Senator FORSHAW (8:13 PM) —If the minister decides to terminate the agreement and revoke the declaration of the company as a research body—this is the example I am putting to you—and he does that from, say, 1 June, then that is tabled, I would understand, as a disallowable instrument. If that time then begins to run, it becomes effective after 15 sitting days. The first point I am raising is: how can he give six months notice under 6.1 of the agreement if the time period for an instrument to become effective if it is not disallowed is 15 sitting days? I can think of one way in which it could happen: if he gave the notice first and then waited six months or five months and then tabled the instrument. That is the query I have.

The second point I wish to make is as follows. If you then go to 7.1 of the agreement, under that section it says:

You said earlier that the reason for the six months being provided for under 6.1 is to allow time for a company to get its affairs in order, but under 7.1 it would seem possible for the minister to order the repayment of funds. Yet, if it is supposed to still continue to operate for six months, how does it do that without any funds? Alternatively, if it continues to operate for six months, can the minister still order the repayment of the funds within that six-month period?