Mr ALBANESE(11.31 a.m.) —I wish to speak again in this debate about the failure of the government to accept the amendment put forward by the opposition with regard to the Racial Discrimination Act. It seems to me extraordinary that this occurs just one week after we have a bipartisan resolution carried by this parliament, talking about commitment to reconciliation, talking about commitment to anti-discrimination, talking about commitment to multiculturalism and talking about the opposition of this parliament to the increased climate of racism.

This increased climate of racism has been engendered by the first speech of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), and then by the subsequent failure of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to show leadership on the racism issue. Added to that we have had the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister, firstly, on free speech which gave encouragement and the green light to those racist elements in our society to vilify and to attack the most vulnerable members of our society. Secondly, we had the Prime Minister talking about how the education system should not make us feel guilty. It was as if the invasion and occupation of Australia 200 years ago was not resisted by anybody. He said that in the education process in our schools we should not cover the real history of Australia.

In the context of that debate, for this parliament not to accept the amendment moved by the member for Banks (Mr Melham), supporting the Racial Discrimination Act and saying that the Racial Discrimination Act—effectively Australia's bill of rights—should not be overridden by this legislation, sends a reactionary message out there to all of our constituents which is in stark contrast with the message which this parliament in a bipartisan way attempted to send last week.

The government's justification for knocking back these amendments to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill—they would accept them if these amendments were benign—suggests that there is something discriminatory about the way the bill is framed. You cannot have it both ways. This whole legislation, as we have pointed out last night and again today, is unnecessary. Hindmarsh bridge can go ahead. There is no need for this legislation to be pursued at all. But then, on top of that, to oppose the amendment put forward by the member for Banks really shows a lack of judgment on behalf of the government. The member for Moore (Mr Filing) might not think there is a debate going out there about race and in particular related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, but we all know that is not the case.

Mr Filing —You should have been here in the last parliament. You would then know what it is all about.

Mr ALBANESE —The member for Moore was here in the last parliament in different colours. He is back again; he has the right to put that view. But on the issue of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders I think it is important that we reach as much common ground between the political parties as is humanly possible. A step forward would be for the government to support the amendment moved by the member for Banks; a step backward would be for the government to oppose it, because that will send all the wrong messages. (Time expired)