Senator MARGETTS (1:53 PM) —The Greens (WA) are happy to support the Democrats' amendment No. 5. I am a little concerned that if there were to be an exemption that would waive insurance requirements, as the minister has suggested, that would appear to be something that does not necessarily need to be an emergency issue. It is not that he said it needed to be, but it seems to me that if there is going to be the potential for public money to be spent it ought to have the scrutiny of parliament, otherwise we might end up with something at a Senate estimates committee for which there is no actual announcement ahead of time—the money is spent and then basically we have no say in it because it has already happened.

Some of these insurance requirements may involve a lot more than the government thinks. We believe the risks may be wider than what the government has admitted may exist. I am not sure that the government saying it has not put in a liability for other issues will, in the final analysis, protect it from further liabilities. I think I would be concerned if we had exemptions on insurance requirements simply to make a launch more commercially viable, because that means the taxpayers of Australia will be put up to a commercial risk which in other circumstances would not be considered acceptable.

I can see that there might be issues in relation to some emergencies, but I also see that we need to have an open process in relation to exemptions. Minister, apart from the issues you have mentioned: insurance, emergencies for getting Skylab down—everyone seems to look at the so-called deserts of Australia as a suitable place; sometimes it is for radioactive waste and at other times it is for other objectionable activities—could you give a brief outline as to what kinds of activities might be subject to this kind of exemption?