Senator BOB COLLINS(10.29 a.m.) —As a reference to the speakers list will show, I had not intended to speak in this debate on the Native Title Amendment (Tribunal Appointments) Bill 1997, but I am happy to do so for a few minutes. Having followed the debate, as I did closely this morning, I hope that it will not be too much of a gross departure from the conventions and practice of the Senate if I actually, for a minute or two at least, talk about the bill.

Senator Chris Evans has already noted that one of the few provisions of this bill before the parliament is to provide for a downgrading of the appointment of the presidential member from the current requirement of that person to be a judge to being a legal practitioner of five years standing. As Senator Evans also said, this is not a dying in a ditch issue for the opposition, but we feel that it would be inappropriate at this time to have a downgrading of the position in the context of what is clearly a fierce and very controversial—and, I imagine, will remain a very controversial—debate on the whole question of the operation of the tribunal.

One of the reasons that I am pleased to be able to say a few words in the debate this morning is to join Senator Evans in commending Mr Justice French for the superlative and professional way in which he has carried out his almost impossible duties of being in charge of the tribunal. Mr Justice French would have known at the time of his appointment precisely what he was taking on and that it was highly unlikely, despite his best and most professional efforts, that he would get too many thanks from anyone for the job that he was doing, or ever succeed in pleasing anyone in terms of the decision that the tribunal was likely to make. I join Senator Evans in publicly acknowledging the effort that he put into it and the professionalism with which he carried out that work.

Mr Justice French will certainly take from that position when he leaves a reasonable place in history in respect of native title and the efforts that he has made, as Senator Evans said. In promoting the work of the tribunal he has been absolutely tireless. I also want to place on record my thanks for the job that he has done.

Under the provisions of this bill it will be possible to place in that position a person who is not a judge but who has five years standing as a lawyer. I notice that one of our more illustrious and distinguished lawyers in the Senate has just joined us, Senator Vanstone. Years ago as a non-lawyer I used to dip my lid to lawyers who had the appellation after their names of `QC', standing for Queen's Counsel. I was ignorant enough many years ago to be very deferential to people who had the title of QC after their names on the basis that they were very illustrious lawyers indeed.

Over the period of time I have spent in politics I have met a number of Queen's Counsels, and the Queen, had she ever been in the unfortunate position of requiring their counsel, would have been in very deep water indeed. Nevertheless, generally speaking across the profession the title of QC or, as it has been far more appropriately termed now in some jurisdictions, SC, meaning Senior Counsel—in other words, it is a distinction provided by the profession to its peers—did hold some weight, some standing, some status in the community.

Regrettably, over the last week or two the distinction, the standing, of the title QC has been rather severely degraded in the jurisdiction of the Northern Territory, in which our Chief Minister has simply appointed himself a QC without the endorsement of the Northern Territory's Chief Justice. The Northern Territory's Chief Minister practised for only a very few years at the bar, from, I believe, 1982 to 1987. It was a short career indeed. The only thing that he did of any legal distinction during those few short years at the bar was to be found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Northern Territory Law Society, one of a very few lawyers who have ever had that particular distinction. But on the basis of that record, recently, without the endorsement of the Northern Territory's Chief Justice, he appointed himself as a Queen's Counsel, thereby degrading the standing and the status of that office to something you would pull out of a cornflakes packet.

It would be possible under the provisions of this bill for someone with the title of QC, whose only distinction in the law is to have been found guilty of unprofessional conduct by the Law Society, to be appointed to head up the native affairs tribunal. I would hope that the Attorney-General is not foolish enough to appoint someone of that standing, with a fake QC after his name, to that position.

I also want to say a few words following the contribution that Senator Woodley made to the debate. Senator Woodley quite rightly and vigorously responded to Senator Boswell's assertion that the National Farmers Federation has not in any way contributed to misunderstandings about the application of the Native Title Act in Australia and the decisions of the High Court. If only that were true. I stand here as a person who had a close, amicable and, I think, positive relationship with the National Farmers Federation over a number of years. Between the government and the National Farmers Federation we achieved a great deal of good work on behalf of primary producers in Australia. I would like to think so.

That is why I was utterly dismayed and disheartened to see that appalling television campaign, which thankfully the NFF has not repeated, of the two young children, one black and one white, playing a child's game. That was not only offensive, it was not only divisive but it was factually inaccurate, which is the part about it that I really disliked.

That ad purported to give people in Australia a story about the decision on Wik. What offended me about that advertisement—and I saw it many times in flight from Darwin to Canberra on the inflight entertainment systems and elsewhere—was that, when the two children were playing that game and the black hand and the white hand were descending on the board, on every single occasion the black hand would come down on the piece of property first, then followed by the white hand.

What offended me about that was that, whatever else you might say about the Wik decision, the cold, hard legal facts were that in Wik the court found that, where native title might be established—might be established—and where that might be in conflict with the rights of a pastoralist, the rights of that pastoralist would prevail. In other words, if you really wanted to be that offensive, the white hand should have come down first, followed by the black hand.

If people in this country want to scream such racially offensive, stereotypical garbage on television, then at least they should try to be just slightly accurate while they are doing so. I deeply regret that ad. I deeply regret even having to criticise the National Farmers Federation because of the long and, I believe, as I say, mutually productive relationship I have had with them. But I certainly do hope that the National Farmers Federation, who have been wise enough not to repeat a similar advertisement on television, do not advertise in this way again.