Senator LEES —My question is to Senator Minchin, Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. I refer the minister to my question of 1 December last year, in answer to which he said:

I can confirm that as far as this government is concerned there have been absolutely no ministerial level discussions with that company, Pangea Resources.

I also refer him to his statement earlier today in this chamber where he admitted misleading the Senate and, in doing so, amended the position to the new one of `absolutely no ministerial level discussions with Pangea, except for Mr Tuckey in November last year'. I ask, Minister: how do you justify your new position? How does it sit with comments by Mr James Voss, President of Pangea Resources, in July last year that he had spoken to the government—

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Minchin is entitled to hear this question because he will be called upon to answer it.

Senator LEES —at ministerial and bureaucratic levels; that is, three months before Mr Tuckey has admitted to his discussions. So, Minister, are you still misleading the Senate?

Senator MINCHIN (Industry, Science and Resources) —I made my statement of 1 December in answer to your question on the basis of the advice given to me at that time—advice received by my office as to any minister that might be relevant to this matter who may have had contact or a meeting with Pangea. I answered that question on the basis of my knowledge at that time. When I learned yesterday that Mr Tuckey had in fact met with Pangea back in November, I drew that to the attention of the Senate as soon as possible. One of the reasons why it was this morning and not last night was that I wanted to make absolutely sure that no other minister in the government had had a meeting with Pangea. That involved my office contacting every other minister's office to ensure that those meetings had not taken place. That advice was finalised last night, and that is why I felt confident this morning in saying that there was no contact other than that between Mr Tuckey and Pangea, which occurred back on 5 November.

May I say in response to other issues raised in the discussion of this matter this morning that I received a letter from Mr Tuckey last night on this matter in which he said:

At the meeting—

with Mr Voss—

I indicated to him that:-

1. My portfolio responsibilities did not cover this issue;

2. That I was not in a position to judge the scientific and technical feasibility of such a proposal; and

3. I believed that such a proposal would be unlikely to receive community support.

I am not aware of the statement that you have just quoted of Mr Voss. That is news to me, and it contradicts the information I have that no such contact has occurred, apart from that I reported this morning.

Senator LEES —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The date on the material I have is 24 July 1998, so perhaps you could check with Mr Tuckey again that there was no other meeting. Could I also ask you to explain why, when you made your statement this morning, you circulated the draft and did not make your final comments in line with the draft? There is one particular statement that you deleted. The statement you deleted was:

We completely reject Pangea's proposal to build an international waste repository in Australia.

Is it because Pangea is already in line to build and run, as a private facility, a low-level radioactive waste facility for Australian wastes as planned by both the Keating and the Howard governments? I ask you to rule this out if it is not the case.

Senator MINCHIN (Industry, Science and Resources) —I read to you the letter from me to Mr Voss on 5 March, which I tabled, which says:

Regardless of Pangea's views as to the suitability of Australia to host an international nuclear waste repository, the government has no intention of considering Pangea's proposals for such a project.

As you well know, we are in the process of determining a site for a domestic low-level waste repository, and that will almost inevitably be a government run repository. I am not aware of any proposal that has been put to me for Pangea to run such a facility. While final decisions have not been made, my expectation is that that would be a government run repository.