Senator BROWN (9:34 PM) —That is the problem with having things discussed in rooms outside this place and then being translated into—

Senator Ferguson —Our party room is a bit bigger than yours.

Senator BROWN —Yes, but you are a minority. Don't forget that. Senator Bolkus is quite correct. The events here are being televised. How absurd that photographers would not be allowed in to cover all of it, let alone the concluding stages. I move:

(AH2) Amendment H21, after "forms" (second occurring), insert ", other than water below the high water mark and living aquatic resources in those waters,".

This amendment relates to the Croker Island decision where it was found that the seas and the seabed of the specified area were actually claimable by the indigenous people. As has now become routine, the resources which the indigenous people rely upon have apparently been taken one step further out of their reach. At least this amendment tries to return some fairness to this.

Senator Harradine has said a number of times tonight that the special indigenous interest should be recognised while everybody is treated with an equal hand. This legislation as it stands does not treat people with an equal hand. I just want to read the reasoning behind amendments AH2 and AH3. It states:

The effect of them is that governments would be required to treat native title holders in the same way as holders of corresponding interests, as non-indigenous people. For example, if the native title included the right to fish, the corresponding right is a licence to fish, as with commercial fisheries. If there are share managed fisheries, the native title would be equivalent to owning a share in that fishery. This would mean any regulation or interference in the native title rights would require at least the same treatment and procedural rights as those of fishermen holding shares in a particular fishery. To do otherwise—

and that is what the current position is—

would be to prefer the property interests of non-indigenous Australians over those of indigenous peoples.

This, again, is coming from eminent legal advice. It puts somewhat on the skids Senator Harradine's contention that non-indigenous people are not being given second rate treatment. I repeat: to leave matters as they are would be to prefer the property interests of non-indigenous Australians over those of indigenous people. These amendments are to correct that. To continue:

Commercial fisheries in Australia are in the process of being converted to various forms of share management. Unless indigenous people are recognised as having a stake in these fisheries on account of their native title, including a say in their ongoing management, this regulation process—

and we see it in this legislation—

becomes a form of appropriation, even if some national compensation is paid, and that no doubt would be calculated on a convenient assumption that any native title rights do not extend to commercial takings.

These amendments give indigenous people at least the same rights as commercial undertakings that are moving in on their fisheries. They are rights that are likely to be nullified if this provision is left standing. This is a very important outcome. I again say to Senator Harradine: having your right to the land or the seas recognised is one thing; being disempowered, as through this legislation, is another. Indigenous people are being disempowered here. This amendment makes sure that the scales are weighted a little more evenly so that indigenous people at least have the same rights as commercial fishing operations.