Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania) - I have an amendment which refers to clause 7 of the Bill as proposed to be amended ', which reads:

I move:

The clause will then read:

Senator Sir KENNETHANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.15)- I wish to speak to clause 7, of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended' but before I do so I would like to say that I missed hearing Senator Wright deliver his second reading speech. I hope that I will go down in history in relation to this matter because last week I succeeded in clearing the air as to whether the site was to be Capital Hill or Camp Hill. I have some concern about the wording of clause 8 of the 'Bill as proposed to be amended'. I accept its intention, which I think is clear. Clause 8 reads:

By inference that means that both Houses are agreed. For 20-odd years we have been in conflict with the other place about this very issue. Therefore I am in difficulty in relation to certain situations in which there may be conflict between the 2 Houses. The meaning of this clause is left gloriously vague. For instance, some emergency may arise in relation to this matter which acts as a challenge and a threat to this very clause but because of some difficulty between the 2 Houses -some other matter may intrude- there can be no resolution of both Houses. I am not trying to be obstructive on this. Having bent the knee in relation to Camp Hill I am trying to get the best of all worlds for Capital Hill and for the concept of the Bill. I did say in our own conclave that in my view clause 8 is not strong enough for what it intends or wants to do. The lawyers are very good when we do not want them to be good. I would like to see them pull the digit and improve the clause.