Senator COOK(6.41 p.m.) —I move:

(14)   Schedule 1, item 24, page 12 (lines 10 to 12), omit ", to be construed in their own terms and not by reference to paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition".

It is very difficult to set out succinctly what this opposition amendment does. It goes back to the definition of `mining'. Our amendment is to lines 10 to 12 of page 12, section 24 of the bill, to omit the words in those lines `to be construed in their own terms and not by reference to paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition'. For the definition of `mining operations' I need to go to page 8 of the bill. Section 13 states:

(a) exploration or prospecting for minerals, or the removal of overburden and other activities under taken in the preparation of the site to enable mining for minerals to commence; or

(b) operations for the recovery of minerals, being—

Then paragraphs (i) and (ii) follows. Senators will remember that the opposition sought to amend the word `being' as it appears in that sentence to `including' so that, rather than this provision being a provision narrowing the entitlement, as it does in its current form given the earlier vote on this matter when our amendment was defeated, it would have been an amendment that maintained the present situation in the act. The amendment that I am now moving has a similar effect in that under these paragraphs you could not construe the definition of `mining operations' by reference to those narrowing provisions. As a consequence I suspect I know what the outcome of this vote will be. The effect would be similar to the amendment that we moved earlier and lost.