Mr MELHAM(2.01 p.m.) —The opposition opposes this motion. It is a great pity that the Leader of the House (Mr Reith) does not fully consult in relation to these matters. It seems to me that he has a lot of learning to do. I know it is a new job for him. I know it is a steep learning curve, but the position is this: we oppose this motion since it would appear that the government is under the misapprehension that this bill from the Senate is no longer required or necessary because last night the government sent another bill off to the Senate. It was a disgraceful performance by the government last night.

If the Leader of the House knew the forms of the House, he could see how the bill that we have received from the Senate could still be a worthwhile bill and could be debated by this House. Last night the guillotine was used. Last night members of this House were denied the opportunity of speaking on the ATSIC Amendment Bill in the second reading debate. Last night there was no consideration in detail. The reason we are opposing this motion is that I implore the Leader of the House to consult with us and to utilise this bill.

How can he utilise it? Eighty per cent of this bill has bipartisan support in this House. It has cross-party support in the other place. What is happening here is that the government again is showing that they are not interested in indigenous people. If they tried to do this with any other bill, there would be outrage. If they tried to do this with a bill about the business community, there would be outrage. If they tried to do this with the workplace relations bill, there would be outrage. But they think that indigenous people are a soft target, so they can do whatever they want.

Last night something unprecedented happened in this House. The Leader of the House introduced a bill that the opposition had no notice of, and it was a disgrace. This interchange occurred on page 3071. I said:

I was told earlier by the Leader of the House, `Yes, hang around. We'll be considering it when it comes from the Senate.'

Mr Reith —Exactly.

Mr MELHAM —This is not what has come from the Senate. This is a fresh bill.

We could have continued debating that bill last night. Today we did not start sitting until midday. We could have started sitting at 9 o'clock. Members of this House have been denied an opportunity to properly debate a very important issue. The government has not allowed the opposition time to move and debate amendments in detail.

The Leader of the House thinks the bill from the Senate that he wants to discharge cannot be a worthwhile bill. I say to the Leader of the House that it can be. What we can do is extract those amendments that were imposed in the Senate that you do not agree with and those parts of the bill that we do not agree with and we can send the rest of the bill back to the Senate. Then what happens is that, whilst we are debating the bill that we sent over there last night, the non-contested part of the bill—the other unopposed sections of the bill—can pass through this chamber.

Whilst we debate the real area of dispute between the government, the opposition parties and the minor parties, the 80 per cent of the bill that everyone agrees with, which will help accountability, is locked up in the dispute about the election of the chairs of regional councils and the appointment of an administrator, can pass through this chamber. But it appears that the Leader of the House is too lazy to issue instructions or does not understand. This bill is not a worthless bill.

We granted exemption from the cut-off for this bill in the Senate. We were told by the government that this is an urgent bill because of the ATSIC elections in October. I can tell you that if the government passes this then the House of Representatives will not be able to facilitate those 80 per cent of amendments.

We are being obstructionist. Why? Because the Leader of the House and the government are, in effect, wanting to play politics. I say here and now to the House, to those listening in the community, that the Australian Labor Party is in favour of accountability. The amendments that we put in in the Senate increase accountability in ATSIC. Those sections of the bill that we opposed in the Senate had nothing to do with accountability. They were a smokescreen. The government now has in its possession five audit reports that basically give ATSIC the tick. This is a beat-up. This is low-grade politics.

That aside, I had discussions with the office of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs yesterday to try to work out a mechanism whereby the 80 per cent of the bill that all parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives agree with could be facilitated. Let us argue about those narrow parameters. This is a way to do it. I implore the Leader of the House that we can do it in five minutes flat within the House of Representatives and get it through the Senate by extracting sections of this bill. That still leaves him with the bill he sent to the Senate last night.

This matter has nothing to do with the cut-off. We gave exemption to this bill. You don't even have to do it now, but if you let it lie on the table we can get some drafting done so that when we come back for the budget sittings on 20 August—the House will sit for three days that week—we can pass the non-controversial amendments that will impact on the October elections. I am not trying to pull a confidence trick on the Leader of the House; I am just saying to him that part of the problem—

Mr Reith —I am not the minister for Aboriginal affairs.

