Senator HARRADINE (5:29 PM) —In the next four sitting days, the national parliament of Australia has the historic opportunity—and I believe the last realistic opportunity—to respond to a challenge which is the result of acts and omissions of the past. I believe that there are signs of hope that we will be able to achieve such an outcome on this occasion. We were faced with the opportunity in December and we attempted to address that in this chamber. I believe that we went as far as was possible on that occasion, but of course we know the result in the House of Representatives. On this occasion, however, the signs are that we might end up with a piece of legislation from this chamber with which all of the stakeholders can live and with which the government majority in the House of Representatives should live.

Unless we rise to this occasion, the result will be unconscionable. The alternative is mistrust, division, hatred, endless litigations and, of course, it will be costly for leaseholders and miners because, unless we come up with a solution in the next four sitting days, we will not have the measures in the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No. 2] which will confer validation on the hundreds of leases that require that validation for certainty. Unless we rise to the occasion, I believe our national pride will be at stake. I know that there are large numbers of people who are looking to some resolution of this matter in the next four days and that they are not confined to the shores of Australia. There is interest right throughout the world in what we, as a national parliament, are going to do over the next four days.

What outcome should be achieved in the next four days? I believe the desired outcome is a fair, just, reasonable, honourable and certain outcome. This is what we seek to achieve. I believe this is what the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) seek to achieve. I do not impute bad faith, as some do, to the minister and to the Prime Minister. I know that the minister has been working long and hard on this particular issue over a long period. Things have certainly not been easy for anyone who has been involved in this matter for so long.

I say that the outcome should be such that the principal stakeholders should be able to live with it—and I am referring to all of the stakeholders: the indigenous, the pastoralists, the miners, the local communities, state governments, the Commonwealth government and the people of Australia generally—because we have all got a stake in a just, reasonable and honourable outcome.

Yes, I do have an empathy with the indigenous people of Australia. This goes back a long way to my schooling, to a person who shared the Harradine name. There are many indigenous persons in Australia who do share that name, one of whom is in this Parliament House today. Whilst some of the people phoning my office were saying that I was undignified yesterday in taking off my shoes and socks and dancing on the lawns of Parliament House with the Wik and Thaayorre people, so be it. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I know the view of honourable senators around the chamber, as to my dancing capabilities, is that I would make a fine politician!

Senator Boswell —Don't give up your day job.

Senator HARRADINE —I won't give up my day job. I was honoured to receive the invitation—if I can put it that way; some of the people in the public gallery might think that I was rather pushed into it—to join a dance of welcome. It was a dance of welcome to other indigenous groups and it was one that had been developed over hundreds of years. I felt very much involved and welcomed on that particular occasion.

Let me remind the Senate that it was in fact the Wik people who accepted and stated to the High Court that if there was coexistence of native title with pastoral leaseholdings, then the interests of the pastoral lessees would prevail. Let us not forget that it was they who said that. That is an indication of the attitude that they exhibited to ensure that there would be peaceful coexistence and to recognise the rights and the interests of pastoralists.

On the other hand, I have a large number of Aboriginal people who share the Harradine family name—and I am proud to have an indigenous person as a son-in-law. I also have relatives who are pastoralists and they have not been tardy in coming forward and contacting me as to what is going on over here. I have been able to allay their fears. Unfortunately, truth has been a casualty throughout the bush and that is not the fault of the government; it is something that has occurred and, I believe, is most unfortunate. I am personally well aware of a situation where the mother was in an isolated farm household with numbers of children and the father was required to find a job in the city. This is the case in many districts throughout Australia today because of the drought. I am very conscious of the interests of pastoralists.

As for miners, obviously, we have had a great deal to do with miners in the state which I have the honour to represent in this parliament. I had much to do with them in my trade union days so I am conscious of their views. I have listened to what they have been saying and I have listened to what local communities and the various states have been saying since the Senate debate last December. Since then, of course, there has been a huge, public response to my office: letters, faxes and telephone calls, a huge volume of communications. Most of them have supported the stand which the Senate took in December last year.

Others have pointed out a number of things which have led me to further consider the matters. I have spoken to many persons and, of course, I have listened to what the Commonwealth government has said about these issues. It seemed to me that the key thing that appeared to be coming from the Commonwealth, the states, the president of the NNTT and a number of others was that the threshold test was a crucial area of concern.

