Mr MELHAM(9.57 a.m.) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment (TSRA) Bill 1997 gives the Torres Strait Regional Authority financial independence. In doing so, it completes a process set in train by the Keating Labor government. The current act encapsulates the Keating Labor government's approach, which accorded the TSRA separate line funding within the ATSIC budget, with provision for ministerial consultation with a TSRA chair to ensure the TSRA's financial independence. That approach involved a process leading to independence from ATSIC for the TSRA. This bill completes that process.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 to enable the parliament to appropriate funds directly to the Torres Strait Regional Authority rather than through ATSIC as is currently the case. The TSRA currently requests annual funding from the board of commissioners of ATSIC. The board then puts a proposal for ATSIC's funding, including the TSRA's, to the minister. Essentially the board finally decides on the level of funding proposed for the TSRA. While the ATSIC act requires that, on the appropriation for the TSRA, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) consult the Chairman of the TSRA and the Commissioner representing the Torres Strait Island zone, this is considered to be insufficient recognition of the authority's separate status.

The amendments will mean that the TSRA will negotiate directly with the minister about its annual funding. It will no longer need to go through ATSIC first. The amendments are intended to take effect for the 1997-98 financial year. As the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) said in his second reading speech:

Since its establishment on 1 July 1994, the Torres Strait Regional Authority has demonstrated its ability to discharge its functions and responsibilities in an exemplary manner. As the Torres Strait Regional Authority matures, increased autonomy should be accorded it to enable it to manage its own affairs and prioritise its functions. The separation of funding arrangements from ATSIC would facilitate this.

The opposition endorses those comments by the minister in his second reading speech.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we should not forget that it was a group of Torres Strait Islanders, the Meriam people led by the late Eddie Mabo, who were the first indigenous Australians to have their native title recognised by the Australian common law. The proud, independent cultures of Torres Strait Islander peoples have their source in these ancient relationships with land and seas.

In the past, Torres Strait Islanders have suffered negative consequences from being thrown under blanket legislation dealing with all indigenous people in Australia. That is the other important reason for the amendments proposed in this bill. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past and place control in the hands of the people who are affected by the decisions made.

One additional concern I have is to ensure that the rights and interests of Torres Strait Islanders living on the mainland are not overlooked. While the TSRA's responsibilities are necessarily limited to the Torres Strait, a significant number of Torres Strait Islanders live on the mainland. These people, like their brothers and sisters living in the Torres Strait, and indeed like all indigenous Australians, are entitled to their distinct culture.

The opposition will keep a watching brief on that particular situation. I note that the chair of the House of Representatives committee is to follow in the debate and that there is a parliamentary inquiry looking into this matter. There has been consultation by that committee, and the chair is obviously continuing that consultation. So it is all part of a process.

This situation is a shining example. These issues are being dealt with with cross-party support. This is something that the minister's office and our office have cooperated in and we have seen this legislation pass through the Senate very quickly, and pass through this House. It will pass through this House very quickly with cross-party support. Why? Because this is legislation that does improve the situation and does progress the situation.

The opposition is prepared to cooperate with the government to improve the plight of indigenous Australians. It has always been my view that most of these issues can be dealt with with cross-party support. It is absolutely critical that indigenous Australians not be used as a political football. Contrast the way this legislation has been dealt with with the way the government proposes to deal with its response to the High Court decision in Wik and also, in effect, revisit what we did in government with our response to the High Court's decision in Mabo with the Native Title Act 1993.

Contrast it, Mr Deputy Speaker, because the position is this: the Labor Party will not walk away from the High Court decisions in Mabo and Wik and our legislation on the Native Title Act. We will fight this government tooth and nail, line by line, clause by clause, when they produce their legislation, but we will do it in a constructive fashion. We will do it in a fashion where our response will be a principled response. Our response will be aimed at improving and facilitating the process, because the Mabo judgment, the Wik judgment and the Native Title Act mean that no-one is going to lose their backyard, that no-one is going to lose their farm or their pastoral leases. Everyone's title is guaranteed. Mining development can proceed in this country. There is no right of veto.

What we have had is a scare campaign whipped up for political purposes by the National Party, particularly the Premier of Queensland, Mr Borbidge, and the federal National Party led by Mr Fischer. They have played politics. It will come back and bite them. It will haunt them. It is all unnecessary. From day one, we have said that we are prepared to assist in a process that improves the workability of the Native Title Act. We have said, `Come and talk to us'—and we have been ignored.

