Mr BOB BALDWIN —I can understand your confusion with all the noise from that side of the House, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —No, I do not want a preamble from you either.

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr BOB BALDWIN —Keep it up; I love it. My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services representing the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. What plans has the government in place to resolve the Hindmarsh Island bridge affair? Will these plans put to an end this long running and expensive saga?

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yesterday in the other place the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs tabled the Mathews report and announced that it was the government's intention to introduce legislation to finally resolve this matter. This has been going on since 12 May 1994 when the former minister for Aboriginal affairs put a temporary injunction on the building of the Hindmarsh Island bridge. He then appointed Professor Saunders to inquire into the claims. Professor Saunders reported and the minister made a permanent declaration.

The minister's decision was subsequently overturned on procedural grounds. The minister appealed to the full bench of the Federal Court and lost the appeal. At the same time, the South Australian government had a royal commission into this matter and the former minister had a second inquiry, this time with Justice Mathews. Justice Mathews's inquiry was found not to be tenable by the High Court because it was not consistent with her judicial office.

What this 2½-year saga has shown is that the Aboriginal heritage protection act has very serious deficiencies and very serious procedural impositions on the minister. It would seem to be in everybody's interests now after 2½ years that this finally be brought to a conclusion. Given the deficiencies that have been shown up in three reports, several court appeals and the final report from Justice Mathews, it would seem that the only sensible way to bring this to a conclusion is by way of legislation.

Given that, it is interesting to note the opposition's position on this matter. The shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs was hitting the airwaves yesterday saying that the legislation would be vigorously opposed. He said, `I am not going to take a recommendation to shadow cabinet to support this. It has not got a chance of passing the Senate.' Even this morning as of 8 a.m. on radio station 4BC he was saying that this legislation would breach the Racial Discrimination Act. It would also have to be retrospective and he said once again that they were not going to support it.

I would like to give the shadow minister some advice: if you want to go out on a limb, it is worth checking with your leader before you do so. At pretty much the same time he was on 4BC saying that there is no way the opposition is going to support this, the Leader of the Opposition was doing a doorstop and he was asked twice whether or not he would be supporting this. The first time he was asked he said, `As I said, we'll take a look at it.' That is very different from the position of the shadow minister.

The journalist had another go at him, quite rightly, and said, `So then you are not saying that this is going to be opposed if you have a look at it.' The Leader of the Opposition replied, `I'm not saying anything about that. I want to take a close look at it.' Quite clearly the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to stand by his shadow minister. Quite clearly the opposition does not have a clue how they are going to respond to this in spite of 2½ years to get their act together on the matter. The fact is that, if they cannot get their act together on a simple action like this, if they are divided on such a simple issue as putting to end a 2½-year saga on the Hindmarsh Bridge, it shows no leadership whatsoever.

The Leader of the Opposition is going to Bathurst on Friday to make a light on the hill speech. It is very interesting that he is doing this, given that I remember him rubbishing the former Leader of the Opposition for his headland speech.

Mr Kelvin Thomson —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 145 concerning relevance. The minister was asked: `What plans does the government have concerning Hindmarsh Island? Will these plans put to an end this long running saga?' Clearly, he has now embarked on a frolic of his own having nothing to do with the question he was asked.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —The minister will answer the question, and he will of course be relevant.

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I was right in the middle of my answer. I can remember sitting on the other side of the House and listening to the rubbishing that the former Leader of the Opposition got for his headland speeches. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition decides to follow exactly the same tact.

Mr Lee —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to the question of relevance. Are you ruling this in order and relevant?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Of course I am, yes.

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —On Friday in his light on the hill speech the Leader of the Opposition might like to tell us how they are going to respond to this.

Mr Beazley —Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order relating to relevance. The light on the hill lecture is an annual lecture. I do not intend to wander around the place looking for bogus headlands like the previous Leader of the Opposition did. I will be a proud presenter of the 12th annual light on the hill speech this weekend.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Dr WOOLDRIDGE —This just shows the weakness of the opposition and the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition on such a simple issue as this. I will make some comments finally on the legislation and on this whole process. This 2½-year Hindmarsh Island bridge saga has been one of the most controversial Aboriginal heritage issues in recent memory, and it has done nothing for the cause of protecting Aboriginal heritage.

It has been a painful and divisive process for Aboriginal people and for the broader community. This painful and divisive process cannot be brought to a conclusion with the failings that have been clearly shown in this act, which is 12 years old, which was designed as a temporary piece of legislation in the first place and which is still in existence. This whole matter can be best summed up in the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, Ralph Clarke. When commenting on another aspect of the Hindmarsh bridge saga he said this:

It is better to admit your mistakes and cut your losses now rather than perpetuate this constant division and further waste of the taxpayers' funds.

The Leader of the Opposition has a clear choice. He either has another inquiry under the act and keeps the division and the pain going or he can finally support us and put this sad matter to an end.