Senator HARRADINE(4.08 p.m.) —What I am saying is that we ought to be right up front and deal with the whole issue then. This is, in my view, not the area. You could have a situation where there is a mining lease on a pastoral lease and the operators of the mine are happily going on with their job. I wonder whether your amendments would require certain other steps to be taken before the pastoral lease is renewed, which may affect the continuance of the mining operation on that pastoral lease. My own view is that I am inclined to vote against amendment R79, and then let us face the whole issue head-on in the next bracket.   I will speak to my amendment now.

Senator Bolkus —I will respond to Senator Harradine after he speaks to his amendment, but I find the timing between quite useful.

Senator HARRADINE —My amendment 14 seeks to omit clause 241C(4)(b) and (c). I must say that the reason I am doing it is pretty obvious. Future acts that are permissible leases, et cetera should not include renewed leases or authorities which are for longer terms than the original lease or authority. Certainly no compelling case has been made for renewing leases for longer terms, let alone for making Western Australian pastoral leases perpetual.

I know that there is an argument, discussion, going on in Western Australia, but my amendment ensures that pastoralists have certainty and that, with certainty, they can renew their leases on identical terms and conditions as their previous lease without the need to negotiate. That is the point: they can get their renewal on the same conditions without the need to negotiate. I think that it is reasonable, though, that if there are going to be enhanced conditions in the terms and conditions of the renewed lease, then the persons affected, namely, the native title holders, should have some say in the matter. At least they should be consulted and there should be a right to negotiation. Any more than that would, I believe, be an overreach which could be used for long-term suppression of surviving native title. That is what concerns me. It would be a bit by bit approach which would have the same long-term effect.

It has been put to me that perhaps one should support the idea of perpetual lease because under the Wik judgment perpetual lease means perpetual coexistence. If you look at the bottom line of Wik, native title rights can coexist with pastoral leaseholders' rights. But, to be serious about the matter, I think the principles of my amendment are desirable, that is to say, if there is to be a renewal let it be on the same terms and conditions or otherwise let those other persons who are affected, like native title holders, have the right to be consulted about the additional terms and conditions.

My amendment 15, section 241C(4)(d)(2) relating to future acts that are permissible lease renewals, allows a diversification of activity. It ought to be a legal requirement and not simply a likely outcome that the majority of the area remain for primary production activities. There would be no problem in policing this particular requirement. If they are pastoral leases, they are pastoral leases. I think it is only fair that there should be a legal requirement for primary production activities to be the majority activity. I understand that is acceptable around the chamber.