Mrs STONE —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House how Labor's proposed amendments to the government's Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 will create greater uncertainty and unworkability in solving the issue of co-existence between farmers, the mining industry and the Aboriginal community?

Mr HOWARD —I have to say in response to the honourable member for Murray that the reply of the Leader of the Opposition last night was a metaphor of Labor's confusion on this issue. What the Leader of the Opposition completely failed to do was to address the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is that the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Wik case totally changed the whole basis on which Labor's Native Title Act had been written. The failure of the Leader of the Opposition to address that issue of course is consistent with the approach that the Labor Party have taken to all of the problems that they left behind when they were ejected from office in March of last year. They left us with a $10½ billion deficit and then tried to stop us fixing it. They left us with an unworkable Native Title Act and now they are trying to prevent the government from fixing that problem.

The Leader of the Opposition completely ignored the fundamental reality that the Native Title Act, as it now stands, was written on the basis that native title claims could be made only over vacant crown land. That is the nub of the problem. That is the nub of the issue that has to be addressed, and it is something that has been addressed directly by the government and it is something that has been completely ignored by the Australian Labor Party.

In the context of the Leader of the Opposition's address, I came across a very interesting article this morning. I commend a reading of that article to all honourable members. It is a very fine article by Mr Terry McCrann in the Melbourne Herald-Sun. He is a very fine journalist whose articles I often read. It has a very intriguing headline. It says, `Stop press: Beazley backs Howard's Wik plan'. It really is very interesting, Mr Speaker. It goes on to say:

Kim Beazley went on national television last night and made a strong case for much of what is in John Howard's 10-point plan on native title.

Presumably, that was not . . . his intention.

No, I do not think it was the Leader of the Opposition's intention. He said:

Beazley said native title could only be claimed over land which had not already been exclusively granted to someone else—"your ordinary freehold title and most forms of leasehold are absolutely immune from native title claims".

Fine.

McCrann goes on:

Then presumably Beazley and the Labor Party will support the government putting this in the legislation.

But do they? No. They make the case; but then when it actually comes to the vote they say, `No.' They left us with a deficit; but when it comes to fixing up the problem they actually say, `No.' He says:

Fine.

Then presumably Beazley and the Labor Party will support the government putting this in the legislation.

Assuming of course that Kim has cleared this with his intellectual and emotional masters, Gareth-Gareth and Cheryl.

It does raise the very intriguing piece of political analysis: to what extent has the Leader of the Opposition's position on native title changed after Cheryl Kernot became a member of the Australian Labor Party? To what extent was there a deal done between the Australian Labor Party and Cheryl Kernot on the issue of native title before she joined? But, as I said a moment ago, the Labor Party are being utterly consistent on this. They left us with a deficit problem and they tried to stop us fixing it up. They left us with a native title problem and they are doing their best to try to stop us fixing it up. Can I say in response to the honourable member for Murray that the only plan that will deliver not only certainty and fairness and justice but also a proper sense of balance between the competing interests in this very difficult issue is the plan that is enshrined in the government's amendment bill.

Of the many ironies that are thrown up by this debate, none is stronger than the consequences of the Labor Party's insistence that the right to negotiate in the existing Native Title Act be left unaltered by the amendment bill, because that has two consequences. The first consequence it has is to prevent effect being given to the spirit of the Wik decision, because if you leave a right to negotiate there you cannot possibly give effect to the spirit of the Wik decision. The second consequence is that you are conferring a right on native title claimants that you are not conferring on pastoralists. So apparently in relation to a mining claim it is perfectly all right for a right to negotiate to be available to native title claimants but it is not all right for it to be available to pastoralists.

There is no equity, there is no fairness and there is no justice in that outcome. It is but one example of the fact that the Labor Party not only left us with the native title mess but also are stubbornly trying to stop us fixing the problem, duplicating the conduct they adopted in relation to the $10½ billion deficit they left behind in March 1996.