under the 1995 Act until determination of an application for renewal that had the effect of an application for a work authority.  The Licence ultimately then became WA456 in June 1986.
76	The second is that the Department conceded that the area referred to in schedule A of the Licence was in error and should have included what is in effect the whole of CA71A.
77	The third is that the Department approved a revised working plan on 21 August 2009 and, for the first time that we can discern, quarry operations were allowed to expand into CA71B, albeit a relatively small 0.4 ha reclamation area adjacent to the west boundary of CA71A.
Summary
78	The Council considered the Working Proposal (which formed part of the licence application) before granting the permit.  It is relevant extrinsic evidence of considerable weight.
79	While there is some ambiguity, the better view is that the licence application related to both CA71A & CA71B.  This view is more consistent with the content of the Working Proposal in the licence application.  We refer to the interpretation of the Working Proposal in a little more detail in the next section of these reasons.
80	The terms of the Licence when granted subsequent to the grant of the permit are relevant extrinsic evidence of lesser weight.  Although there was an error in the licensed area when the Licence was granted, there is less ambiguity that the evolution of the Licence and its replacement with WA456 has authorised quarrying activities beyond CA71A and into CA71B.
Working Proposal
81	As stated, we infer the Council considered the Committee’s report and the Working Proposal as it was required to do under the TCP Act and the 1966 Act.  The Working Proposal is therefore a relevant piece of extrinsic evidence.
82	The ‘site’ to which the Working Proposal applied is the combined area of CA71A & CA71B ie about 246 ha.  It included bore log results showing the nature of the stone reserve across the ‘site’.  The Working Proposal includes ‘development’ (ie extraction) of stone into ‘Area A’, ‘Area B’, ‘Areas C & D’ & ‘Area E’.  A number of these areas, by reference to bore log locations, are outside CA71A.
83	We refer to two other features of the Working Proposal.  The first is that the ‘entire property’ (ie both CA71A & CA71B) was required to be enclosed by a ‘stock’ fence and that a ‘restoration programme’ was required to be established for the ‘subject site’ (ie both CA71A & CA71B).
84	We accept that the Council was not required to give effect to the Working Proposal when it granted the permit and was required to separately consider the planning merits of the permit application.  However, there is nothing in the permit inferring that the Council was not intending to implement or give effect to the Working Proposal.

85	Condition 1 of the permit provides:
The use hereby permitted shall be operated at all times in accordance with the approved working plans and approved working proposal attached to Extractive Industry Licence No. 938 issued under the Extractive Industry [sic] Act 1966.
86	On an initial view, the reference to the ‘approved working proposal’ cannot be a reference to the Working Proposal because it is not attached to the licence.  When the Committee approved the Working Proposal and the Council granted the permit, a licence had not been and could not have been granted.
87	However, on further consideration, we discern from the drafting of the condition that the reference to the ‘approved working proposal’ should be taken to be the Working Proposal as it had been approved by the Committee.  This follows from the process of approval (to which we have referred) and from the fact that the drafting of condition 1 would therefore be prospective on the understanding that the approved Working Proposal would be attached to the licence (when issued) and would then be operative under the permit when so attached.
88	During oral argument, Barro drew our attention to Lantrak.  In that case, the Supreme Court considered the following condition included in a permit granted for an extractive industry in 1976:
The use hereby permitted shall be operated at all times in accordance with the approved working plan and the approved working proposal attached to Extractive Industry Licence No. 716 issued under the Extractive Industries Act 1966.
89	It is clearly in similar terms to condition 1, although we do draw attention to the singular ‘approved working plan’.
90	One of the questions in the case was whether a requirement to comply with the approved working plan attached to the licence under the 1966 Act required compliance with a rehabilitation plan which formed part of an amended working plan attached to the Work Authority subsequently issued under the 1995 Act and therefore that condition 1 should be read as having an ambulatory character.
91	The Court held the condition should not be read in an ambulatory way because there was no requirement in the 1966 Act for a rehabilitation plan to form part of an approved working plan.  To put in another way, the Court said an approved working plan under the 1966 Act ‘is not co-extensive’ with an approved work plan in respect of a work authority granted under the 1995 Act or the MRSD Act.
92	Barro accepted that the Court’s finding on this question, on an initial reading, did not assist its case in this proceeding.
93	However, we hesitate to find the Court’s answer to the question as binding in some way in this proceeding.  There are several distinguishing features:
(a)	The case was an appeal against the Tribunal’s decision in an enforcement order application in which the central issue was whether the rehabilitation plan could be enforced under the PE Act.
(b)	The Court did not have to consider possible ambiguity in the effect of the condition because the Court found the licence under the 1966 had lapsed after its 15-year duration and the licence was not a deemed work authority under the 1995 Act.
(c)	The case concerned whether there was a requirement under the permit to comply with specified documents made under the 1995 Act whereas, in this proceeding, the central question has a different and narrower focus of what was the land to which the permit applied.
(d)	Although the condition in Lantrak and this proceeding are similar, there is a relevant difference that the condition in this proceeding refers to the plural ‘approved working plans’.  We therefore are therefore cautious that the condition must also operate in an ambulatory fashion.
94	Accordingly, we do not follow the Court’s finding that the condition should not be read in an ambulatory way for the purposes of this proceeding.
95	If the condition in this proceeding should be read in an ambulatory way (as we consider it should), the Court in Lantrak relevantly said:
If … condition 1 should be read in an ambulatory fashion, the Council has failed to establish a nexus between the approved working plan attached to licence 716 and the amended work plan incorporating the RP which forms part of WA 383.
96	If a nexus must be found between the approved working plans attached to the Licence and an intent to extract stone under such plans in the future, we consider that such a nexus exists in the Working Proposal.

