Senator HILL (Minister for the Environment)(4.57 p.m.) —I understand where the Greens are coming from. I do not have any great problem with that. The difficulty—

Senator Forshaw —Do you know where you are going?

Senator HILL —Yes, I am going to object to this amendment. If you give me the opportunity, I will explain why. What I was saying was that I have some sympathy with the sentiment of what Senator Chamarette is saying, but I do not really see that what she is planning to insert in the bill adds a great deal.

If it is not inconsistent with that, my other concern is that, each time we depart from the convention in an effort to add another consideration which might be part of an environmental agenda, we increase the potential for inconsistencies and other consequences that flow from that.

What I am saying is that we have approached this bill from a different conceptual basis from that of Senator Chamarette in that we have sought to enact domestic law to implement the convention's requirements, whereas Senator Chamarette is seeking to go further and state general principles of environmental responsibility and other matters. We think that it is unwise to do so in this piece of legislation because, as I said, inconsistencies only lead to uncertainty in interpretation which can be counterproductive to the objective that we are seeking. Therefore, on balance, I think it would be better not to include the amendment sought by Senator Chamarette, notwithstanding that I obviously have sympathy with the principle of industry responsibility.

In concluding, it could be argued that the principles implicit in the bill—that each applicant for a permit to import or export must demonstrate the need for the proposed movement and must demonstrate the environmental soundness of it—are sufficient. Nothing needs to be added to the bill to make that more explicit.

Amendment negatived.