Mr MELHAM —No, but I have had discussions with the minister's office. Sadly, they did not get back to me because they were involved in the no-confidence motion in the Senate, and I understand that. We do not have to have the debate now. I am saying to the Leader of the House, `Take off your jackboots and show that what your Prime Minister said to this House on 30 April is what you will abide by.' This is what the Prime Minister said in this House on 30 April in the discussion on the election of the Speaker. Page 5 of the Hansard says:

It is part of our system of government that the executive is controlled by parliament and parliament controlled by the law and the customs and conventions of our society. I think it is important that steps are made on both sides of the parliament to reassert and re-establish a degree of respect and regard for the institution.

Later it says:

. . . this is a parliament comprised of a government and an opposition. There is a role in the national parliament for proper and full expressions of view from both sides of politics. I will, to the best of my ability, extend proper courtesies to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), to all members of the opposition and to the independent members, who are greater in number on this occasion than in any of the parliaments that I have sat in since my election in 1974.

Let's take the politics out of this debate. This is too important to play politics with. This is not a useless bill that we are considering here today. Eighty per cent of this bill has the concurrence of all political parties and all members of this House. Let us utilise that concurrence.

It is not as if the Leader of the House can be frightened of the numbers that we have on this side. It is not as if we are successfully going to impose amendments on the government that they do not want. We are asking for him to use the opportunity, because if he does not the existing aspects of the ATSIC Act will remain for the October 1996 elections. Is that what they want? Is this the political game? This government that talks about reconciliation and being a government for all of us wants to play politics with indigenous people and wants to use them up-front. If that is not the case, then extend the olive branch.

We are happy to concede that maybe some of the problems last night were the result of your inexperience and your enthusiasm now that you have this role. It is a bit of a payback for the 13 years of frustration that members on your side have felt. But never in the 13 years of the Labor government did we introduce a bill without telling the other side, `Here's the bill we are going to introduce. We are going to disregard the bill from the Senate.'

The main reason we are opposing this is that the performance last night gives truth to the words, `Let's judge them on their action, not their rhetoric.' It is an opinion poll driven government that likes to tell people what they want to hear. Here is an opportunity for the first time for action, not words. The Prime Minister has said in relation to the Native Title Act that he would like to get cross-party support. In relation to methods of accountability, if you can make them out, you will have opposition support. But we will not support accountability being used as a smokescreen to gut ATSIC and to gut self-determination.

The Leader of the House has the numbers. He has them two to one. If what I am saying is not correct, you do not have to pass it. This is not just a number-crunching exercise. This issue is too important. There were members of this House who were denied an opportunity to speak. You issued the gag.

Mr Reith —Your colleagues in the Senate are demanding that we get this bill over there today.

Mr MELHAM —No, we have sent the other bill over. This is the bill from the Senate. They had their chance. This is not your section 57 trigger. That is what last night was all about. You are too smart by half. You do not know the constitution. You woke up and realised you had introduced the bill in the wrong place.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) —Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the chair.

Mr MELHAM —I repeat: this is still a worthwhile bill. The government and the opposition agree with 80 per cent of this bill. Let us take the politics out of this debate. There is not another election for a couple of years, is there? Unless you are interested in a double dissolution. This is not a double dissolution trigger. This is actually a debate that we can have in this House on the merits of it. We can send a signal that there are genuine attempts on both sides of the House for reconciliation.

I would not be getting up opposing this if there were no value in us dealing with this bill. There is value. The great tragedy is that the Leader of the House—he is obviously enthusiastic in his new role—does not understand the forms and procedures of this House. That is why we are opposing this bill being discharged. If we discharge this, 80 per cent of something that we all agree to will be kicked around between the House of Representatives and the Senate for the next 18 months. I understand that the bill that we sent to the Senate last night will not even be reaching the Senate today because they are debating another bill.

It is absurd that we should waste this opportunity, unless the Leader of the House has another agenda. What is his other agenda? You have to look at their actions, not their words. You now have to be mind-readers, because if it is not down in writing they are not committed to it. Even if it is down in writing or they say it, you have to be careful because you have to look at their actions. It is their actions, not their words.

What can you say about a government that have an overwhelming majority and an opportunity to do something in a very sensi tive area, who are saying, `We believe in the spirit of reconciliation. We are a government for all of us'? Eighty per cent of this bill has cross-party support in both houses, and the government are not prepared to allow discussion on the bill. That says something about not only ineptitude and incompetence but also motives. You need to judge them on their record. We oppose discharging the bill. It is still a worthwhile bill. With the drafting of amendments, which can have cross-party support, 80 per cent of an agreed bill can be sent back to the Senate and the bill can be improved in relation to accountability.

I implore the Leader of the House—by action, not by rhetoric—to send a signal to this side of the House that you are sorry for what happened last night. (Time expired)