54 The owners, as I understand it, submit that the terms of s 97 reveal some legislative recognition of a force or operation of cl 21(3) different from that to which I am persuaded, or at least an intention to achieve that result. It is true that s 97 recognises the existence of a State Agreement (the ratified Agreement) and its application to the pipeline, and gives to cl 20 of the State Agreement (the "existing Access Arrangements" s 97(2)) a specific new force and effect. With respect to cl 21(3) however, apart from making clear that the Access Law is within the scope of the phrases used in cl 21(3), the Parliament has expressly not affected its operation. I can only read this to mean that whatever was its previous operation, remains its operation. The apparent legislative intention was not to introduce any change in respect of its operation, whether an expressed or an implied change. While it could be said that Parliament would not have gone to the lengths it has in s 97(4) if it thought that cl 21(3) had no statutory or legally enforceable effect, that appears to me to beg the question. If there was an unresolved question as to the legal force of cl 21(3), which appears quite likely as the subclause seems to have been viewed quite differently by the different parties to the State Agreement, then Parliament may very well have seen it important to ensure that the status quo, whatever that might prove to be, should not be disturbed. On that basis, s 97(4) would serve to ensure that the Parliament kept faith with the parties to the State Agreement and did not disturb the operation of what had been earlier ratified.