Mr MELHAM (1:04 PM) —The opposition will be supporting these amendments and then we will vote against the third reading of the bill. I do make the point that I found it a bit disappointing that the first that the opposition knew of these amendments was when they were handed to me by the parliamentary secretary during the debate. I will give the minister the benefit of the doubt. We will be supporting these amendments; they are technical amendments.

I do want to make this point, however: the High Court decision on the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act, which was delivered on 1 April, vindicates the opposition's stance. Remember, the opposition, in effect, supported that bill and said it was not necessary. Our view was that it was not within the races power. The High Court did not decide, in that case, the races question. Basically, it was a 2-2-2 decision and the decision resolved around the fact that we were dealing with a ministerial discretion and parliament has the power to partially repeal legislation.

This legislation at the time, we said, was not necessary because you were dealing with a ministerial discretion that was absolute; you had the Federal Court decision in Boobera Lagoon where the Federal Court judge said that he would not issue an interim order because he did not have the power to do a final order.

I repeat: we will support these amendments. They are reasonable amendments in the light of the High Court's decision and so there will not be any dispute in relation to that. But I repeat what I said in the second reading debate, and I thank the honourable member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) for his kind words. What we say, in the opposition, and I repeat, is that this whole bill should be laid aside and there should be an attempt to reach cross-party support. It is significant that in the 11th report of the joint committee the government members talked about legislation of last resort. That is why they have been fairly silent in this debate since the 12th report was delivered—because the government's legislation does not meet even the parliamentary committee's minimum standards.

This legislation will not get dealt with in the Senate before the election, if we have an early election. That provides an opportunity for proper consultation. The minister at the table said that there has been consultation with indigenous groups. They have been spoken to and, to a person and to a group, they have said this legislation is unsatisfactory.

I think we can get there, and there should be better efforts by this government in relation to this bill. We are seeing the situation in Queensland now where the genie is out of the bottle. This is another area where we, as major parties, have to take leadership roles. We are leading up to the centenary of Federation and the 2000 Olympics and this sort of legislation is legislation that, if it is proceeded with, will see us condemned and will see those elements in our community who are not in favour of reconciliation, who are not in favour of acknowledging our past, feeding into people's fears and prejudices.

The opposition does support these amendments because they are reasonable amendments, and the opposition will continue to support reasonable amendments. But we will hold the government to account on even their election promises.

In the second reading debate I pointed to the coalition platform prior to the last election, which talked of legislation of last resort, which this is not, and which talked of legislation to do with providing natural justice. This does not. And the national interest component is just absurd as it presently stands.

Basically, we will support these amendments but we will vote against the third reading of the bill. We will be moving substantial amendments to this bill in the Senate. There are parts of this legislation that are welcome, that are quite good, independent advice to the minister. That sort of stuff should be proceeded with. Take it out of the political arena and do not allow the ministers in there unless it is in the national interest. Independent tribunals with experts advising the minister is the way to go. Take the politics out of this portfolio. The best way to do it is for us as major players to try to reach agreement and stop using indigenous people as political footballs.