Senator ELLISON (Special Minister of State) (9:23 PM) —If I could describe it in descending order of things, we have the legislation, then the regulations and then the manual. So most certainly the manual is subordinate to the legislation, and we would be tabling the manual in parliament. The regulations are a step up, if you like, and of course they are disallowable; and we know the provisions that relate to regulations and the disallowance of regulations. Then, in ascending order, you have the legislation which, of course, is the primary source of power. I think that puts it fairly squarely in relation to how this manual sits in the scheme of things.

I might say that the manual, which will need to be reworked, is very much a public document, as I said. There are some security provisions in relation to antiterrorist procedures which understandably are not public, and that is for very good reason: we do not want to foreshadow them to any potential terrorists. We are saying that, in that circumstance, obviously there is a security issue; but in all other respects the manual that I am referring to is a public document and one which will be tabled in the parliament.

I might deal slightly with an aspect of the manual. A manual is something that in these circumstances describes the carrying out of things. It needs to be understood that it relates to how things are to be done, and that constitutes general orders. It does not necessarily take the place of the substance. That is what you find in your legislation and then in the regulations; and finally the manual is basically how they are put into effect. There were some instances which have been cited in the previous debate, and I do not want to go into them again, Senator Brown—through the chair. We have dealt with those at length. But that demonstrates exactly what I am saying in relation to direction of implementation. The instances that Senator Brown referred to, of course, relate to the current manual, which will be replaced on the passing of this bill; that is, those provisions which are relevant to the passing of this bill.

The government, in proposing this amendment, has thought through and has addressed very carefully this provision dealing with property. I would ask those senators with concerns to reconsider that aspect of it. The government is saying here that there could well be a scenario where there is serious damage to property, damage which is beyond the control of the state or territory and which meets the provisions of a call-out—that is, the state or territory does not have the ability to control it and, under 51F, the police force concerned has asked for a particular task to be met in dealing with serious damage—and the chief of the Defence Force must act with reasonable and necessary force. Then you have a situation where the ADF acts, but only then. So there are all these hurdles which have to be negotiated.

Senator Brown —Where is that in 51A?

Senator ELLISON —No; in 51F you have it that the Defence Force is not utilised for any particular task unless a member of the police force of the state or territory specified in the order requests in writing that the Defence Force be so utilised.

Senator ELLISON —You have the situation where 51F applies generally, Senator Brown; but the point you are making in relation to 51A is that there is a way of circumventing, I understand, the provisions of the call-out, whereby the state or territory does not have to—

Senator Brown —That is where the liaison with the police disappears.

Senator ELLISON —Perhaps you should make your point now and I can address that.