2

the Tribunal some help and guidance in relation to legal

questions which arose. The honourable senator asked me to *

indicate what advice had been given to the Tribunal.  In the first place,  I am informed from discussions I have had with the officer concerned that the advice given was oral advice ’

about the powers of the Tribunal in relation to the issues that arose in that inquiry. It is not the practice to disclose any legal advice given by my Department to any

departments. Therefore,  I do not propose to disclose the nature of the advice or to table any opinions that may be given by me Department in relation to other matters.

SENATOR EVANS - I direct a supplementary question to the  Attorney-General. Will he say whether the advice given by  his Department was in substance adopted and embodied by the  Tribunal in the decisions referred to?

SENATOR DURACK - That question is really a device to get  around the answer I have given. The Tribunal has already  indicated the view it took of its legal powers. I do not  propose to indicate what opinion it was that the Department

gave.

* * Ã¢ÂÂ¦ * *

Page 11

RANGER URANIUM PROJECT

SENATOR KILGARIFF - I direct a question to the Minister  representing the Minister for Trade and Resources.  It  follows the announcement that the Government intends to sell  its share in the Ranger uranium project.  I ask: Does the Government intend to give its present partners first option

on the shares? If so, under what terms of valuation and

conditions will this be done? If not, will the shares be  sold to Australian interests, after consultation with the

Ranger partners and, if necessary,  will sufficient time be  given to permit those companies with the highest beneficial  Australian interest to participate? If the answer to these  two questions is no, what is the present situation in regard

to the disposal of Federal Government shares in Ranger?

SENATOR DURACK - Article 43 of the Ranger Uranium Agreement  signed on 9 January 1979 sets out procedures for the  disposal of the interest of any party in the project,  and  provides that before disposing of its interest,  the  Australian Atomic Energy Commission - which is, of course,

the Government body involved - must give the other partners,  Peko and EZ, a first right of refusal.  '

The position is as has been announced by the Minister  for Trade and Resources, The Government has decided to throw  open the question of the purchase of its interest in the  Ranger uranium project for the purpose of learning what

interest there would be by potential purchasers. However,  the Minister has stressed that the Government has not yet  made a decision to proceed to divest itself of its interest  in the project. A final decision will be taken after an  examination has been made of the various proposals received.

SENATOR WRIEDT - As a supplementary question, I ask:  Will  the Minister explain why the Government has decided to throw  open the question of the disposal of this asset?

SENATOR DURACK - In announcing the Government's decision in

August 1977 to proceed with the development of the Ranger  project on the basis of the Whitlam Government's Memorandum  of Understanding with the Ranger partners, the Minister for

Trade and Resources said:

The participation of the Commonwealth in a mining

project is, of course,  contrary to the political

philosophy of the Government.

-  4 -

Since August 1977 the Government has received approaches  from companies interested in acquiring the Government's  share in the project. We have now decided to examine those

proposals. They are not affecting the basic undertakings or  the policies that the Government has framed with great care  particularly in relation to the development of uranium  mining.

SENATOR WRIEDT - It is shameful.  It is a shameful move.

SENATOR DURACK - Senator Wriedt says that it is shameful.  That may be his opinion. The Government has made clear, as I  have just quoted from the Minister - from the original  statement made in August 1977 in regard to its policy in

relation to uranium - its own view as to its disagreement  with the fundamental philosophy. It was a philosophy of  participation by government. It was the Labor Government's  philosophy. The Labor Government entered into the Memorandum

of Understanding. We decided that we had to honour it. We  made it clear that it was contrary to our own philosophy. We  are now, as I have said, indicating a consideration of the  proposals of interested parties who are prepared to make a

satisfactory proposition as far as the Government's interest  in the project is concerned. This matter has nothing  whatever to do with the implementation of the policies that  the Government has framed in relation to the development of

uranium mining.

*  *  *  *  *