I want to say in a general sense that the content and purpose of Australian laws about indigenous people are close to the core of our nation's definition of justice and equality. It is with that view of the law that I will be approaching this situation in the next four days, as I have been doing for some considerable time. Enhancing and maintaining justice and equality for all our people, both indigenous and non-indigenous, is at the heart of reconciliation. I have promoted and supported the reconciliation process and have approached all legislation on these issues bearing in mind these purposes and standards.

I do so in regard to the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 [No.2] . I want a genuine outcome that will be certain, fair and decent. As I indicated, the Prime Minister is on record as wanting that too. For this reason, not only we here but all Australians should have an open and positive outlook about the debate that is going to take place in the next few days.

I believe the principles and framework for a fair, decent and honourable outcome can be stated shortly as follows. Common law native title rights, as recognised in the historic Mabo decision, should not be further eroded, reduced or rendered valueless. They should not be so rendered valueless because the end result might mean huge litigation—because it will—but let us do things in this chamber out of a recognition of principle.

The second point is that governments, corporations and individuals must take into consideration, in a genuine and open manner, these native title rights and interests when their activities may affect or reduce them. Thirdly, the system for the recognition and determination of native title rights and interests must be workable and fair to all involved. Fourthly, the recognised weaknesses and shortcomings in Australian native title law must be reduced or eliminated. I am working for such an outcome, which I hope all Australians, including the Prime Minister, may recognise in the bill as finally determined by the Senate and, I hope, accepted by the House of Representatives.

It is not a matter of anybody caving in since December. The debate has moved on since December. The government's Native Title Amendment Bill is essential, but so is the government's foreshadowed list of amendments—over 90 in all, and not all the key issues have been addressed. There have been considerable discussions with key players, particularly over the last month or six weeks, and I want to acknowledge the hard work that has been done by the advisers and others who have been very much involved in the hard work of discussions and negotiations.

Of the government's 90 amendments, I have ticked off on probably 90 per cent to 95 per cent of them, and I believe others around the chamber are looking at them and have probably done a similar task. Further amendments, however, are still necessary for fairness and decency, and I will be moving a number of amendments—certainly not the number that I moved on the last occasion—to improve this bill.

All Australians should know that the processes since December have resulted in a substantial convergence about the essential issue in any workable and just system for native title, and that is a genuine, workable and fair threshold or registration test. The elements for this test have emerged with, I believe, widespread support. It is not a matter of me or anybody else backing down; I believe it has got widespread support. There is now a proposed system in which both indigenous and non-indigenous Australians can have full confidence that genuine, valid and provable claims will be presented which are appropriate and will attract the right to negotiate.

Everyone has recognised the problem of bogus claims and claims which do not reflect the title of real indigenous communities. Credibility is at stake here. Everyone involved in native title—from state governments to the president of the NNTT to leading indigenous spokespersons and representatives of miners and pastoralists—has cried out for this weakness in our system to be eliminated. I believe the foreshadowed government proposal on the threshold test substantially meets the substance of complaints and restores integrity to the system. There are elements which must be strengthened in respect of claimants who belong to the stolen generation or who have suffered from the locked gates experiences of previous decades. I do not believe that the proposals for these claimants are completely fair and just as yet, and I will say more about that in the committee stage of the debate. Otherwise, there are now the elements widely agreed for a clear, clean and responsible system for native title claims, which will give fairness to indigenous Australians and a genuine and certain basis of determination and settlement to other stakeholders.

With regard to the right to negotiate on pastoral leases, the Prime Minister has said that there should be equality between native title holders and non-indigenous land-holders. There is no true equality unless the essential interests of native title holders are specifically addressed. It is not sufficient that only those matters that affect the economic interests of non-indigenous land-holders are taken into account. (Extension of time granted)

Equality of treatment must be measured against people's essential needs. Pastoralists' needs relate to their grazing business and native title holders' needs relate to their native title rights and interests. There is no equality of treatment if the legislation does not reflect the essential difference between the pastoralists' interests and the native title holders' interests.

There is much to do in the next four days. We must apply our minds to achieving an outcome which is fair, reasonable, honourable and with which the principle stakeholders can work amicably. I believe this is an occasion which will not come again. If we do not get it right this time, I cannot foresee the occasion arising again where we will get it right. I acknowledge the great deal of work that has been done by all parties concerned, but I believe that we have a little more to go in the next four days before we achieve that result. I ask honourable senators who follow me to consider this and hopefully not take a predetermined stand, particularly when it comes to the committee stages of the debate. I thank the Senate.