The one thing that this government will find out is that it is not above the law. It is not above the constitution, but I put that as an example in direct contrast to what we are doing here on this legislation and another piece of legislation that will be dealt with tomorrow to do with the Land Rights Act and hand back.

I repeat, the current debate on Wik is being led by the lowest common denominator. Originally, it was the prejudiced leading the blind. Now it is the blind leading the prejudiced. I appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and to the government to back off, to sit down and to engage all parties, to negotiate in good faith. We on the Labor side are prepared to cooperate, but we will not substitute, under the guise of workability, an attack on indigenous peoples rights. We will not support discriminatory and racist legislation that discriminates against the Aboriginal race by taking away the limited rights that the High Court accorded them. That is not the way forward. It is not necessary.

That is why this government can posture and carry on as much as it likes. Its rhetoric is not in accord with its own policy platform, its own policy principles that were developed—and they have the fingerprints of the Prime Minister all over them—and the commitments that the Prime Minister gave this parliament to respect native title, to respect the Mabo decision, to respect the provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.

I appeal again to the government and say that what you are doing is dividing this community. The world is watching. It is interesting that the Prime Minister is under siege on these issues during his trip to the United Kingdom. It is all unnecessary. Today's example of how we are dealing with this legislation is an example of what we should be doing to Wik. Let us sit down and talk about procedures. Procedures can be improved. The Native Title Act can be improved to the benefit of all parties. But do not think the Labor Party is going to walk away from this issue. We will not. The proudest thing that I was involved in, in the Keating Labor government, was to be a participant in the Native Title Act and to see that act enacted. Another proud moment was being present in the High Court when the High Court decision on Wik was handed down. I actually read the High Court judgment before I said anything publicly, which is a lot more than can be said for a number of participants and premiers around this country.

I only say this in this debate to signal very clearly that this is the way we should be dealing with indigenous issues—not in a political manner, because these issues are above politics. This is not about Aboriginal rights or Torres Strait Islander rights; it is about human rights. If you diminish the rights of indigenous Australians, you diminish the rights of all of us.

We should be celebrating the 1967 referendum that took away the discriminatory aspects of the constitution in relation to indigenous Australians. Instead, we have the veiled threat from the Prime Minister that if he does not get his way on this legislation he might have a referendum on this issue. It is totally unnecessary, it is hairy chested and it is not on.

The Labor Party will fight it, but we do not want to fight this issue. There is no need for it. This Prime Minister and this government, with a generosity of spirit, can send a signal to the rest of the community at a time when it is desperately needed, because the debate on race is out of control. We are being led by the lowest common denominator, and the Prime Minister has shown an abysmal lack of leadership. He has allowed it to happen. That is why his prime ministership has been diminished when it should have been enhanced.

The way we are dealing with this legislation is the way we should be dealing with all legislation—on its merits. There are improvements that can be made. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past. Let us not repeat the mistakes of history. We had the report on stolen children tabled. What that showed was that in the past Commonwealth, state and territory governments sanctioned discrimination against indigenous people. This parliament passed the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. The current Prime Minister had carriage of that matter for the opposition in 1975. That sent a signal to the Australian community which was the right signal.

Australia has changed. Mainstream Australia is not the mainstream Australia of old. My definition of mainstream Australia is different from John Howard's. It includes Lebanese Australians, Chinese Australians, Asian Australians, Greek Australians and Italian Australians. So I say again, because it cannot be said often enough: do not come back and keep saying, `Thirteen years of Labor government; you did this, you did this, you did this.' It is now 15 to 16 months of a Howard Liberal government. Indeed, it is not a liberal government; it is a conservative government with a capital C. If only it were a liberal government. Malcolm Fraser's name is hardly used in those circles. Why? Because he was a liberal Prime Minister. On these issues he was spot-on. On race he was without peer in the Liberal Party. He led the charge on apartheid.

I finish up by saying to this government: do not think we will walk away on indigenous issues. We will not. We will fight you, because we all stand diminished if your proposal gets up. I commend this legislation to the House. I commend the work that the House of Representatives committee is doing under the chairmanship of the member for Indi (Mr Lieberman). He is doing an excellent job going out there looking first-hand.

I appeal to the Prime Minister to get out of Kirribilli House and the Lodge and go out and have a look at how indigenous communities are suffering under your government. You can do something about it. You have the opportunity to do something about it, with our support. We will support you if you do the right thing, as we are doing with this bill. I commend the bill to the House.