Senator WOODLEY —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Minchin. I refer to media reports of closed door negotiations between the government and the opposition which may see Labor backing down on key sticking points in the Native Title Amendment Bill next week. Will you confirm that these negotiations are taking place? Will you tell the Senate whether they are being held directly with the Labor leadership through Gareth Evans's office, thus sidestepping their spokesman Daryl Melham? Will you confirm these talks are the real reason behind the government's curious decision not to list the bill for debate this week, even though it was exempted from the cut-off rule 14 days ago because you claimed that it was vitally urgent?

Senator MINCHIN (Special Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) —It is true to say that the government takes a very sensible, cooperative approach to the Native Title Amendment Bill. We want this bill passed by the Senate. We are not looking for a double dissolution, unlike some of our opponents. We want the Native Title Amendment Bill passed by the parliament to restore certainty in land management to the whole of Australia—including to Western Australia, the state of the ALP leader, who is selling out his state in the interests of the Left in Sydney and Melbourne. We will not compromise on the four remaining sticking points. They are, as you know, the right to negotiate, the sunset clause and the Racial Discrimination Act.

Senator Schacht —That is three. What is the fourth one?

Senator MINCHIN —The registration test, in case you had forgotten. We are prepared to discuss with other parties ways of achieving the outcomes the government desires in a way that is acceptable to all parties. We have set a minimum standard that we will not compromise because this act must be made workable, and the current act is unworkable. We have said that there are standards that must be met but, in the spirit of cooperation, for which this government is famous, we are prepared to discuss ways to achieve those outcomes that do not water down the bill in any way. So there have indeed been discussions at officials' level with the ALP and with Senator Harradine's advisers to see if there is any way in which those parties can be persuaded to accept the standards that we have set in order to see this bill passed, because we do not want a double dissolution, unlike some of the lunatics on the other side.

Regrettably, the Democrats and the Greens have completely dealt themselves out of this debate because you are just retreating to the position adopted by the National Indigenous Working Group. You are going to crawl into this chamber and just put forward those ludicrous amendments which are no advance on the position they put down in April last year. One of the fundamental positions the National Indigenous Working Group have is that there should be an absolute Aboriginal veto on development on 79 per cent of Australia. That is a statement in the famous yellow book that you are endorsing. The Democrats and the Greens have dealt yourselves right out of this debate by your position of retreating to that document, which does not allow any basis for sensible consultation, negotiation or discussion as to how we advance this debate. We want the bill through. If you want to deal yourselves back into the debate, then get away from the Indigenous Working Group position, which is utterly untenable, unworkable and unacceptable.

Senator McKiernan —Madam President, on a point of order: during the minister's response he referred to the `lunatics on the other side'.

Government senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senators on my right will obey the standing orders.

Senator McKiernan —Madam President, I know there has been a struggle recently to maintain control in this place. I suggest that, if words like that are left on the record and become acceptable parliamentary terms, we will all in the future suffer because of it. I think the words ought to be withdrawn and ruled as being unparliamentary for now and for the future.

The PRESIDENT —I agree with that and would ask that the words be withdrawn.

Senator MINCHIN —I did not realise Senator McKiernan was so sensitive to such a term.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Minchin, I asked you to withdraw.

Senator MINCHIN —I am happy to withdraw. I was merely quoting Alan Ramsey, who referred to the `looney left'.

Senator WOODLEY —Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, the Democrats do not want a double dissolution either, but we are not prepared to sign a blank cheque so you can short-change the first Australians over native title just to avoid one. Does the indigenous community have a seat at the table at these talks, not second- or third-hand reports but directly on either your team or Gareth Evans's team of negotiators? Finally, isn't the only minor consolation in this matter the fact that Senator Bob Collins, a man of great passion on this issue, will avoid the humiliation of rubber-stamping a deal in this chamber next week by dint of his impending resignation?

Senator MINCHIN (Special Minister of State;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister) —Can I say that, regrettably, we have offered you briefings and discussions about some of the sticking points in relation to the bill but there does not seem to be much of a response. We are certainly keeping all parties informed in response to their requests to be kept informed. So legal representatives of ATSIC and the Indigenous Working Group are properly being kept informed of the discussions in relation to the sticking points between the parties. It is the Indigenous Working Group that walked away from the table last May. They were the ones who walked away from the government. The government has been open to consultation with ATSIC and the Indigenous Working Group throughout this process. They left the table. They walked away from it. We are keeping them informed, as they request and as they desire, as to the discussions that we are having about technical amendments in an attempt to resolve differences between the parties in the Senate. So our good faith has been exhibited.