Mr HOLDING(12.42 p.m.) —I was fascinated by the speech of my colleague the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 1997 .

Mr Slipper —He's a nice guy.

Mr HOLDING —Yes, indeed. If you listened closely not merely to what he was saying in his speech but also to the very terminology that he used, you will see why my colleague the member for Banks (Mr Melham) has suggested that what is needed is a thoroughgoing review of all of this. I would say this to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. Throughout his speech there were two significant things that come automatically to many members of the coalition in the Northern Territory: that is, he continually referred to territorians `and' Aboriginals. I would hope that, by now, whatever view you took in terms of the state, a significant percentage of Australians who are of Aboriginal origin have lived in the Northern Territory, and their families have lived there, for far longer than the more recent settlers have.

It is a matter almost of psychology that the member for the Northern Territory instinctively falls into a use of language whereby he talks about Territorians as if they are a different group of people and excludes, and has another characterisation for, the indigenous people of the Northern Territory, who would have far greater claim to be called Territorians—because they and their families were there long before many of the people who are now there ever thought of settling.

I do not resile from my comments in the speech I made in respect of pastoral properties. What I said then was accurate. It was accurate then and it is accurate now. I am concerned, when I look at the kind of legislation that has been introduced into the parliament as a dimension of the argument which now goes on across Australia about the future of pastoral leases and the rights of our indigenous people, that there is a major debate about to be adjourned.

Let me say this: as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs between March 1983 and 1987, I spent a great deal of time in the Northern Territory, and I do not think there was any significant political leader or any significant Aboriginal group that I did not sit down and talk to. I am bound to say that, in terms of the Northern Territory government's involvement in the practice of this legislation, I welcomed that. Legislation followed the Woodward commission, which was picked up and responded to by the Whitlam government, but the actual legislation was put through by a then coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser.

The attitude that Malcolm Fraser took and now takes in respect of the rights of indigenous people is to his everlasting credit. His views on the racist attitude of the then government of South Africa on apartheid were fairly exceptional at the time he was Prime Minister, having regard to the coalition. He was a great credit to a party that now seems to have shifted its focus.

There was not a single land grant that I made as minister—and I was bound as a matter of courtesy to notify the Northern Territory government of the day—which was not the subject of immediate legal challenge, which inevitably finished in them losing. The costs to the citizens of the Northern Territory, and I include the Aboriginal people, were enormous. The course of confrontation that took place on so many issues still is built into the psychology of many of the people in the Northern Territory. It is exemplified when the member for the Northern Territory gets up in this House and, without even thinking about it, uses the terminology `Territorians' which means `us' and `Aboriginals' which means `them'. There comes a time in the history of this nation when that terminology has to cease.

These expressions and the kinds of approaches that are now being taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) are going to recreate problems which I thought many of us had solved—for instance, the legislation on the upgrading of pastoral leases that is contemplated around Australia. I do not want to go into details. I simply want to make this point. While I was a minister and land grants were taking place, there was continual misrepresentation by members of what is now the coalition, about the purpose of that. There was substantial legal challenge which was, by its nature, intended to divide the dominant white community from the indigenous people in terms of political and social structures.

It even got to the stage where a formal Liberal member of this parliament, who had mining interests on an area of land in the Northern Territory that could not possibly be developed—but it did have ore underneath it—left mining machinery on the land of a traditional owner. This caused that man great illness. It was the only occasion on which I granted a title to land without informing the Northern Territory government. I did that on the basis of legal advice because, once the land was vested, it was beyond challenge. I had to deliver the title in the Darwin hospital. There was a sense of outrage because they had not been notified. It was the only way we could get the machinery off the land.

I had hope for this parliament and, more importantly, for this nation. Like all members, I go to the citizenship ceremonies and, on many occasions, I am accompanied by members of the Liberal coalition, mainly state members. There is one thing we agree about: this is a multicultural nation. We all make speeches saying, `Welcome to the family.' This legislation is now before parliament—and the second reading was taken up today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and other speakers from the opposition. We are a multicultural nation and, if this legislation and this government's attitude continues, we will be a multicultural nation in name only. You are only a truly multicultural nation when you include the indigenous people of Australia within the fabric of our culture, which builds on their traditions and relationships with the land.

The attitude of the Northern Territory government has basically been schizophrenic. I used to get off aeroplanes to be greeted by people holding up placards saying, `Rights for whites.' When you asked them how long they had been in the Northern Territory, they would say five years, three years, six months.

