Mr CAMPBELL(11.27 p.m.) —After being so grievously misrep resented by the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) I feel I really have to say something. I can assure the member for Charlton that I do not hold the behaviour of this House in any great high regard.

I want to address my comments tonight to logic, so I hope you will not rule me out of order in speaking to this bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Burmester opinion was accurate. It was also clearly believed by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) in the Senate who said exactly the same thing. I asked a question of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and he could not answer it, because I believe John Howard knows as well.

We have heard the earnest and eloquent waxing of the member for Banks (Mr Melham), and the member for Banks ought to ask himself this question: if, as he believes, the bridge can go ahead and be built without this legislation, what on earth is the logic of attaching to it the Racial Discrimination Act? There is clearly no logic in it. He believes it can go ahead without this legislation.

To the member for Charlton, I would say this: to attach the Racial Discrimination Act to this legislation clearly opens the way for litigation. It will be paid for out of the public purse and the Aboriginal Legal Service will pursue it. Attaching this clause clearly gives them the ground to do it.

The Liberal Party, or at least their leaders, know that the bridge can now be built without this legislation, but they know that if this amendment is attached to the legislation it will give grounds for more and more litigation. The Labor Party clearly believes it can be built without this legislation, but they want to put into it something which will cause litigation.

That really is illogical. I think this House ought to consider that. I think the member for Banks is being vexatious. Although I am sure he is being righteously vexatious, he is vexatious nonetheless. I believe these amendments should be rejected. We should get it back to the Senate and tell the Senate that it is about time it acted with some integrity, unlike their recent deliberations on the Euthanasia Laws Bill.