Mr GARETH EVANS (Deputy Leader of the Opposition)(9.45 a.m.) —I do not stop to deal with the compensation issue at this stage—it will arise later. I simply say that indigenous people will no doubt be delighted to hear that the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) is so sensitive to their interests and aspirations in this respect and, in particular, that their interest in having access to supermarkets is of much greater significance and relevance to them than their particular patches of soil and mulga tress with which they have had longstanding traditional associations. I am sure they will be indebted to hear that from the member for O'Connor, and that sets the tone very nicely for some later stages of this debate.

I am also indebted to get the clarification from the member for O'Connor on the other matter with which I began which was the question of a possible further toughening of an already very tough threshold test. I am pleased we now have that clarification on the record from both the member for O'Connor and the Attorney-General (Mr Williams). If this issue rears its head again at some later stage of this debate in the form of an amendment being brought forward, we will of course fiercely contest it because it is absolutely indefensible.

I make some opening observations about how we intend to handle this consideration in detail stage and subsequent stages of this legislative debate for the sake of clarification. The time before us for consideration in detail in this House is quite limited. It will not be possible, under those circumstances, for us to move detailed amendments across the whole sweep that are necessary to begin the task of improving the Native Title Amendment Bill . In any event, consultations on our side are proceeding as to the very complex matters of detail that are involved. It is appropriate that consideration in that degree of detail, with the moving of specific amendments, take place in the Senate rather than here.

In relation to one particular provision, there is the application of the Racial Discrimination Act to this legislation and the need to ensure that nothing in this legislation is incompatible with it—an undertaking that was given by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard). That issue will be pursued in the form of a specific amendment moved by my colleague the member for Banks (Mr Melham). I foreshadow that we will be seeking to divide the House on that issue at an appropriate time.

As to the rest of the consideration in detail, we propose to work through the government's so-called 10-point plan sequentially, indicat ing in outline—it is only going to be possible in outline—the nature of the concerns that the opposition has about the various elements in this legislative package. In some cases, we will have particular proposals to make clear to the House. In others, it will simply be a matter of stating a broad attitude and leaving that further consideration and discussion to the Senate. With respect to the minority report of the Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund, which was brought down a couple of days ago, we regard that as a very fertile source of analysis and argumentation on the matters now before this parliament. We will, of course, be drawing on it a great deal in describing the nature of the concerns that we and so many other Australians have about this legislation.

While we see this report as setting the framework and direction of the opposition's response—one that we hope will be shared by the minority parties and Independents in the Senate—it is appropriate at the outset of this debate for me to make it clear that the recommendations contained in the minority report do not necessarily represent the considered final view of the Australian Labor Party opposition. The nature of the process involved in the preparation of parliamentary committee reports with questions of confidentiality, privilege, and so on, is such as to make it inappropriate for these matters to be dealt with in that degree of detail and finality. We are still considering our recommendations and our position on a number of these matters.

I conclude by saying that, at the end of the consideration in detail, apart from dividing on the amendment concerning the Racial Discrimination Act, we propose to divide on the third reading and, given that the bill will obviously be unamended in the way that we would hope, we will be opposing that, as we did the second reading. That is not to be understood as representing any dog in the manger attitude by the opposition to the effect that the Native Title Act does not need amendment. Of course it does, in a number of respects, and we will be working flat out in the Senate to achieve just that. We propose in the Senate to support the second reading of the legislation in order to enable the committee process to proceed. Equally, I foreshadow that, if at the end of that committee stage in the Senate a satisfactory outcome has not been achieved, we will be voting against the legislation. (Time expired)