Working plans
97	Condition 1 of the permit also refers to ‘approved working plans’.  The plural is significant.  It connotes an expectation that there will be more than one working plan required to carry out the use over the whole of the subject land.
98	This is consistent with the normal operation of an extractive industry in that extraction starts in one part of the land to which a licence (and now, work authority) applies and then progressively extends to other parts as market conditions dictate over what is often several decades.
99	Although the licence (or work authority) sets out what land and broad conditions may apply to such extraction, the details about the extent of extraction within the land and how that extraction is managed has always been the subject of working plans (now known as ‘work plans’) and working plan conditions.
100	In other words, the reference to ‘approval working plans’ is consistent with the permit allowing extractive industry activities over the whole of the subject land in accordance with a more detailed series of working plans.
101	By not having the approved working plans when it granted the permit and having regard to the legislative scheme under the 1966 Act, there is an inference that the Council was accepting that there would be a satisfactory planning outcome as long as operations complied with whatever might be subsequently authorised under the 1966 Act and subsequent extractive industries law.
Does the permit allow development?
102	The permit expressly allows ‘use’ but does not expressly allow ‘development’.  The current distinction between use and development under the PE Act existed under the TCP Act.
103	This issue was not subject to submissions by the parties and we make brief reference to it only as a matter of completeness.
104	Having regard to the conditions as a whole (especially conditions 2, 4, 6 & 8) and subsequent conduct by all relevant parties, we find that the permit also regulates development.  That was not unusual in ‘use’ permits at the relevant time and this continues to be the case.  In the case of an extractive industry, this is both usual and necessary.
Conclusion
105	Our first task is to construe the permit (including the endorsed plans) to determine what is the land for which use and development for extractive industry is allowed.
106	We have found the permit (including the endorsed plans) is ambiguous, particularly the inconsistency in the Licence Boundary under the 1966 Act shown on the two plans that were and remain endorsed.  However, the weight of evidence supports a finding that the combined area of CA71A and CA71B represents the relevant area to which the permit applies.
107	If the Council in 1981 had decided that extractive industry activities should be subject to further planning permission if extended beyond the Approved Working Area or Proposed Extraction Area (as both are shown on the Working Plan) or beyond CA71A, it could have expressly excluded CA71B from the land to which the permit applied.  That would have removed ambiguity.  It did not do so.
108	Having regard to the ambiguity, our second task is to consider the relevant express and implied extrinsic evidence.  We have identified that evidence and made findings about the weight that should be given to that evidence.
109	After giving more weight to the contemporaneous extrinsic evidence, we have decided the balance lies in finding the relevant land is the combined area of CA71A & CA71B.
110	We will make a declaration to that effect.
111	We will not cross reference the declaration to the Work Authority and work plan approved from time to time as requested by Barro.  That reference is unnecessary and is apt to add uncertainty and complexity.  At the hearing Barro conceded this latter part of the requested declaration was unnecessary.

Geoffrey Code 
Senior Member		Ian Potts
Senior Member	

Appendix A