There comes a time in this nation where we have to come together as a people. I must say I find it fascinating, when there are people with the attitude that there are Territorians and Aboriginals, that when in my state you see the advertisement saying, `Come to the Northern Territory,' what you see is photographs of land which is Aboriginal land and where titles have passed. You see Aboriginal drawings and Aboriginal paintings. When I go there, as I have been recently to visit Aboriginal relatives, what do I find? I find tourism booming. I find lines of people from all over the world waiting to look at rock art sites, which are whole galleries going back 20,000, 30,000 and—in some cases—60,000 years. They are part of the heritage of all Australians: they are part of my heritage; Mr Deputy Speaker, they are part of your heritage.

The thing that staggers me is that there are these problems, but you can only solve them if you start on the basis of treating Aboriginal people as equals. They can only be solved if we are able to intellectually and mentally cut across some of our own traditions. They have survived and the conditions under which they live in many of the southern states are much worse than the situation prevailing in the Northern Territory.

But if you stop and think about it, there is a perception and a relationship and a spiritual belief related to what they see as their country. I know young Aboriginal men of great skills who, if you were to meet them today, are very much Australians. But they go back to go through ceremonies which are buried in the mists of time in order to take their role as leaders of their own community.

Let me say on the basis of much experience that, despite all of the things that have occurred to them, there is still a generosity of spirit amongst Aboriginal people which will enable us—we only have to reach out—to share their perception of our land and their land, which is the land of all of us. We only have to look. It is only in the course of the last 10 years that the real history of Aboriginal people has been written.

They fought for their land, as they were entitled to.  They were massacred in many places, and we cannot undo history. That is our history and we have to face up to it. But we have to face up to it by recognising the indigenous culture and the rights of indigenous people. Land councils have made mistakes; they will have to make a lot more mistakes in order to catch up with the mistakes that have been made by successive governments in Australia, both federal and state.

It is time now to pause. We have now got different approaches. The suggestion made by my colleague the member for Banks and shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs has much merit. I think we are going to be engaged, unfortunately, in a debate following the Wik legislation, which is by its very nature divisive and which will not enlarge the reputation of Australia in the eyes of the world. I am bound to say this. I had two farmers come to see me as part of a delegation from the National Farmers Federation. They were thoroughly decent, honest Australians who had a real affection and concern for their land. What surprised me and what angered me was that they had been lied to by their own leaders. Their land was not under threat or anything like it.

How can land be under threat, when the actual passages of the High Court judgment say that native title means no more than the right in some cases to go onto pastoral leases for the purposes of forage or for the purposes of visiting sacred sites for spiritual reasons? Nobody told them that. They sat there—as I say, decent, honest, hardworking Australians who had been lied to by their leaders, by the whipping up of the view that the Wik decision threatened the rights of pastoralists around Australia. That is nonsense. There is no way, in my view, that on an intelligent appraisal of the implications of the Wik judgment and the Mabo judgment, with less talk about adventurous courts, as a parliament we cannot work our way through this in a way which heals this nation and which does not divide it. I do not believe in legislation which deprives one group of a title which the High Court of Australia has recognised, which extinguishes their potential to make claims, in order to strengthen, at the cost of the taxpayers of Australia, the rights of some people holding pastoral leases, many of whom do not even live in Australia.

It is the role of the government—any government, irrespective of its basic political attitude—where there are divisions in this nation to heal them, not to exacerbate them. There will always be conflicting interests in our own community between some manufacturers and government policy, between some groups of workers and their employers. There is no future in using the legislative power of the Commonwealth to extinguish the rights of one group of people in order to strengthen and give additional rights to people who have only got, for example, pastoral leases. There is a very real difference in freehold title.

There is some talk about claims that, in the eyes of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, are unworthy claims. On the basis of fairly lengthy experience as a minister for Aboriginal affairs, I think there is one thing that you can always work on: if you keep any group of people outside the framework of your concepts of inclusiveness, and they are then given a right to claim, they will often make what can be talked about in legal terms as try-ons. The way that is prevented is by discussion across the table by ministers, who have got to say, as I had to say on many occasions, `It is not on.' In any group of people who have gone through the deprivation that our indigenous people have gone through, when they create structures, there will be try-ons. There will be try-ons with the minister. Make no mistake about that.

Therefore, I believe the time will come when Australia will be judged in the eyes of the world about the way we handle these problems. The question of apartheid in South Africa was not just an issue for the South African government. There are people in Asia who do not think very highly of Australia and say so. Do we think that some of those leaders are not going to use an attitude that has, I think, been mistakenly taken in terms of the way in which we treat the claims of our indigenous people? I think it is time for everybody to take three deep breaths and to not go down a track which will exacerbate the problems that already exist in this area. I am happy to finish on the note that I support the amendments moved by the honourable member for Banks. (Time expired)